Senate Intelligence Committee: No connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda

[Flame On]

Translation Dis=
Doesn't matter the reason, attack them and we'll fill it in later.
Except we won't use that same criteria on any other country cause you know, we can't now; depleated and all oh and because it wasn't really our reason.
Unreal.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Where it was on your list has little to do with where it was on most American's list. The perception was that Saddam was involved with 9/11 and this was enough justification to attack.
Most people who followed the situation knew this to be a lie. The other falsehood that Saddam had WMD was also up for review, but there was little evidence that this was the case, so after the first lie, I didn't trust Bush. Well actually I never trusted Bush from the getgo, but that's just me.

BS

Most American's were well aware that the connection between the two was tenuous at best. Its never been something that the media reported to be true beyond the phantom Atta meeting in Prague which came from the UK anyway.

Saddam HAD WMD. How is that up for review?

Again, it baffles me how you can completely ignore what I posted on that subject. To take it one step further, part of UN resolution 1441 was that Iraq provide documentation of the destruction of the KNOWN WMD that the inspectors were unable to destroy. Iraq failed to do so.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

So the war was all about violating UN Security Council resolutions? That's what made the war not only necessary, but so urgent that diplomatic means were pointless?

Wow. If that's so, I can think of a list of countries that had better watch their backs. Good thing the UN has good old America watching its back and enforcing its resolutions. Now if they'd only pay their dues.....

The fact is, the war was sold to the public on two grounds: specifically that Saddam was known to possess WMDs, and that given 9/11, immediate war was necessary to disarm him. To sweeten the pot, Cheney made numerous remarks about linkages between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, most of which have been shown to be untrue. The UN resolutions barely made it into Bush's State of the Union address--which, if you remember was all about some intelligence about aluminium tubes that had already been discredited.

Look--nobody thinks Saddam was a good guy--what people question is the urgency of this war--why did it have to happen immediately, and why were the contingencies so poorly thought out? Why was there never a real exit strategy?

In other words, why did Bush blunder into a war with a weak enemy that posed no immediate threat to anyone, thus depleting the US' military might on what turned out to be a predictable wild goose chase? Wouldn't that military might be useful now, as Iran is brazenly rattling their sabres, knowing the US is helpless to do anything about their nuclear ambitions?

I've been arguing it was bungled for months so you are preaching to the choir. Lets not forget what my post was responding to. March Hare stated that the Senate Intelligence committee had just debunked the only reasoning for the war. I simply said it wasn't the only reasoning and in fact wasn't even high on the list.

Thanks for the sarcasm. So constructive on an emotional topic such as this. Looger would be proud.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Translation Dis=
Doesn't matter the reason, attack them and we'll fill it in later.
Except we won't use that same criteria on any other country cause you know, we can't now; depleated and all oh and because it wasn't really our reason.
Unreal.

How about instead of putting words into my mouth you actually respond to what I stated.

I didn't say anything remotely close to the drivel you 'translated'.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Ruled out by who?

Back-up justification? Hardly.

It was down on the list quite considerably but since I guess its OK to allow a guy in violation of 17 UN Security Council resolutions to systematically compensate the families of suicide bombers in Israel since these bombers were not a threat to America (see March Hare post above). He'd been getting passes for years, I guess we should've given him one there too like March Hare does.

Defying the UN doesn't exactly work as an excuse for the war. The invasion itself was in defiance of the UN. That penny-ante gesture of throwing a few bucks to the suicide bombers family wasn't a good thing, but it's nothing compared to what some other folks in the area contribute to that cause.

Perhaps if George had invited Saddam to the ranch and held his hand on the way in to the house this could have all been avoided?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

BS

Most American's were well aware that the connection between the two was tenuous at best. Its never been something that the media reported to be true beyond the phantom Atta meeting in Prague which came from the UK anyway.

Saddam HAD WMD. How is that up for review?

Again, it baffles me how you can completely ignore what I posted on that subject. To take it one step further, part of UN resolution 1441 was that Iraq provide documentation of the destruction of the KNOWN WMD that the inspectors were unable to destroy. Iraq failed to do so.

Maybe most educated Americans were aware of there being no connection between El Quida and Sadam but fox news and others didn't seem to. It became common folklore. Nobody at the UN or the Canadian or French governments bought into this premise, nor did they buy into Sadam having WMD. For this Canada and France have been vilified in the American press, internet and even on comedy shows. We were right, the Americans were wrong or at least their stated reasons were wrong. If Iraq had of been a true threat to the Excited States, do you think Canada would not have been there? I'm not going to go back and repeat what the UN investigators didn't find or what your own intelligence found out about Sadam's reported interest in Nuclear development. They found no connection by the way. I understand what the Americans went through with 9/11 must have been traumatic, but Bush used it to start a war under false circumstances.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Defying the UN doesn't exactly work as an excuse for the war. The invasion itself was in defiance of the UN. That penny-ante gesture of throwing a few bucks to the suicide bombers family wasn't a good thing, but it's nothing compared to what some other folks in the area contribute to that cause.

Perhaps if George had invited Saddam to the ranch and held his ****ing hand on the way in to the house this could have all been avoided?

or perhaps sent him hunting with Dick.

