So just because a terrorist group from Iraq joined Ben Ladin, does it mean Saddam was linked to 9/11. Then we should go get all of those other countries, why we are not attacking Saudi Arabia ? Come oh , he lied and you know it!

And Indonesia, and the Philippines, and so on.

Good point Anonymous.

It was Saddam that Bush went after in Iraq so, what Bush and his administration need to prove is that there was a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Well, was there?

I would love to have zarkawi in my hands, face to face and kick his fucking ass, and break every bone of his mucky animal body. I would love to make him get a taste of his own way. I hope he get catch real soon, believe me after he gets catch I’ll dance around his dirty animal body, and ask the soldier to please let him alone with me in a cell and have his face up to a point that not even his fucking self animal can recognize.

Anonymouse and marko, you two fuck punks read this:>>>
If you’re a defender of that backwards culture of the sheethead terrorists, then why not be an HONEST defender? Why not surround yourself with the technology and lifestyle that is 500 years old?
Give up your American-designed computer. Take off those NIKE shoes, and strap on some goat-skin sandals. Throw away all of your medicine, and avoid western medical technology and doctors. And if you’re kid is dying of a disease, don’t get help from Western American technology. The honest sheethead will instead go moan to allah of osama for help. He’ll fix you right up!
Stop using electric motors, lights, and washing machines. Turn off the air conditioner. Stop driving your car. Stop communicating in our language, the language of advancement and freedom. These are just small examples of how you should be in humble thanks for the rich lifestyle you crave, brought to you by the capitalist, free-market culture of America. I’m sure you could think of lots more.
We are the only Military force in the history of the world that will fight for the liberation of the oppressed. And in this case, we are fighting a war on the soil of the terrorists and those who support terrorism. We prefer to kick your monkey-ass in your own backyard, rather than have to clean up your filth over here.
No, you can’t reply to this, or else you would be an unfaithful infidel, using Western technology developed by those you hate. So burn your PC to cook some camel-meat tonight, and be thankful.

Danny, don't take credit for the invention of most technologies. Not all technologies were invented by the Americans. You're not only making an ass of yourself, you're also ridiculously arrogant.

Since the Bush administration never claimed there was a direct link, and in fact specifically said they didn't know if there was a direct link, and merely that they knew there were some possible ties and nothing more, there's nothing for the Bush administration to prove.

The Bushies gave us well over a dozen reasons for action. "They're behind the 9/11 attacks" was never one of them. I wish people would at least be honest about that. There's plenty to question or criticize without having to make stuff up.

We can debate strategy and tactics until the cows come home to roost, and historians do this as part of their profession (i.e., was Halsey justified in turning north after Ozawa's carriers at Leyte Gulf?), but the most important thing is to have the basic facts right. If you don't the discussion is pointless. This internet thing is wonderful - we can research very quickly what reasons the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq, and what reasons Congress gave when it gave the administration the go-ahead to attack, and IIRC Iraq being involved with 9/11 was not one of those reasons.

What reasons did I consider important? Iraq and the US were in an armistice which Iraq was continuously violating. Sanctions were not working. If the US walked away, its word and its threats would have no value. Saddam hated the US, had a pile of money, and a hankering to use NBC weaponry. Countries (see Union, Soviet) had sponsored terrorist groups in order to attack enemies and provide a diplomatic cover.

Those reasons were sufficient for me. Your mileage may vary.

Yeah, that too Mike.

And to me, there was always the reason they could NOT state aloud, because if they stated it aloud it would cause us all kinds of damage among certain Arab allies: namely, that it would put the fear of God and the United States into the Saud princes, the Syrian fascists, the Iranian theocrat mullahs, and every other two-bit dictator that gave a wink and a nod to terrorist groups in the Middle East.

We couldn't say that because we were getting certain assistance from those nations anyway--assistance that would have dried up if we openly stated what we were up to.

That's how the diplomacy game is played. And it has to be that way; you simply can't walk around stating openly exactly what your strategy is on everything.

The Bushies, and the Congress, gave us over a dozen reasons, and any of a half-dozen of them were reason enough. In a post-9/11 world, where we'd been shown definitively that enemies would cross oceans and risk utter oblivion for themselves and fellow Muslims just to kill us, the whole geostrategic viewpoint had to shift.

Well it sure shifted for me, anyway. Up until then I'd thought Clinton was much too adventurous in getting us involved in foreign conflicts. I couldn't imagine myself just a few years later thinking we needed to be a lot more involved in these things. Well, 9/11 changed everything, as they so rightly say...

