DescentBB

Lothar said:
"1) Saddam *did* support terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda and Palestinian suicide bombers "

Please enlighten me with the proof you found in regards to al qaeda. AFAIK, no support has ever been found. The association with communication and support is pretty weak. I believe there is evidence of 1 or 2 times of brief communication, but we had a CIA agent that met bin laden at a hospital. Big deal.

Bush DID hype up WMD as a big reason to go. In fact, Bush claimed Saddam was an imminent threat.
In case you have forgotten:

" Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring"


Different quotes, same speech:

"The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist."

"Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon."

"Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 007-8.html

These quotes, I feel, are bordering on lying because we found out later he really didn't have intelligence to back his comments up. He specifically compared Iraq to Alqaeda saying "we had only hints of their plans and designs" and then said that Iraq's threat is FAR MORE CLEARLY DEFINED than Al qaeda's. Stretching the truth is lying. The threat was not clearly defined. That is something everyone can agree on, I think.

I don't think the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is definitive, but there's been more than a couple conversations suggesting a connection between Iraq and terrorism:

SADDAM HUSSEIN "always had links with international terrorist organizations."

On the face of it, this is not a controversial statement. It comes from a CNN interview of Iyad Allawi, recently chosen as the interim prime minister of Iraq. Allawi expanded on this assessment in a December 31, 2003, interview with CNN's Bill Hemmer, when he estimated that more than 1,000 al Qaeda terrorists were operating in Iraq. But his more interesting comment came moments later. The al Qaeda fighters, he said,

were present in Iraq, they came and they were active in Iraq before the war of liberation. They were inflicting a lot of problems on the--and inflaming the situation in northern Iraq, in Iraq Kurdistan. They killed once about a year and a half ago 42 worshipers in one of the mosques in Harachi [ph] in a very ugly way.

Again, on the surface, this was not a particularly revealing statement. After all, Colin Powell told the United Nations Security Council that al Qaeda was operating in Iraq--almost certainly with the knowledge and approval of the Iraqi regime--before the war. CIA Director George Tenet has testified to the presence of al Qaeda in Iraq on several occasions. Allawi went on:


Those people have had the backing of Saddam prior to liberation, and they remained in Iraq after the collapse, and after the vacuum was created. After the way, they remained in Iraq. Many joined them since then.

[snip]

But Allawi isn't the only prominent member of the new Iraqi government to have suggested Iraq-al Qaeda connections. His deputy, Barham Salih, has also repeatedly alleged that Saddam's regime supported Ansar al Islam, al Qaeda-linked Islamists in Kurdistan. "Yes, they hate each other, but they're very utilitarian," said Salih. "Saddam Hussein, a secular infidel to many jihadists, had no problem giving money to Hamas. This debate [about whether Saddam worked with al Qaeda] is stupid. The proof is there."

ABC News' outstanding Pentagon reporter, Martha Raddatz, also reported on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection last week. But her May 25, 2004, report on Abu Musab al Zarqawi, an al Qaeda associate who joined forces with Ansar al Islam terrorists, buried an important detail. "In late 2002, officials say, Zarqawi began establishing sleeper cells in Baghdad and acquiring weapons from Iraqi Intelligence officials." Link

--------------------------------

I don't know if the document cited in this story was ever discredited.

--------------------------------

I still don't know if the information about the base Salman Pak where terrorists were allegedly trained has been discredited.

--------------------------------

Nor, do I know if the information regarding the infamous Unit 999 training terrorists has been discredited.


I'm just not sure what information the 9/11 commission has that we don't know about, and what it proves and doesn't prove. Jury's still out for me. Saddam's support for Palestinian suicide bombers is a given though.

It's funny because the lefty's have launched numerous investigations, countless congressional hearings and built more than a few political careers all based on much less evidence than we have tying Saddam to terrorism, and yes, al Qaeda, yet they refuse to publically acknowledge anything that might validate americas actions simply because they want revenge on the man who narrowly beat their candidate in the last election! Talk about spoiled children!

Here is a piece of an article by Andrew C. McCarthy that sums it up for me.

"This is clear â?? if anything in this regard can be said to be "clear" â?? from the staff's murky but carefully phrased summation sentence, which is worth parsing since it is already being gleefully misreported: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." (Italics mine.) That is, the staff is not saying al Qaeda and Iraq did cooperate â?? far from it. The staff seems to be saying: "they appear to have cooperated but we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that they worked in tandem on a specific terrorist attack, such as 9/11, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, or the embassy bombings."