[MarchHare]

Most American's were well aware that the connection between the two was tenuous at best.

Demonstrably incorrect. As recently as February, 2005, polls showed that nearly two-thirds of Americans thought there were "strong links" between Hussein and al-Qaeda (Source: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=544 ). In the months leading up to the war, that percentage was even higher.

In a Febrary, 2003 poll (one month before the war), 76% of Americans believed that Hussein provided assistance to al-Qaeda. That same poll found that 72% believed it was very or somewhat likely that Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. (Source: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...aq.Qaeda.link/ )

Saddam HAD WMD. How is that up for review?

Perhaps you should ask that question to Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors, who were sent into Iraq precisely because the question of Hussein still possessing WMD was up for review. If you want to use the argument that Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions as a justification for war, perhaps you might want to actually, you know, let the UN decide if Iraq is in violation or not. Of course, Blix and co. were never able to finish their work, because Iraq posed such an "immenent threat" to the US that the invasion had to take place ASAP. Then again, perhaps if America had actually let the inspectors make their final report, they would have found out exactly what we know now: pre-war assessments of Iraq's WMD capabilities were totally inaccurate, according to the very same report from the Senate Intelligence Committee linked in the OP. Come on now, this isn't a leftist blogger or the New York Times making this claim. A bipartisan body, consisting of a majority of Republicans and chaired by a Republican, has stated this. It's amazing that you continue to believe what everyone -- and I do mean everyone -- has now acknowledged to be fact. I'm absolutely astonished at your willful ignorance in this case.

March Hare stated that the Senate Intelligence committee had just debunked the only reasoning for the war.

No, reread my post. I stated that the Senate Intelligence Committe had debunked the two main justifications for the war: that Iraq possessed WMDs, and that the Hussein regime provided support for AQ.

Are you contending that those two points were not the main justificaiton for the war? If so, perhaps you ought to read Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, where he lays out quite clearly the casus belli.

Here's a relevent quotation for you:

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Maybe most educated Americans were aware of there being no connection between El Quida and Sadam but fox news and others didn't seem to. It became common folklore. Nobody at the UN or the Canadian or French governments bought into this premise, nor did they buy into Sadam having WMD. For this Canada and France have been vilified in the American press, internet and even on comedy shows. We were right, the Americans were wrong or at least their stated reasons were wrong. If Iraq had of been a true threat to the Excited States, do you think Canada would not have been there? I'm not going to go back and repeat what the UN investigators didn't find or what your own intelligence found out about Sadam's reported interest in Nuclear development. They found no connection by the way. I understand what the Americans went through with 9/11 must have been traumatic, but Bush used it to start a war under false circumstances.

Again, I'm not trying to justify the war. I'm simply stating that a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection...

1. wasn't a major war justification
2. has been disproved much sooner than now

That's it.

You can take shots at my government all you want and prop your own up as intellectually superior. It doesn't change the fact that what I am saying is correct!

For the record, I must only surround myself with smart people because I haven't talked to a single person who said Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Not one.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Defying the UN doesn't exactly work as an excuse for the war. The invasion itself was in defiance of the UN. That penny-ante gesture of throwing a few bucks to the suicide bombers family wasn't a good thing, but it's nothing compared to what some other folks in the area contribute to that cause.

Perhaps if George had invited Saddam to the ranch and held his hand on the way in to the house this could have all been avoided?

Yep.

[Displaced Flames fan]

March Hare:

Well those 1012 adults (polled by telephone I might point out) were certainly an interesting group.

I don't believe for a minute that the number is anywhere close to that high. I'd be hearing it in daily conversations and as I said, I haven't. I don't have the time or the desire to try and prove it though so you win. I will add though that I never trust polls that don't state the questions they asked verbatim. All we see are their 'conclusions'.

The question of him still having WMD was indeed up for review! You know what? They were never accounted for. Blix and his crews found nothing. Why? So should we assume they were destroyed out of the kindness of his heart or in the spirit of international cooperation? What is the smart assumption here? (maybe they made their way to Syria?)

No, I wasn't contending that those two points weren't major justifications. I was contending that the Al-Qaeda connection wasn't. Yes, they were way off on his nuclear aspirations. I haven't mentioned nuclear aspirations or programs once. Thanks for bringing it up.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Again, I'm not trying to justify the war. I'm simply stating that a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection...

1. wasn't a major war justification
2. has been disproved much sooner than now

That's it.

You can take shots at my government all you want and prop your own up as intellectually superior. It doesn't change the fact that what I am saying is correct!

For the record, I must only surround myself with smart people because I haven't talked to a single person who said Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Not one.

I disagree with point no. 1.

As for point no.2, it was disproved before the USA invaded. This is important and wasn't acknowledged by the Bush govt. until recently. I wonder why?
Glad to hear you keep good company.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I disagree with point no. 1.

As for point no.2, it was disproved before the USA invaded. This is important and wasn't acknowledged by the Bush govt. until recently. I wonder why?
Glad to hear you keep good company.

I've given up trying to understand why they do most of what they do.

