Saw this the other day and it brought back a lot of memories.
Remember way back in early 2002, when we were all still thinking daily about 9/11 and Afghanistan? Then, out of nowhere, Bush started talking trash about Saddam and Iraq and I was like, "There's no way we're going to war with Iraq, because it's not even on the radar screen right now."
But, sure enough, Bush and his cronies started talking about Iraq day in and day out, and within a year we were at war. A war of choice. A war based on lies.
And the price continues to be paid, -- two and a half years later -- by Iraqi civilians, US servicepeople, US mercenaries, and US taxpayers. Thanks, President Bush.
Remember way back in early 2002, when we were all still thinking daily about 9/11 and Afghanistan? Then, out of nowhere, Bush started talking trash about Saddam and Iraq and I was like, "There's no way we're going to war with Iraq, because it's not even on the radar screen right now."
But, sure enough, Bush and his cronies started talking about Iraq day in and day out, and within a year we were at war. A war of choice. A war based on lies.
And the price continues to be paid, -- two and a half years later -- by Iraqi civilians, US servicepeople, US mercenaries, and US taxpayers. Thanks, President Bush.
Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an
Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993
nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy
director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden
asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting
in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi
intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency
intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese
military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in
1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons
of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice
Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in
1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told
the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had
supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working
closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with
September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting
for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000.
Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en
masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi
regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated
openly in Baghdad and received medical attention at a regime-supported
hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal
that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an
Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack...
Ian
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you a clear case of plagarism. Where did you cut and paste that from, Ian?
And, you choose whom to believe -- Ian's sourceless claims, or Colin Powell on 1/8/04:
"Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.'I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said." [NY Times, 1/9/04] as referenced here.
Or, if you don't believe the Bush Administration, how about the top EU investigator: "If there were such links [between Iraq and al Qaeda] we would have found them. But we have found no such links whatsoever." [LA Times, 11/4/02] from the same website above.
Or how about Dr. Condoleezza Rice, who said on 9/16/03 that "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein... had either direction or control of 9/11," also from the website above.
Or, how about analysis from non-political officals, like hardworking analysts in the intellegence community. This Washington Post article from June 22, 2003 says:
"A still-classified national intelligence report circulating within the Bush administration at the time [of Bush's claim that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the US], however, portrayed a far less clear picture about the link between Iraq and al Qaeda than the one presented by the president, according to U.S. intelligence analysts and congressional sources who have read the report."
While there might be room for debate on the extent of the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, it seems clear that Ian has not provided you with clear documentary evidence. I have. Ian's unclear evidence above refers to hearsay about low-level al Qaeda operatives who may or may not have been in Iraq at one time or another. This does not prove a link between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. If there were evidence of a high-level connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, it would have been declassified and paraded around the world. Instead, we have Powell admitting that such evidence simply doesn't exist. Iraq did not pose a terrorism threat. North Korea did. Afghanistan did. And we sidestepped those missions to go gallavanting around in Iraq.
Look, even if you (for some unknown reason) accept Ian's insistence that Saddam and al Qaeda had a link, do you feel that the war has been worth it? Do you feel safer now that we've uprooted Iraq and turned it into a huge quagmire? Do you feel good now that over 1,600 American servicepeople have died there, and yet Iraq is still in shambles? Are you happy with the over $200 Billion (and counting) that we've had to spend -- and we still can't even keep the power on? Are you happy with the low gas prices now that Iraq's oil is flowing -- whoops, looks like another explosion has knocked Iraq's pipeline system offline again.
This war was forced upon us by Bush and the Republicans. Iraq never attacked us. Iraq didn't pose a threat to us. There were better ways of dealing with Saddam than lauching a war with too few troops, too little international support, and no post-war plan. This is a colossal failure, and you've got one team to blame: Bush and the Republicans.
More on the status of Iraq from the NY Times.
This graphic shows key indicators of Iraqi life in May 2003 (when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished), June 2004, and May 2005.
Erik, the fact that I pasted the text from right here -
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/iraqalqaeda.htm
- doesn't make it untrue. By the way, you can check the articles at the bottom of that page. I just didn't have time to devote more attention to the ravings of an ardent Bush-hater.
"Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.'I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said." [NY Times, 1/9/04] as referenced here.
-Which doesn't mean that Saddam wasn't doing everything in his power to make it look like he had weapons of mass destruction right up until the point of the invasion.
Or, if you don't believe the Bush Administration, how about the top EU investigator: "If there were such links [between Iraq and al Qaeda] we would have found them. But we have found no such links whatsoever." [LA Times, 11/4/02] from the same website above.
-I'm supposed to believe Europe's top investigator because he says he would have found them? Please.
Or how about Dr. Condoleezza Rice, who said on 9/16/03 that "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein... had either direction or control of 9/11," also from the website above.
- Saying Saddam had no "direction or control" isn't a concession that he had nothing to do with it. If he aided the organization in any way - even by providing funding or safe haven for its members - then he had something to do with it.
"Iraq did not pose a terrorism threat. North Korea did. Afghanistan did. And we sidestepped those missions to go gallavanting around in Iraq."
- You realize, of course, that you're implying that you would have been all for an invasion of North Korea. And we did invade Afghanistan. Weren't you paying attention?
"Do you feel good now that over 1,600 American servicepeople have died there, and yet Iraq is still in shambles?"
-Most of whom are the red-state Americans that you make fun of in every other post. Quit pretending your buddy-buddy with them now. The Iraquis seem happy with all of the new freedoms that they've acquired since the invasion. Quit acting like Iraq is just one step up from the seventh circle of hell. Why are you so upset that Iraq is free?
"Are you happy with the over $200 Billion (and counting) that we've had to spend -- and we still can't even keep the power on? Are you happy with the low gas prices now that Iraq's oil is flowing -- whoops, looks like another explosion has knocked Iraq's pipeline system offline again."
- Ummm... take an econ class. The reason oil is still high is because China is using far more oil than it did prewar in order to develop their country. It's not like the rest of the world slept while the war was in progress.
You have my sources now, so I hope that you're happy. I'm not devoting any more time to this. A connection has been proven. What you want it evidence that Saddam helped to orchestrate the attacks. No one has that. He probably did not. He did help the organization out in other ways, and that made him a threat. I actually feel much safer, thank you. Bush's "colossal failure" got him re-elected as the only president with a majority vote since his dad. Deal with it.
Ian