Posted on 06/17/2005 10:54:05 AM PDT by Graybeard58
Beats me .. the dems keep so much stuff stirred up so much of the time .. it's hard to figure some of it out.
You need to go and re-read section 10.3 of the report. The Commission didn't "rule out" anything. What they did was rehash some conclusions from Richard Clarke's memos and meetings with the administration. Excuse me if I treat all of that with a great deal of scepticism and consider the case NOT CLOSED.
We have no evidence is different from there is no evidence . . . true?
Yes .. I agree!
"It is not questionable that Saddam had ties to terror."
Nor is it questionable that the country most-responsible for 9-11 has remained uninvaded and still profits from American oil consumption, profits which are still used to preach anti-American hatred, confiscate Bibles, and persecute Christians while their leader holds hands with Bush in Texas.
So what's gonna happen next time? Don't we owe it to the troops to pick from the viable candidates? I don't know.
Alex, I'll take Saudi Arabia for $57 a barrel.
Regardless of what the president says, or what he means by we, or whatever . . . there is indeed CREDIBLE evidence that Saddam was involved, if not directly, then as an enabler. We know that he had foreknowledge of the attack.
The war was not sold as having anything to do with 9/11. Neither the president nor anyone in his administration said that Iraq was tied to 9/11.
The war was sold based on the WMDs, and even the Duelfer report does not rule out that they were moved. If you remember, Saddam threatened to use WMDs...do you do that if you don't have them? The intelligence, as the UN, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, Carl Levin, etc., etc. agreed, said Iraq had WMDs. Iraq threatened to use WMDs against us.
Iraq was trying to get uranium ore from Africa...Saddam sent "Baghdad Bob" Sayyaf, the information minister there to try to acquire uranium...not Niger, mind you, but Africa, just as the president said.
The war was sold based on Saddam's ties to terrorism...and those are clear. Abdul Rahman Yasin, who made the bomb in the first WTC attack, fled to Baghdad after the attack. Iraq provided money and housing to Yasin. Abu Abbas masterminded the hijacking of the Achille Lauro. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad April 2003. Abu Nidal received support, including safe haven, training, logistic assistance, and financial aid from Iraq, Libya, and Syria, living in Baghdad. Abu Musab al Zarqawi received medical care in Baghdad after leaving the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan following the fall of the Taliban. Saddam Hussein paid money to the relatives of suicide bombers.
What is wrong with eliminating such an enemy?
Now THAT is a FACT.
I'd say that any realistic assessment of what it takes to defend this country in the post-9/11 era starts with tackling the phenomenon of terrorism; tackling terrorism starts with going after their major sources of support, which are the state sponsors; and that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not only among the foremost of the state sponsors, but was also heavily entwined in the greatest variant of the terrorism threat (NBC terror), and not insignificantly was in an ongoing state of war with the United States dating back a decade.
Saying the only objective is OBL betrays a profound misunderstanding of our security situation. OBL is a symptom of a global problem, and is not in any significant way its leader.
see 51
"The implication of post #2, repeated often by broken glass bushpublicans, is that somehow the Iraq War is the logical reaction to 9-11, which is total Barbra Streisand. Going after Al Quaida had to do with 9-11. Iraq was and is a sideshow, based on bad intel, leaving nothing but an improvised Wilsonian utopianism to paper over the abject failures and misjudgements. It's a good thing the other party is so inept and unfit."
Glas someone else sees thru this facade. Afghanistan was a nice start to the WOT but since Iraq invasion in 2003, worldwide terrorist attacks have only increased while the House of Saud profits and persecutes Christianity.
Meanwhile, OBL is still alive and for that matter, so is Saddam.
Nor was there any connection between Germany and Pearl Harbor, yet U.S. Marines landed in North Africa several months after 12/7/41 to fight the German Army. Yet there was no carping in the media about 'fighting an enemy that didn't attack us' when we took on Rommel's divisions.
LOL. Are you still logging on every morning looking for discoveries of WMD, or did you give up on that over a year ago like most of us did? Are you still waiting to hear about some secret planning session that implicates Saddam? Get over it. It's not going to happen. If there is a total lack of evidence to support a notion, the notion is not supported. OK? It's not that difficult. Do I have to go to the North Pole to prove Santa Claus doesn't exist? You're grasping, and you're doing it for one simple reason: you don't like the idea that your team was wrong.
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding . . . we have a winner!
As evidenced by its continuation despite his being largely incapacitated and sidelined.
It's a good thing the folks of the WW2 era weren't as shortsighted as you and those with similar tunnel vision.
Explain to me what the rationale was for the US going after Germany in 1942, and I'll explain to you why we went into Iraq in 2003.
I'm not grasping. I've SEEN evidence to the contrary. A quote from the president doesn't alter that fact.
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.