ONE MORE TIME -- In Case You Missed It.

[Copernicus]

For those who dont understand, the Dems worked with the same pre-war intelligence that the Republicans had, and were every bit as vocal about the threat that Saddam posed.

As far as there being "no connection" between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, thats semantics on the order of Clintons parsing of "sex" and "the". Dozens of contacts are between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda are well documented. Just because there was no direct operational link doesnt mean there was no financial and intelligence support. Any one who still wants to maintain the Saddam's was a secular regime and he had no sympathy for Islam didnt read his statements after capture and on trial.

[whiskeytown]

Saddam saw al qaida as THREAT - not ally -

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_o...zkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

[andyfox]

"Dozens of contacts are between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda are well documented."

Sources/links please? Thanks.

"Any one who still wants to maintain the Saddam's was a secular regime and he had no sympathy for Islam didnt read his statements after capture and on trial."

I think you and I, of opposite political viewpoints, both agree Saddam Hussein is a patholgocial liar and his statements after his capture and while on trial are designed for public consumption, likely to win him sympathy (at least in his own mind) within the Islamic world. His actions while in power are a better judge of his positions. Bin Laden himself, in early 2003, called for a temporary alliance with the " socialist infidel" Hussein only in defense of the upcoming American invasion

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]


Sources/links please? Thanks.



[/ QUOTE ]

they're being re-packaged, re-invented, and re-manufactured as we speak - but they'll be out before the midterm elections.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam Hussein is a patholgocial liar and his statements after his capture and while on trial are designed for public consumption, likely to win him sympathy (at least in his own mind) within the Islamic world. His actions while in power are a better judge of his positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

While in power, in April 2002, he offered a $25,000 reward to families of palestinian suicide bombers. The reward requirements strictly outlined that it had to be martyrdom via suicide bombing against Israel to continue the intifada.

If that is not a crystal clear support of terrorism to you, then I just don't know what to say. That in an of itself put's Saddam in violation of the terms of the first Gulf War resolutions.

While in power, he continued to harbor and support Abu Abbas and the PLF, responsible for attacks against Israel and for the hijacking of the Achille Lauro.

While in power, he continued to harbor and support Abu Nidal, and his organization that has successfully targeted the US and several other western nations in terrorist attacks.

I think you get the drift.

Saddam's regime violated the conditions of surrender from their defeat in 1991, vis a vis their failure to comply with UNSCR 678, and he harbored and supported known terrorists in Nidal and Abbas, and others.

The reports about lack of ties to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden isn't anything new, and aside from political rhetoric hasn't been seriously claimed outside of anyone other than reckless politicians......in fact, the 21 page report on violations the US made against Iraq to the UN in 2002 mentions numerous Saddam misdeeds and not once mentions AQ or UBL. It does, however, catalog clear UNSCR violations, including human rights, supporting terrorism, etc.

The bottom line is Saddam's regime supported and financed terrorism, and post-9/11, the US has made it fairly clear that we don't roll like that anymore, and we went to war as a proactive measure against a reckless, terrorist-supporting dictator BEFORE anything could happen, on the basis of his violations of the conditions of surrender and accompanying UN security resolutions.....instead of sitting around on our fat haunches and waiting around for a few more crazy goddamn suicidal nutjobs to start flying planes or driving bombs into our goddamn buildings.

Is war messy, and are there going to be atrocities and hardships? You bet your sweet ass it is, and it isn't something many rational folks sit around wacking off about in hopes of getting into for little or no reason....but after 10 or so years of pussyfooting around and playing diplomatic cat and mouse, the atmosphere was such that given the new playing field and possible consequences of inaction if we did nothing, we just couldn't take the chance.

Terrorists threw sand in our face with the USS Cole, the Kobar Towers, and numerous other incidents. We hemmed and hawed, sat and talked, tried to comprimise. Sept 11th was the last straw, and the US just stood up and said "Hey guys, we ain't taking this shit no more."

Was our response a bit heavy? Probably so. But apparently that is what it takes to get through to some folks. They took a few planes and a few buildings. We took a few countries and displaced a few regimes. Instead of making terrorism an easy choice, we've attached a significant penalty to it.

Am I happy that we have to do it? Of course not. Do I wish there were a different way to handle it? Of course I do. But, it is what it is, and sometimes force is the unavoidable solution.

[The once and future king]

The point is, what ever degree of support for "terrorism" reps can summon up, it will still be much much much much much much less than the support offered by other countries such as Iran Syria and N Korea.

So on the supporting terrorism rational there are at least 2 or 3 countries that should have been invaded before Iraq.

To attempt to use Bush's rationalisations for the war in Iraq is just blatently calling black white.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, what ever degree of support for "terrorism" reps can summon up, it will still be much much much much much much less than the support offered by other countries such as Iran Syria and N Korea.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but those three countries aren't subject to UNSCR 678 as a result of being defeated in the Gulf War.

We had a unique opportunity with Iraq in that we had a clear resolution in place that they violated, and we had an open-ended enforcement clause.

I'm not saying it was "right", but that is exactly why it is what it is and it isn't one of those other states.

[ QUOTE ]

So on the supporting terrorism rational there are at least 2 or 3 countries that should have been invaded before Iraq.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, and truth be told, if we had a similar plausible excuse to do so, such as we had in Iraq with UNSCR 678, then those 2-3 countries would have been at the front of the line.

[ QUOTE ]

To attempt to use Bush's rationalisations for the war in Iraq is just blatently calling black white.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not calling black - white. Iraq supported terrorism, and they violated the terms of the UN Resolutions in place as a result of their defeat in the Gulf War. That's calling it exactly like it is.

Is that reason enough for war? For regime change? Who knows. I am not to judge that...but at the very least, that you may loathe Bush is understandable for whatever reasons, but let's not make a saint out of Saddam and pretend that Iraq didn't engage in state-sponsored terrorism or that they didn't violate the resolutions to bolster your opposition to Bush.

[The once and future king]

By invading Iraq, and getting involved in the resulting quaqmire, the political will does not now exist for military action against Iran et al.

Therefore the invasion of Iraq is against the rational of military intervention against terror sponsering states.

So far the only evidence you have put forward for Iraq sponsering terrorism is via it giving 25K to families of suicide bombers.

So thanks to this intervention some Palastinian mothers are poorer and yet Iran and Syria can support terrorism unmolested.

The whole point is that given the overt rational given by Bush is so obviously false, there must be another agenda to the conflict.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
"Dozens of contacts are between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda are well documented."

Sources/links please? Thanks.

"Any one who still wants to maintain the Saddam's was a secular regime and he had no sympathy for Islam didnt read his statements after capture and on trial."

I think you and I, of opposite political viewpoints, both agree Saddam Hussein is a patholgocial liar and his statements after his capture and while on trial are designed for public consumption, likely to win him sympathy (at least in his own mind) within the Islamic world. His actions while in power are a better judge of his positions. Bin Laden himself, in early 2003, called for a temporary alliance with the " socialist infidel" Hussein only in defense of the upcoming American invasion

[/ QUOTE ]

Stephen Hayes, you know it well.

Pathological liar? so you pick and choose which statements you are want to believe because they fit your world view?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, what ever degree of support for "terrorism" reps can summon up, it will still be much much much much much much less than the support offered by other countries such as Iran Syria and N Korea.

So on the supporting terrorism rational there are at least 2 or 3 countries that should have been invaded before Iraq.

To attempt to use Bush's rationalisations for the war in Iraq is just blatently calling black white.

[/ QUOTE ]

If attack was the only solution with any given country you might have 1/2 an argument. As it is youve got a paper bag that doesnt hold water.