Kabul...Baghdad...
The same might, of course, be said about the deposed Taliban government in Afghanistan. Before anyone gets unhinged, I am not suggesting that bin Laden's ties to Iraq were as extensive as his connections to Afghanistan. But as is the case with Iraq, no one has yet tied the Taliban to a direct attack on the United States, although no one doubts for a moment that deposing the Taliban post-9/11 was absolutely the right thing to do.

I would point out, moreover, that al Qaeda is a full-time terrorist organization â?? it does not have the same pretensions as, say, Sinn Fein or Hamas, to be a part-time political party. Al Qaeda's time is fully devoted to conducting terrorist attacks and planning terrorist attacks. Thus, if a country cooperates with al Qaeda, it is cooperating in (or facilitating, abetting, promoting â?? you choose the euphemism) terrorism. What difference should it make that no one can find an actual bomb that was once in Saddam's closet and ended up at the Cole's hull? If al Qaeda and Iraq were cooperating, they had to be cooperating on terrorism, and as al Qaeda made no secret that it existed for the narrow purpose of inflicting terrorism on the United States, exactly what should we suppose Saddam was hoping to achieve by cooperating with bin Laden?"

It is interesting that the words "imminent threat" can be found in only one instance in this thread, and it wasn't in Bush's quoted statements.

As to the WMDs, Bush believed the same information that everyone else did. It is one thing to disagree with his response to that information, it is another altogether to say he deliberately lied. As George Costanza once said, "It's not a lie if you believe it."

As to the Iraq/Al-Qaeda thing, a link has been established. Not between Iraq and 9/11, to which I believe it was Cheney that made references, and from which Bush and others in the admin distanced themselves.

I'm a little confused, Birds, as to why you chose this to split from the nice quote thread. You posted about economics and tax cuts in that thread (which, IMO, should have been split off -- or I could just refer you to the last time we discussed it, since I'm pretty sure nothing has changed) and then posted about Iraq / Al Qaeda and justification for war outside of the thread (which, IMO, would have been right on topic.) *shrug* oh well...

Pekbac makes a very good point -- a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is not the same thing as a link between Iraq and 9/11. Very, very few people have said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 -- but a lot (including many in the know) have said Iraq had ties to terrorist organizations, and that Al Qaeda was among those organizations. (Of course, Iraq's own government was itself a terrorist organization, but that's kind of beside the point.)

It's interesting to note that with some of the 9/11 findings now coming out there's two distinct reception lines formed; one being those dissecting it as a sort of security review and the other line frisking it for the sole purpose of finding a smoking gun with Bush' fingerprints on it. That mirrors well the two sorts of folks you always find whenever a disaster occurs, no matter the scale. On the one side there are those searching for ways to fix the problem and on the other are those expending their energies finding someone to blame.

In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

That's not from the 9/11 Commission's statements, btw, it's from the Clinton administration's grand jury indictment against Osama bin Laden issued in 1998.

Pebkac wrote:As to the WMDs, Bush believed the same information that everyone else did. It is one thing to disagree with his response to that information, it is another altogether to say he deliberately lied. As George Costanza once said, "It's not a lie if you believe it."

I disagree, that statement should be refined.

Believing something is one thing, but as the president of the United States it's not enough to believe something to take action, you have to be sure.
In the way you put it, it may not have been a blatant lie if Bush believed what he said, yet it is still a full mistake because apparently he failed to have his beliefs confirmed or rejected properly. You make it sound as though Bush invaded Iraq on a hunch.

At this level of responibility, going on a hunch is unacceptable, even if they are proven to be correct afterwards. To me, going on a hunch is when you make the mistake, not afterwards when you realise that what you did is good or bad.

and of course bash, let me guess, you stand in the line that wants to fix things right? and everyone else just cares about blaming people?

There's hope for you yet, Z.

Today (June 18th), Vladamir Putin says,

ASTANA, Kazakhstan â?? Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence after the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was preparing attacks in the United States, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.

...

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said. Link

Interesting. Vague, but interesting ... considering the source.

Believing something is one thing, but as the president of the United States it's not enough to believe something to take action, you have to be sure.

