VIDEO : The 9/11 plot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwD3DCiIpO8&eurl=

---

VIDEO : Saddam’s secrets
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1sx7x_saddams-secrets

---

NEWS : 02/24 2001 BBC News announced that a guy acting on Saddam’s behalf tried to hijack a yemeni plane with an US ambassador onboard.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1132409.stm

---

VIDEO : Al Gore blaming Bush sr for ignoring the Saddam-AQ ties
http://leblogdrzz.over-blog.com/article-10526967.html

---

NEWS : 02/13 1999 CNN announced that Saddam Hussein offerred asyluum to Bin laden in Baghdad.
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

---

VIDEO : 1999 ABC News documentary - Saddam offerred asylum to Bin Laden
http://leblogdrzz.over-blog.com/article-10557517.html

---

NOTE : Richard Spertzel, ISG member, former UNSCOM inspector : “Iraqi intelligence have their dirty hands in the 2001 anthrax attacks “ in the US
http://www.lauriemylroie.com/files/Spertzel_on_Shoham_Jacobsen2.htm

---

DOCUMENTS : Iraqi intelligence memos. Anthrax laboratories/Al-Qaeda groups notes
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200410/NAT20041011a.html

---

NEWS List of Saddam operatives working with AQ
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56020

---

NEWS Lawsuit ruling finds Iraq partly responsible for 9/11

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-05-07-911-judge-awards_x.htm

---

POLITICS - Rep Hollings (D-SC) : “Here, over a year ahead of time (i.e july 21, 2001) in the open press in Iraq, they are writing that this man is planning not only to bomb the White House, but where they are already hurting, the World Trade Towers.”

http://www.uscg.mil/Legal/Homeland_legislation/Text/091202%20Homeland%20Security.txt

bookmarked.

Those are all nice and dandy, but not nearly as legitimate as the terms of the ceasefire from the first Iraq war. Iraq was to have refrained from any hostilities against our planes over the no-fly zone.

Every week, Iraq locked on or fired missiles at such planes, effectively ending the ceasefire and allowing us to blow him completely to Hell.

That was the true reason it was not pre-emptive.

Saddam’s involvement in the anthrax attacks which followed 9/11 is provable and, after that, there’s nothing preemptive about it.

Ping

Bingo, if one wanted to fight this on legal grounds, the very first time Sadamn fired on one of our planes in the no fly zone, we had the right to attack... There are so many reasons, it would probably make our tax code look small. The reason why ‘now’ versus ‘later’ was specifically to pre-empt future aggression and support for terrorist states. That is the reason for timing, not the only reason for ‘why’...

Bookmarked for later

?? I think you had a premature ZOTTulation.

Threads like this miss the point. The reason Bush Sr didn’t invade Iraq the first time was because *he didn’t want to*. Smarter minds than the Bush W Administration knew that Iraq was a festering cess pool waiting to explode and wanted no part of it.

The next time some liberal idiot asks who authorized this war, tell 'em Clinton did.

L

Saddam himself WAS a WMD.
Tyrants are a threat to all free peoples.

Saddam who?

Saddam himself WAS a WMD.
Tyrants are a threat to all free peoples.

Careful with that argument - there are a lot of "threats to free peoples" out there. I have no desire to see the US military become the world's policeman.

When the US Congress is hiding like a pussy...

That's just not right.

Actually, I believe that you could say it was a lot of both.

It was a response to someone who had already been furtively attacking the United States (as well as violating the agreements that were supposed to end live fire in the first war), but it was also preemptive in the sense of heading off further, more devastating attacks on our nation. Saddam viewed himself as a great “Nebuchadnezzar” who was going to “bring America to its knees.”

I can also add, from my own personal memory, that at the time that 9/11 happened, I personally had been anticipating a major attack upon the United States. The attack, in my mind, was probably going to involve anthrax, and would very possibly be sourced by Saddam Hussein.

I never envisioned jetliners flying into major buildings, but I had been very concerned about a major attack.

At the time, NOBODY in the major public arena was talking much in these terms. The word "anthrax" was an obscure, virtually unheard-of term.

In late winter of 2001, I talked to at least one person about these possibilities, who literally thought I was a bit mentally disturbed. This is how far off the radar screen many Americans were viewing the potential of an imminent major terrorist attack in those days.

In retrospect, I wasn't a "seer," I simply had my ear to the ground a good deal more than most.

But the key point here is: I had a very clear concern about Saddam, specifically, backing a major terrorist attack against the United States.

Let’s forget for a moment about all the stated reasons for going into Iraq. Here’s why I think it was necessary. We needed a “playing field” (other than our own country) to draw them to us. Iraq, by virtue of it’s location and its past behavior, became the best location to go and wait for terrorists to show up. Along with Afghanistan, Iraq also gave us a border with Iran (look at a map) who has also been an ill-behaving entity for many years. So basically we are forcing AQ to spend their energy and resources going after us, but in their own backyard. The alternative would be to let them get physically closer to the US and hope we can stop them before they can please Allah. Finally, there was no reason to tell the world our game plan. Sorry citizens, but thanks to the way our news media functions, we can’t tell you without telling the enemy as well.

Iraq is the right war, at the right time, at the right place.