The anti-warriors are in a real bind, rhetorically. The bar they set lon ago was that there was "no evidence" of Saddam/AQ links of any sort. "It just doesn't sound like our Saddam." is what it boils down to, amazingly similar to the Clintonites "Oh, that just doesn't sound like our Bill! He's so good on womens' issues!" Such moronicism is completely impenetrable and as completely predictable. Whatever, they are no more than barking mutts at this point. Iraq is free and soon independent and humanely governed. Oh, how they hate that and now, they can't hide it. Oh, how I laugh. I love that Bush guy, chimpy, smirky genius he has proven to be.

meg, I like you. No, really. But could we please leave Clinton alone, finally!? I'm no Clinton fan (Hell, I voted against him twice), but don't you think it's time we move on?

These sorts of remarks are nearly as bad as Democrats obsessing about Florida 2000, over and over again. And, I might add, they will almost certainly cause a lot of minds to snap shut about the current discussion, because you can't stop yapping about Clinton, just like some other folks can't stop yapping about Bush.

That said, you are correct that the anti-war commenters here are stuck. Alas, they fall back on some of their favorite tricks: change the subject, and move the goal posts.

'nonymous asks why we haven't attacked the Saudis. I've addressed some of the reasons here, but that's post-invasion. Honestly, if you don't know why we haven't attacked the Saudis by now, you have not been paying attention, or you are being deliberately disengenuous.

Marko comes up with a real winner: instead of dealing with the (now established) AQ/Iraq connection, he sidesteps, and asks about a specific AQ/Hussein connection! As if Glorious Leader wasn't in charge: "It wasn't me, it was a rebellious underling." Feh. Marko, that squishing sound is you driving yourself deeping into the dirt at the bottom of your hole. Keep digging, amigo, and thanks for playing...

I don't think Marko was guilty of trying to sidestep. I believe he just didn't read the entirety of Staff Statement #15. If you just read what Bill Hobbs wrote and the small section of the report he highlighted only, then Marko's comments are spot-on. Just because one or more of the terrorist groups located in Iraq joined Al-Qeada does not constitute proof, in and of itself, that the Iraqi government had a link to Al-Qeada. It's a strong indicator but not proof.

What is conclusive is the information carried in the rest of the report about Iraqi government staff contacting and arranging meetings with Al-Qeada, etc. That does prove there were links between the Iraqi government (Saddam) and Al-Qeada.

marko,

Danny said "500 years old". Clearly he's referring to Western Civilization since the Renaissance, and he has a very good point. He, I and others are very tired of people who run down America and the West while they live in the lap of luxury created by that civilization.

Oh, and if you don't think these luxuries came from Western civilization, may I suggest you watch the documentary 'Connections'? And maybe review the list of Nobel science winners, including where they got their degrees.

The Far East is catching up with the West and will pass us if current trends continue, but they spent too much time in xenophobic isolation, and they are still digging out of that hole. The Islamic World and Africa are completely stagnant. Latin America has real potential if they can successfully import capitalism, but they could go either way.

Nice arrogant ad hominem at the end of your comment too.

Yours,
Wince

Dean esmay says: "Since the Bush administration never claimed there was a direct link, and in fact specifically said they didn't know if there was a direct link, and merely that they knew there were some possible ties and nothing more, there's nothing for the Bush administration to prove."

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html :
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." -- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021028-4.html :
"This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda" -- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021028-5.html :
"He's got connections with al Qaeda."-- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021101-5.html :
"We know he's got ties with al Qaeda."-- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021102-8.html :
"We know that he's had connections with al Qaeda."-- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021103-2.html :
"This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda."-- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021104-5.html :
"This is a man who has had al Qaeda connections."-- George W. Bush

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html :
"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." -- George W. Bush

Dean, it sounds like George W. Bush has stated repeatedly that Saddam Hussein *did* have ties with Al Qaeda, not just possible ties, and further more stated that he didn't just have ties, but in fact *directly aided* members of Al Qaeda. These quotes are all directly from the Whitehouse web site itself, and I didn't even do an exhaustive search. I can find more if you'd like.

Dean, when will you stop saying that George Bush and his administration never claimed that Saddam Hussein had connections with, and in fact aided, Al Qaeda? As you say, there's plenty to question or criticize without having to make stuff up.

So when are we invading Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia and Eritrea?

While this demonstrates that some "group" in Iraq may have had ties to al Qaeda, it doesn't tie Saddam to them. Even Saddam, iron fisted despot that he was, couldn't control all the whackos, like Ansar al Islam. And while he may have tolerated them in order to keep those pesky Kurds in line, he would have never allowed them to usurp him by having any say in Iraqi affairs. Kinda reminds me of how the Pakistanis scoffed when Reagan empowered the the mujahadeen.