Well, the entire world was "sure" prior to Bush taking office. "Sure" to the tune of multiple UN resolutions. After that, collective amnesia set in. Considering the Saddam/AQ link has been established as well as the evidence of his WMD program, I'd say his "hunch" (which was shared by the world a scant 4 years ago) has proven to be correct. You and yours may be content to let dictators run free under the sham of sanctions, but others are not.

At this level of responibility, going on a hunch is unacceptable, even if they are proven to be correct afterwards. To me, going on a hunch is when you make the mistake, not afterwards when you realise that what you did is good or bad.

I'm going on a limb here and saying it wasn't a hunch. He believed the same data that everyone else believed. It wasn't a hunch, he WAS sure. However, you have opened my eyes. We should definitely have let him remain in power another 15 years while Blix frittered around chasing after evidence that was constantly on the move.

No need for sarcasm, Pebkac.

I already said that the war itself is decoupled from the investigations, intelligence-gathering, descision-making, lobbying and international rule-breaking that came prior to it.

In short, Bush gave the impression that he wanted to invade Iraq. Not that he had to. Taking something for true because everyone else seems to believe it is unacceptable at this level of responsibility.

However, the US has a history with breaking the law to uphold it. Undercover cops pretending to sell drugs and arrest everyone who shows up to buy some, and things like that. That would be totally impossible to do in Europe.

"I don't think the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is definitive, but there's been more than a couple conversations suggesting a connection between Iraq and terrorism"

Index, I agree. There is a suggestion that it may be possible, but definitive evidence is not something we have.

I actually was hoping that this thread would focus on the bush quotes, rather than the Iraq/Al qaeda link.

Bush compared Iraq to Alqaeda saying "we had only hints of their plans and designs" and then said that Iraq's threat is FAR MORE CLEARLY DEFINED than Al qaeda's. Stretching the truth is lying. The threat was not clearly defined. That is something everyone can agree on, I think

Yes, bush went to war because he wanted to. We all know that thanks to the Project for a New American Century.

Will Robinson wrote: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." That is, the staff is not saying al Qaeda and Iraq did cooperate â?? far from it. The staff seems to be saying: "they appear to have cooperated but we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that they worked in tandem on a specific terrorist attack, such as 9/11, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, or the embassy bombings."

One means we have NO evidence, the other means we have SOME evidence. I do not see how Mr McCarthy makes the leap from one from the other?

Tricord wrote:No need for sarcasm, Pebkac.

I apologize Tri, that wasn't my intention. The majority of your post, as I interpreted it, dealt with the question of hunch vs. sure.

I was saying that the whole of the evidence at the time was sufficient to convince the vast majority of the world's leaders that he had them and was developing more. This including Bush's predecessor. To say that Bush had reason to be sure is not too much of a stretch from my vantage point.

My contention is that, though proven wrong on some points later, Bush WAS quite sure in what he was doing given the information at the time. I have no illusions, America IS arrogant. I had no idea that our intelligence agencies were even capable of making so many critical mistakes.

I'm confident that Bush (at least on a subconscious level) shared that belief. Regardless, that information was not known at the time. Consideration of being incorrect must have been on their minds, but they are in a pretty shitty position. They can't wait to see if the threat develops, that's been done in the past with devastating results. They had to go and I feel it was the right thing. Yes, I'm saying the ends justify the means in this scenario. A great deal of good will come from this in the longrun.

I already said that the war itself is decoupled from the investigations, intelligence-gathering, descision-making, lobbying and international rule-breaking that came prior to it.

Sorry, I didn't read that in the post to which I was responding. I thought we were discussing the wisdom (or lack thereof) in making the decision to go to war. Not the legality, because Saddam violated the terms of the ceace-fire agreement that ended Gulf 1 on numerous occasions.

In short, Bush gave the impression that he wanted to invade Iraq. Not that he had to.

Well, keep in mind that he, with the rest of us, watched Saddam thumb his nose at the world with impunity for the 12 years after the Gulf 1. The sanctions were ineffectual and were being named as the cause of 500,000 dead Iraqi children. He routinely shot at coalition aircraft patrolling the NFZ. Each CLEAR violation of the ceace-fire that ended the first Gulf War was met with a slap-on-the-wrist response from us.

In short, he probably DID want to go. I wanted him to go. Nothing feels better than punching some smug, self-aggrandizing ★■◆● off his highhorse.

