Posted on 02/09/2007 6:19:47 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
That IS a good one; thanks!
bttt
Again,...who cares?
You are not getting my point and are wasting energy on an argument that no one but the left cares about. I mean how many elections do they think they can milk from this?
Bush didn't have to convince me that Saddam needed to be taken out. Clinton didn't either when he was president. He just didn't do anything about it, or with Osama. Evil is evil.
Just for the record, our govt has been packaging military strategy wrapped with patriotic fervor for a long time. Gaming the intell, or selective facts have many times been utilized in time of war. Gets the population riled, ie "Mushroom cloud, yada yada yada." In this case, Saddam was just a plain old evil guy who's time had long been coming since 1990. Bush didn't need to convince me. I knew saddam was a freak during my tenor during the first gulf war.
The 9/11 "slash" Saddam line was repeated over and over and it developed into a well-tuned, Rovian, political psychosis in some people's mind that we "just had to do something." We did do something. Bush did something. And Bush is where he is because of it. I think Bush sleeps at night. I would. There is no election in the near future, no further need to campaign. He is unencumbered by the fetters of political hype. Problem is, he has got to keep his party together over the next two years.
so what? So we are having some problems in Bagdad. We just need to change strategy. Give it some time to work. We got an Admiral in charge now :)
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. "
-Hillary Clinton Oct 10, 2002
Ansar al Islam and Salman Pak were flimsy evidence?
Abdul Rahman Yasin (convicted 93 WTC bomb-maker) living in Baghdad and collecting a government paycheck for a decade is flimsy?
The 1998 Grand Jury indictment citing a working relationship between OBL and Saddam was based on flimsy evidence?
The 1999 offer of asylum to OBL is flimsy evidence?
The IIS envoys to the Sudan and Afghanistan to meet with OBL are flimsy?
The al-Ani/Atta meeting in Prague is flimsy? Why, because an anonymous FBI source told the New York Times they placed Atta in Virginia at the time (and we all know the FBI had such a great handle on Atta in 2001).
Using the Simpson Jury standard for reasonable doubt, there is no such thing as actionable intelligence.
Just for the record, do you personally believe there was a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam? Don't tell me your personal beliefs don't matter, I already know that. I'm asking anyway, in the interest of putting our cards on the table here.
The question leading into the war was whether or not we could determine with confidence that Saddam's regime actually did not possess at the time - much less did not have designs on getting in the future - WMDs. The pathetic attempts by the UN to make a determination have received a white-washing by the media and thus the war has easily been branded as needless if not evil, but the truth is that, regardless of the left's alleged ability to know (by power of ideological speculation) what Saddam was and wasn't up to, the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam was the only way to have any assurance on the matter.
Further, everyone seems to buy into the Chamerlain-ite line that Saddam would have been of no harm to anyone had he been left alone and that we should have ignored his violation of a whole slew of agreements...
My fear now is that this entire episode will be used in the future to prevent another Iraq-type action, with politicians and 'intellectuals' convincing the public to accept some ridiculously arduous standard of evidence before taking action, thus buying time to plot and act for those who are obviously our enemies.
Excellent idea that needs repeating.
So James Woolsey is incompetent? Because he not only believes there was, he testified to it in district court to it (and the judge agreed).
"...during my tenor during the first gulf war."
You're a tenor??? Can you sing, "Oh Danny, Boy" for me?
I'd settle for "Mother McCree" if you can't remember all the words to "Danny, Boy". ;-)
i'm a goof. and you are funny :)
I meant during my depoyment you wascally wabbit.
Using the Simpson Jury standard for reasonable doubt, there is no such thing as actionable intelligence.
I guess so, but that's an apples and oranges comparison. Intelligence doesn't have to be perfect. It never did, and it never will. It just has to be credible, and confirmed by other sources. This bin Laden stuff may sounds scary, but it's child's play next to some reports floating around. You could stack every impressive sounding CIA report on top of each other, and they'd reach halfway to the moon. Volume doesn't mean anything without reliability or (non circular) confirmation.
Just for the record, do you personally believe there was a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam? Don't tell me your personal beliefs don't matter, I already know that. I'm asking anyway, in the interest of putting our cards on the table here.
A connection, meaning what? That he had his intelligence guys in contact with AQ agents? Absolutely. That's par for the course in that neighborhood. If we wanted to lay our cards down on the table, we could indict Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, or any number of countries as having links to al-Qa'ida. Does that mean they're actively plotting attacks against the U.S., or that they're running a robust intelligence service? The kind that we wish we had, that actually had links and insight to potential troublemakers.
I'm not convinced that there were any operational links between AQ and Saddam, and given the Administration's stance, I doubt anyone in the U.S government really thinks there were either. That doesn't make Saddam innocent, or invading Iraq a bad idea, by any means. Just that his links to AQ were the prudent kind that a tyrant in the region would want.
Is this even in his job description?
I'm glad you're home, safe, dear. You can sing in any key you like, any time, any place. Thanks for your service.
Consider the source.
SF Gate is part of the San Francisco Chronicle, a left wing rag commonly known locally as "The San Francisco Koranicle". Discount 90% of what that fishwrap prints.
Abdul Rahman Yasin entered the US on an authentic Iraqi passport along with Ramzi Yousef, made the bomb Yousef used to blow up the parking garage of the WTC and fled to Baghdad, where he lived -- on a government stipend, in an apartment provided by the regime -- for a decade. Yousef's computer in the Philippines was later recovered with early plans for a 9/11 style attack and the Operation: Bonjinka attack (which al Qaeda attempted again in August, 2006).
The relationship between Yousef and Khalid Sheik Mohamed (nephew and uncle) -- as well as the plans found on Yousef's computer -- establish a direct link between Yousef and what we now know as al Qaeda, thus a link between the February 1993 WTC attack and the WTC attack of September 2001 is also established. Yasin's passport, the 50 phone calls he made to Baghdad in the days before the '93 attack (they're a matter of court record), and his decade of safe-haven in Baghdad establish a link between Saddam and the 1993 attack. It doesn't prove that Saddam gave the order for the attack, but it shows direct and irrefutable linkage between himself and the perpetrators of the attack.
What kind of evidence do we need to establish more than a casual relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda? They operated freely in his country (Ansar al Islam, Abu Musab al Zarqawi), they found shelter there after committing direct attacks on the US homeland (Yasin), he provided the only known terrorist training camp in the world where a plane was used to teach unarmed hijackings (Salman Pak) -- precisely the type used on September 11, and nowhere else ever. His diplomats were expelled for aiding al Qaeda terrorists in the Czech Republic, they were expelled from the Philippines for aiding Abu Sayef terrorists (an AQ affiliate). Really, what kind of hard evidence are we expecting a billionaire dictator with unlimited intelligence and military resources at his disposal to leave around for us to find? His voice on tape ordering specific attacks? Detailed, hand-written plans with Saddam's signature? What exactly?
Perhaps the question has been asked and merely not reported. But with the 6 years of hearings that have been conducted while the democrats were the minority party in both the senate and the house, I can't imagine at least ONE Republican legislator would not have made such an elementary inquiry?????
EODGUY
Jveritas, did you ever win FREEPer of the Year Award? You should have. Thanks for the links!
Thank you very much :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.