Qusay Hussein coordinated Iraq special operations with bin Laden's terrorist activities

YOSSEF BODANSKY - National Press Club

[roses of sharon]

Who knows? How much did the world-wide intell know then, and what do they know now?

All I know for sure is that our so-called investigative reporters have an agenda, and it is not terrorism ties to Saddam and Sons, it is the defamation of a US President, the troops, and the WOT effort.

[roses of sharon]

For the left history begins when they wake up in the morning.

But only on issues that hurt them, and help the US.

[roses of sharon]

Timely bump.

[roses of sharon]

Great article.

[liberallarry]

Thanks for the ping. I've never had a problem justifying the Administration's actions against Iraq.

Strangely, the Downing Street memos, which the Left has characterized as the smoking gun, only confirmed my views. After 911 the Administration decided Hussein was too dangerous to leave in power (He was a lightening rod for anti-American beliefs and actions and had a record of brutality and of using any means available to achieve his goals). George Friedman, in "America's Secret War", describes the Administration's shock at finding how little defense was possible against determined terrorism so its decision to pursue an offensive strategy is entirely reasonable.

The propanga used to sell the strategy - exagerating the immediacy of the threat (we had no proof of stockpiles of WMD or functional connections to Al Queda)- is entirely consistent with actions of all past Presidents who wished to justify military actions (Wilson and FDR both said they would not go to war, FDR provoked both the Germans and Japanese, "Remember the Maine" was largely unproved baloney as was Tonkin Bay, Mexico posed no threat to the US in 1845, etc).

We are in a war against a Muslim world view. Why not? Traditionally, the Muslims were not organized as nation states but as a theocracy spanning most of their conquests. The Islamists like bin Ladin seek to restore that organization. The only question is would sacrificing Israel moderate their conflict with us? My answer is no...or not enough to justify such an immoral act.

[roses of sharon]

A few of us here yesterday were just finding old stories for fun to slam the MSM for their "vanished decade" of the 90's. In which they pretend their reporting never happened in order to keep the "Bush lied" myth alive.

Agree fully with your analysis on the DSM, a political document, where I believe that when Blair decided to join Bush he said no to "regime" change, and would only go with Bush under a UN WMD resolution banner for war.

Bush said yes to Tony and Powell, and no to Cheney.

If he had gone with Cheney would Tony have said NO, how would it have gone without months and months and months of wrangling with the UN, war protests, ect?

If you have time, let me know what you think.

[liberallarry]

If he had gone with Cheney would Tony have said NO, how would it have gone without months and months and months of wrangling with the UN, war protests, etc?

The same or worse. We wouldn't have had allies or any international legitimacy and we would have gained little time since we were not militarily ready in 2002 and the weather was always a consideration.

[roses of sharon]

What about Bosnia, and other wars the UN was not asked to "bless"?

Maybe because it was not a ground war?

Thanks.

[petercooper]

Which one was Qusay?

[liberallarry]

Diffent enemy. My opinion.

[Milligan]

It's no Vietnam.


Maybe Lawrence of Arabia?