At the same time, we've also expanded the battlefield in the WOT. The infidels are inside the perimeter, and no self-respecting terrorist scumbag can let that slide. Our presence over there, however repugnant it may seem to some, saves lives in other places. I'll be honest, I'd rather the fighting take place in the ME than in New York or LA or Brussels or Antwerp.

However, the US has a history with breaking the law to uphold it. Undercover cops pretending to sell drugs and arrest everyone who shows up to buy some, and things like that. That would be totally impossible to do in Europe.

I almost forgot who I was talking to. Why must you feel compelled to put in these arrogant "my country is better than your country" tidbits even when it wasn't brought up in a topic? Did you feel that my post was some sort of attack? I don't give two shits about how noble and pure Europe is, we're doing fine over here on our own. Please, for the love of all that is good, please get over yourself.

BTW, your example doesn't support your contention. If a cop arrests a drug-dealer, it is perfectly lawful for him to then sit in that drug-dealer's selling spot and arrest the buyers who come to him. It IS unlawful for him to run around offering drugs to people, so they don't do that.

Regardless, we also have a history letting thousands upon thousands of criminals walk every day on "technicalities" like the one you mentioned. So relax, we won't hit "police-state" status until at least next year.

I'm happy to finally read a post from someone that carries a well argumented personal opinion. With all due respect to people like Will and Lothar, none of their posts so far match yours in terms of convincing the other party. Anyway. Enough butt-licking now.

Pebkac wrote:

However, the US has a history with breaking the law to uphold it. Undercover cops pretending to sell drugs and arrest everyone who shows up to buy some, and things like that. That would be totally impossible to do in Europe.

I almost forgot who I was talking to. Why must you feel compelled to put in these arrogant "my country is better than your country" tidbits even when it wasn't brought up in a topic? Did you feel that my post was some sort of attack? I don't give two **** about how noble and pure Europe is, we're doing fine over here on our own. Please, for the love of all that is good, please get over yourself.

BTW, your example doesn't support your contention. If a cop arrests a drug-dealer, it is perfectly lawful for him to then sit in that drug-dealer's selling spot and arrest the buyers who come to him. It IS unlawful for him to run around offering drugs to people, so they don't do that.

I know that this situation the US law allows it, but there definitely is a paradox there. Selling drugs is illegal, but impersonating someone who sells drugs in order to arrest others is allowed by the law. Even though there is enough margin in the law for cops to do that, in a strict sense the cops are breaking two other laws: false impersonation (or identity theft, I'm not sure how to call it) and selling illegal substances (even if it's only pretending, you can't just walk into a bank and just "pretend" to do a hold-up. It's almost the same thing).

In Europe, the law does not allow cops to do things like that, so we don't find ourselves in the above state of inconsistency.

So don't take this as another "EU is better than US" thing or any other form of US bashing, because that's not the way it was intended. I was merely pointing out something pretty fucked up in my opinion that we don't have up here. There are other examples to be found as well, I'm sure. On the other hand, there are some laws we have but not you guys that are pretty dumb as well.

So all in all, don't jump the gun and don't see ghosts of insults and stabbing all the time, please. It's just critics. I'll let you know if I'm dishing out insults when I do.

I know that this situation the US law allows it, but there definitely is a paradox there. Selling drugs is illegal, but impersonating someone who sells drugs in order to arrest others is allowed by the law.

Yup. That about sums it up. It's really nothing more than information gathering. Besides, normally when a drug-dealer is arrested, they try to get him to make a purchase from his guy while wearing a wire. Cops like to move up the chain, not down. Strangely enough, the chains almost always lead to places outside America where the drug laws aren't as stringent. (for the record, I'm a "decriminalization and treatment" person myself.)

I apologize once again if you didn't intend insult. I guess I get jumpy because in most of these arguments, you will see these two points thrown out in various forms:

1. America is arrogant.
2. Europe is better than America (insert random example here).

1 may be correct. 2 just proves that 1 applies to all of us.

1. America is arrogant.
2. Europe is better than America (insert random example here).

1 may be correct. 2 just proves that 1 applies to all of us.

Europe is just too different. We do many things differently here. We even put mayonaise on our fries (to use a cliché). So of course we point things out that differ. Belgium for instance, has about the best health care, the best education and the most well-lit roads in the world. However, we are the second most taxed country in the world in exchange for all that. If they'd start taxing this much in the US, it would be instant civil war and anarchy.