Saddam was hardly the friend of Islamic fundamentalists the neocons would have us believe he was. Even Pat Buchanan argues:

"Consider what has happened as a result of our war on Iraq. An enemy of Islamic fundamentalism, Saddam, has been removed. His secular Baath Party is gone. A vacuum has opened up in Iraq that the Islamists and their allies may one day fill. The Arab world has been radicalized and supports the Iraqi resistance in its drive to defeat and expel the Americans"

Iraq was a mistake. And now we're stuck.

malishazilla: I meant the Bush administration never suggested there was a direct link between the attacks of 9/11, not that they never suggested there was an Al Qaeda link. There was always evidence for a link to Al Qaeda. Still is plenty of evidence for that.

Devil: Iraq was in no way a mistake, in my view. It was exactly the right war, at exactly the right time, and for exactly the right reasons.

As for invading Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia and Eritrea--this, to me, is a rather silly question. We don't have the resources or the cassus belli to invade every single nation that presents a threat. We did have cassus belli in the case of Iraq. Indeed, we had more than a dozen reasons, and any one of half a dozen of them was sufficient justification. And in having made that move, we have both advanced the cause of human rights and advanced our own strategic interests leaps and bounds beyond what it was before the invasion.

And we have the "resources" and "cassius clay" (pardon) for Iraq? Faugh.

Dean:
"malishazilla: I meant the Bush administration never suggested there was a direct link between the attacks of 9/11, not that they never suggested there was an Al Qaeda link. There was always evidence for a link to Al Qaeda. Still is plenty of evidence for that."

Oh but they did suggest it ("to seek to influence : SEDUCE"), Dean. The administration used rhetoric designed to make people think that a significant link existed between Saddam, Al Qaeda, Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and, by default, the threat demonstrated by 9/11. That was a crass deception of the public mind to build support for war and the post-rhetoric public opinion polls prove it. You know it, I know it and everyone else knows it (except, perhaps, the morons and partisans who still think that an important link - in the context of creating an urgent need to launch a war - existed).

This is just another parsing the meaning of “is” that the administration's lawerly rhetoric was designed to allow. Likewise, it’s too clever by half and wholly dishonest.

I love it "used rhetoric designed to make people thin..." -- in other words, fooled all the stupid idiot rubes who aren't as sophisticated as you, right?

How offensive.

The truth is that the administration said point blank, and repeatedly, that they knew of no such link, had no evidence of any such link.

And, of course, as it happens, the majority of Americans have never, at any time, believed in such a link anyway. Why would they though? The administration never suggested there was one, specifically denied having evidence that there was one.

The problem with the left in this country is that they're no longer liberal, and they tend to make up silly things about their opponents, and to treat the American people like idiots.

Devil: Of course we have the resources for Iraq. Quite obviously, or we wouldn't be there. But do you really think we have the resoruces to invade 20 more countries at once?

And the problem with the right is they have to deny reality to keep their foolish beliefs intact:

"Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

You can believe that they are “stupid idiot rubes” if you wish but I obviously believe they were duped by a calculated, sustained disinformation campaign. “Not saying it. Implying it, in the same sort of dishonest way that Moore implies all sorts of cockamamie and hateful crap.”

Dean:
“The truth is that the administration said point blank, and repeatedly, that they knew of no such link, had no evidence of any such link.”:

“RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.
RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
CHENEY: We don't know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we've learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in '93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know.”
–Meet the Press, 9/03

The truth is, you’re in trouble any time you use the word “truth” and “the administration said” in the same sentence. But perhaps you’re no longer able to judge.

Dean:

Of course! All this invading Iraq business is nothing more than a self-fulfilling neocon prophecy! Join me on the 'Bullet Train to Armageddon', won't you?

Shep: I'm very sorry, but the poll you point to is mangled. You need to seek the source data. We have debunked that before, as have many others: the poll does NOT show that 70% of Americans believed that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack. That poll doesn't show that, and no other poll has ever been done to show that.

And thank you for the Cheney quote, for it shows quite clearly that I was telling it exactly the way it was: Cheney gave a clear, unequivocal, truthful statement. I can demonstrate that no more clearly than what you showed us here.

But then you had to go and say this:

"The truth is, you’re in trouble any time you use the word “truth” and “the administration said” in the same sentence. But perhaps you’re no longer able to judge."

Okay, first, that's insulting. Second, it shows once again what I'm talking about when I say that you're being partisan. And inflammatory. And, to be honest, trollish, which surprises me because I thought you had more integrity than that.

When you throw out a statement like that--which you do often--you signal clearly that you don't want to discuss, you want to bash. Is there any point in continuing this discussion, then?

Hey Devil: Your definition of Armageddon and mine are pretty far apart. By the way, can you define what exactly you mean by "neocon?" Just curious. :-)