[MatsNaslund]

9-11-2001 is a problem of only 1 specific foreign country and of no concern to us Canadians because it had no effect on Canada other than higher gas prices (which the whole world feels) AND longer lineups at the airport every now and then. If you do not fly that often it does not effect you all that much. Those who invade countries and colonize them are usually specifically targetted as was the case on 9-11. US was targetted for their longstanding foreign policy. Just because someone is an enemy of the US does not mean that they are allied with other enemies of the US. The very idea of an alliance between the US-installed Saddam(a left winger with his 2nd in command being a christian and with no belief in God) and a facist extremist like bin laden made me laugh. Who cares about how much they both might hate Bush. They probably hated each other more. Good luck to Bush on regime change & finding those WMD & finding bin laden & disarming nuclear Iran and n. korea while selling the same technology to India Israel and Pakistan.

[Displaced Flames fan]

A country wasn't targeted, 25000+ innocent civilians were.

Among the 3000 that didn't make it that day were representatives of over 65 nations.

Hardly the problem of one nation.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Thanks for the sarcasm. So constructive on an emotional topic such as this. Looger would be proud.

Well, I'm not sure how to interpret the wink there, but if I came across as sarcastic I apologize. The last thing I want is to be shrill and condescending in the way that Looger sometimes is... not to speak ill of the self-exiled.

As it happens, I agree that the tenuous 9/11-Saddam connection wasn't really a major part of the rationale for war. In fact, it wasn't even among the "official" casus belli--but I'm sure you'll agree that the reasons given to the UN and to the coalition of the willing (would it be glib to refer to that as "COW"? ) were not the same as the reasons given to the court of public opinion in the U.S. Bush himself was either careful or more honest than some of the hardliners in the administration--he hinted at the connection, but never (IIRC) directly claimed that it existed. But Cheney was less circumspect, as was (again, IIRC--too late to go chasing after links) Condoleeza Rice. When it came to places like Fox News, which has for some time been for all intents and purposes an official organ of the administration, all circumspection went out the window.

In my opinion, 9/11 was cynically used to manipulate the public into agreeing to a conflict that they otherwise would not have had the appetite for. I don't pretend to know why people in power would do such a thing--but from my relatively powerless position, that's how it looks. So in that sense, I do think the Senate's findings are important--in that they add an official veneer to an objection that may have been true all along, but now, given that the Senate has for better or worse, added their voices to the dissent, pretty much leaves the administration as the lone voice in the wilderness still pretending this war was a good idea.

I'm an optimist: and therefore I believe and hope that ousting Saddam and liberalizing/democratizing the region are both admirable goals that will hopefully have lasting positive effects in the long term. I also believe in progress, and so I have to believe that the radicalization and instability that we see now is temporary. I hope I'm right; time will tell, I guess. But in the end, when that goal is achieved, will we be able to look back and wonder whether it was worth the cost? My suspicion is that as the region improves we'll look at the deaths as necessary sacrifices--but my own moral universe doesn't allow me to say that the ends justify the means--and so that's why I think now is the time for us to point to the terrible human cost of this conflict and to call for some accountability for this cluster-you-know-what from Washington. No sarcasm--just my thoughts.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

A country wasn't targeted, 25000+ innocent civilians were.

Among the 3000 that didn't make it that day were representatives of over 65 nations.

Hardly the problem of one nation.

Quoted for Truth. For Canada to pretend that terrorism generally and Radical Islam specifically are "not our problem" is to grossly misunderstand the nature of this threat. It's global, not national--everyone's involved and everyone has an interest in finding a solution.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Quoted for Truth. For Canada to pretend that terrorism generally and Radical Islam specifically are "not our problem" is to grossly misunderstand the nature of this threat. It's global, not national--everyone's involved and everyone has an interest in finding a solution.

Yep. Tell that to the NDP.

[mykalberta]

The reason for Iraq was never a direct link to Osama. The real reason was oil (to cut the Saud addiction) and to move in your killers against their killers. Why fight an enemy on your home soil with police that are used to battling with rules when you can use your trained killing machines in a far more lenient environment. Both reasons arent media friendly as such will never be stated publically.

I do still believe that their were WMD but since none were ever found (had Turkey opened up the Northern border I believe they would have been found), or ones that were found had US sales slip attached were never shown that reason is must be nixed.

MYK

[MatsNaslund]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

A country wasn't targeted, 25000+ innocent civilians were.

Among the 3000 that didn't make it that day were representatives of over 65 nations.

Hardly the problem of one nation.

Those people caught in the crossfire were not specifically targetted. Wrong place and wrong time for them. America and Americans were the specific target due to their imperialist foreign policy. 9-11-2001 and every other day since has been the same as 9-10-2001 for the vast majority of Canadians. Probably different for some if some hick in kentucky is your uncle but that applies to a small number of Canadians. Life never changed. Canada never took over countries by force for oil or to install puppet governments. Canada never tried to assasinate the Presidents of Cuba & Venezuela(democratically elected). Canada does not have a foreign policy of trying to setup a military base in every country on the planet. Canada has a lot less to worry about then USA which is hated by more countries then anyother.

Now that the US directly rules Iraq through a puppet you would think they would have uncovered the WMD.