It's not a matter of GOOD and BAD, it's just different. But some things are morally questionable though, such as the drug selling example I gave. Even things like John Q which have nothing to do with the law, while being understandable, are very regrettable. John Q is impossible in Belgium. I find that there are less things in Belgium (and the rest of Europe) which are morally questionable but still allowed by the law than in the US. And that is not being arrogant, nor claiming to be better.

Tricord wrote:Europe is just too different. We do many things differently here. We even put mayonaise on our fries (to use a cliché).

Heh! I dip my Hooters wings in ketchup and get stares for it.

So of course we point things out that differ. Belgium for instance, has about the best health care, the best education and the most well-lit roads in the world. However, we are the second most taxed country in the world in exchange for all that. If they'd start taxing this much in the US, it would be instant civil war and anarchy.

Yah, in America, especially in the "fly-over" states, there is a very deep-seated belief that people should work for what they want. Charity is the job of the community (read, church) and not the government. On a personal level, I grew up in full-fledged, hard-core white trash small-town northern Texas. I get riled up at the thought of socialized health care because I always think of some of the people I grew up with (many still there).

No job (not looking). Government (read, ME) paying their rent and bills. NO ONE is denied medical care in America, so when the indigent cannot pay, in the end, the government pays that too. Somehow, though unemployed, these people manage to also possess at least one car, have cable TV, AND have a cell phone. They leave the babies with momma (momma proves the adage that the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree) at night and go out to party. Even without a job, they somehow manage to get the cash to drink. When you hear about the people "below the poverty line" in America, this is an all-too-common example of who you are hearing about.

The rejection of socialized anything in America can be summed up with this question:

Why should I have to work to support my own family while throwing a stipend to layabouts who see no need to do the same?

Welfare and socialized medicine is a noble idea in concept, but I refuse to help those who won't even try to help themselves. Everytime I see an able-bodied man or woman begging for change, I have to restrain myself from aiming my car at them. When I see the veteran in the wheelchair with both legs missing begging for change, it's a different story.

It's not a matter of GOOD and BAD, it's just different. But some things are morally questionable though, such as the drug selling example I gave. Even things like John Q which have nothing to do with the law, while being understandable, are very regrettable. John Q is impossible in Belgium. I find that there are less things in Belgium (and the rest of Europe) which are morally questionable but still allowed by the law than in the US. And that is not being arrogant, nor claiming to be better.

Well, until we get a moral court system in America, I'm afraid the example won't change. The law is flawed because it is made my man.

The very idea of socialism is repugnant to many Americans. In a totally socialistic government, there would be no reason whatsoever to work. It wouldn't improve your condition at all; it would simply give the government more. This makes it incredibly hard for the government to get anything done; therefore it collapses.

Economies flourish on freedom. Hong Kong (until recently) had one of the strongest economies in the world. Taxes were extremely low, and setting up a business was simply a matter of telling the government that you were starting a business. In America, the economy is weaker than Hong Kong's was. America's taxes are higher than Hong Kong's, and you have to fill out several forms to create a business, as well as wade through red tape. China has long had the weakest economy of the three; it has a very restrictive environment andtaxes are very high. There seems to be a direct correlation between taxes, the difficulty of creating a business, and the strength of a nation's economy.

Birds you fucken liberal....

WMD were a weak and partial excuse to go in.
Due mostly to a nation of weak thinking folks who'd
rather watch reality shows, than deal with reality.

Consider Iraq a message to other countries.
It served the purpose well. At the same time it took
out a guy who needed to be dealt with.

I would have rather seen others(non USA) do it, but hey.

My only regret, is that Bush senior let go in early 90's. They should have taken him out then. If for no other reason, than we asked the 'people to rise up'
when some folks did, we were getting done, and pulled out - left them there to be wiped out.

In any case...
-May not like or support war, but we live in a world where for many life is cheap.

-Do not ever confuse a political view or personal disagreement you have with the support for the actual troops. They don't get to choose the battle or the war - yet they do defend our rights, including the too oftened used right to talk ★■◆● about them.

Agree or disagree - I respect, honor, and remember the men and women who have gone in to battle.

"Believing something is one thing, but as the president of the United States it's not enough to believe something to take action, you have to be sure. "

hahahahahaahh

Since when did any government in history deal with solid fact. It never happens. It is not like anyone ever says

"here is the data - make the call" it is rumor, and hints, how well you can guess what it means determines your success in government, business, life, marriage, etc, etc..

A couple nuggets culled from the pre-Bush archives.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

- February 13, 1999 CNN Link

CNN Lied!

--------------------------------------

The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq. . . .

Analysts believe that Mr Hijazi offered Mr bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets. Iraqi agents are believed to have made a similar offer to the Saudi maverick leader in the early 1990s when he was based in Sudan.

February 6, 1999 The Guardian Link

The Guardian Lied Too!

The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq


it was thought to have happened huh? good thing you believe the possiblities without a doubt.

But it states pretty matter-of-factly that the meeting took place. And CNN's quote just flat out says Saddam offered asylum to bin Laden. Nothing wrong with doubt, unless it becomes a crutch for your agenda. I couldn't find a retraction by either CNN or The Guardian. If you can, I'll certainly read them, or whatever other information you can find. At least come up with something better than saying I blindly accept things.

Index, great find. From what I can tell, this is probably the strongest link I have heard of between Iraq and al qaeda. However, I believe some doubt was still left, and we have no details of whether the two ever even planned or helped each other.

What do you think of this bush quote:
"Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly."

Far more clearly defined than Al qaeda? I think that's a lie.

I think you're misreading the Bush quote.
I think he referenced al Queda as 'something that was not too clearly defined and look what they did'.

By comparisson the potential threat from Saddam/Iraq was much more defined...

How is the threat from Iraq more clearly defined than the threat from alQ?

I would say Saddam's track record much more clearly defined his motivations, intentions and the threat he represented. Al Qaeda was (and still is) a shadowy group with regard to its capabilities, targets and plans. Saddam pretty much broadcast his and wasn't shy about engaging, whether it was war with Iran, invading Kuwait, lobbing scuds at Israel and Saudi Arabia, firing at U.S. and British planes over no-fly zones, planning hits on an ex-U.S. president, or knocking off Iraqi Shi'ites and Kurds by the 100's of thousands. He wanted to control the Middle East, be the next Saladin, and it was pretty clear who primarily stood in his way. Attacking and killing those who opposed Hussein was habitual, even family members didn't warrant an exemption.

Saddam said to U.S. Ambassador, April Glaspie,

"We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you." Link

No, he doesn't mention any terrorist group by name, but I think it's pretty obvious what he was driving at. He stated this on July 25th, 1990, 8 days before invading Kuwait (August 2, 1990).

I don't think it's any mystery how this guy operated and what could be expected from him.

A man who has WMD's...has used WMD's on innocent civilians...who pays $25,000 to anyone who will become a suicide bomber in Israel...shoots at coalition aircraft...who has, and seeks to build more, medium range missiles, refuses to give up his chemical weapons, has stockpiles of the ingrediants for chemical weapons hidden underground inside military bases (not farm supply houses)...attempted the assassination of the President of the U.S...etc. etc...and the list does go on...

For instance at the time Bush made that statement there was that story of Iraq seeking uranium from Niger...well the Brit's never backed away from it and now just yesterday I hear more reports have surfaced to say that in fact it looks like the Brit's were right and Saddam *did* try to score some uranium (don't worry, I'll post a link when the story hits).

But regardless, The laundry list I made up above doesn't even include all the things that *everyone* thought Saddam was up to...things that surely were believed at the time and would go to butressing Bush's statement that Saddam was clearly a potential threat, so just go with my first paragraph if you want to.

So...

A man who does all that *and* is actively seeking the involvment of bin Ladin, the terrorist most likely to attack the U.S....

Call me paranoid but I see any president who doesn't react to that kind of profile as not doing his job!

It is, after all, the"War on Terror" not the 'War on a Few Terrorists Who Were Last Seen With bin Laden'

If Saddam wasn't a terrorist *and* a clear threat then Mike Tyson is the next Mother Theresa and Bill Clinton didn't inhale.

Here you go:
(subscription required so I'll copy/paste)

Saddam Tried to Buy Uranium
By Mark Huband
The Financial Times of London | June 28, 2004

Illicit sales of uranium from Niger were being negotiated with five states including Iraq at least three years before the US-led invasion, senior European intelligence officials have told the Financial Times.

Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that uranium smugglers planned to sell illicitly mined Nigerien uranium ore, or refined ore called yellow cake, to Iran, Libya, China, North Korea and Iraq.

These claims support the assertion made in the British government dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme in September 2002 that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from an African country, confirmed later as Niger. George W. Bush, US president, referred to the issue in his State of the Union address in January 2003.

The claim that the illicit export of uranium was under discussion was widely dismissed when letters referring to the sales - apparently sent by a Nigerien official to a senior official in Saddam Hussein's regime - were proved by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be forgeries. This embarrassed the US and led the administration to reverse its earlier claim.

But European intelligence officials have for the first time confirmed that information provided by human intelligence sources during an operation mounted in Europe and Africa produced sufficient evidence for them to believe that Niger was the centre of a clandestine international trade in uranium.

Officials said the fake documents, which emerged in October 2002 and have been traced to an Italian with a record for extortion and deception, added little to the picture gathered from human intelligence and were only given weight by the Bush administration.

According to a senior counter-proliferation official, meetings between Niger officials and would-be buyers from the five countries were held in several European countries, including Italy. Intelligence officers were convinced that the uranium would be smuggled from abandoned mines in Niger, thereby circumventing official export controls. "The sources were trustworthy. There were several sources, and they were reliable sources," an official involved in the European intelligence gathering operation said.

The UK government used the details in its Iraq weapons dossier, which it used to justify war with Iraq after concluding that it corresponded with other information it possessed, including evidence gathered by GCHQ, the UK eavesdropping centre, of a visit to Niger by an Iraqi official.

However, the European investigation suggested that it was the smugglers who were actively looking for markets, though it was unclear how far the deals had progressed and whether deliveries of uranium were made.

Nothing to do with threating the USA

Let me explain my point

AlQ threat: Directly attacked USA mainland
Iraq threat: never attacked USA mainland

So... which threat to the USA is more clearly defined?

As I've been saying for months, at some point we're all going to be able to blow each other up. Wait 20, 50 years, whatever it takes there WILL be a point when we'll have to learn--gasp--to get a long with everyone because anyone can blow up the whole damn world.

Now pair the article with a report of a planned attack on USA soil and I'm pro war in Iraq.

I read the quote meaning that the borders of Iraq were clearly defined.

Except for that period of time when they were invading Kuwait...

Birdseye wrote:As I've been saying for months, at some point we're all going to be able to blow each other up. Wait 20, 50 years, whatever it takes there WILL be a point when we'll have to learn--gasp--to get a long with everyone because anyone can blow up the whole damn world.

Well, no, I don't want to wait. And one thing is sure, Saddam won't be able to blow up chit let alone 'the whole world' now!
And if we keep it up the list of people who won't be able to blow up anything will be really long in 20, 50 years!

And that's a good thing --gasp--

The problem, I think, with your scenario, is some people who you are willing to wait until they too can blow up everyone have a different value on life and would rather die killing us than learn to get along...that's a proven track record too, not just my fear!
Why should we wait until Islamikazi's can blow up the whole damn world?

And before you try to say it let me go ahead an answer your next point:
Just because we can't put out every fire is certainly no reason why we shouldn't put all the ones we can!!!

"Just because we can't put out every fire is certainly no reason why we shouldn't put all the ones we can!!! "

I agree. I simply believe there are greater threats than Saddam Hussain.

Greater threats that we can extinguish without too much risk? Attacking North Korea means nuclear war.

The middle east is ground zero in the WoT. I can't think of any other place in the middle east that gives us the strategic advantage that Iraq does.
Sure Syria, for example, is a bigger threat but invading Syria wouldn't give us the long term potential for change in the middle east and the political ramifications would be greater without just cause that the U.N. and Desert Storm provided in Iraq.
Geographically, symbolically (Saddam was the toughest kid in the hood) and vulnerability due to U.N. sanctions and failure to comply with surrender...you can't beat that opportunity!

In the short term Iraq was an easy win over a very bad man.
In the long term Iraq is a great place to try and push a middle east country toward democracy. A great place to start the infection of democracy that will grow throughout the region.

In the short term fight against al Queda it might not make a lot of sense, in the long term fight against terror it was a big victory at minimal costs...how could we not go there?

I suppose I'm most pissed about the way bush entered the war and the way it was presented at this point. It's moot at this point, we can just hope for a democratic Iraq, and an ousting of bush who in my opinion burnt too many bridges internationally to wage a war against a country that posed no imminent threat.

I don't like taking over countries for strategic advantage, then saying we're doing it for other reasons.