Replies

Interviews with Paul Pillar and Bruce Tefft, formerly of the CIA, on what they did and didn't know on Saddam, al Qaeda

Saddam, al Qaeda question and the CIA PING

Thanks for the ping. Well the leftist sure were making categorical declarations day one there was NO Saddam and al Qaeda connections. How did they know? And just what all was destroyed in the early days of US sending Saddam underground? Another common answer given throughout these interviews nobody knows.

Saddam and his boys sure did seemed to have a very detailed handle on who was in or was not in country.

Bump for later.

M.E.: Recently released FBI files show that Saddam Hussein reportedly admitted only one or two meetings between his regime and al-Qaeda and that it was al-Qaeda who reached out to him and he rebuffed them (as opposed to reports of al-Qaeda rebuffing Iraq and there being more than just a “few” meetings). Is it your understanding that it was al-Qaeda pursuing the relationship and Iraq denied them or is there more to the story?

P.P.: That’s pretty much my sense. I don’t think there’s anything more to the story.

Only problem is the documents captured during the Liberation prove this claim to be factually incorrect so either the source has NO clue what he is talking about or he is another fraud posting as knowing more about the CIA then he actually does. Members of Saddam's Intellegence agency traveled to meet with Al Qeda respresenatives a number of times. That documented fact. So the whole contention here is either in error or and out and out lie.

In either case that level of factual error in the 1st 2 paragraphs indicates that this source is either wholly ignorant of the facts on Iraq or out and out lying.

Courtesy ping.

Nice you have feelings, too bad your feelings are complete divorced from all fact or reality.

Your claims are made up propaganda put out by arrogant fools too ignorant to admit they were wholly wrong about the Iraq war. The facts of the matter are complete at odds with these Neo-Isolationist lies your are repeating.

The "US Intellegence" Community had no ties with either Saddam or the Majaheeded in the 1980s. That is a lie. It has NO base in fact. NONE.

Here is a FACT your Neo-Isolationist liars cannot explain away. 99.9% of the weapons and equipment captured in Iraq were either Russian or European in origin. The US equipment was support equipment easily purchased on the International arms market.

What you are claiming is an Internet myth. A made up lie. It has no base in fact. It is political propaganda without the slightest hint of a clue of a notion of fact. Not sort of wrong, it is wholly wrong. Your "sources" are simply screaming an accusation with utterly no proof at all to back it up then repeating the lie over and over and over hoping their lie will become accepted as true if they just keep screaming it loud enough.

Here is what the Iraq war was about. This is fact. What you are claiming is just the usual hysteric drivel screamed by Neo Isolationist know nothing Libertines desperate for some way to excuse their being wholly wrong about the Iraq war. They are LYING TO YOU.

Why Iraq

One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the "Anti War movement") of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US's National "News" media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.

Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.

To start with Saddam's Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it's diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it's military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.

The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.

Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The "Holy" soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).

Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.

There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.

Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect" to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like "No Blood for Oil" or "We support the Troops, bring them home" or dumbest of all "We are creating terrorists" then to actually THINK.

Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their "god" will reward them for killing us.

So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido. Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming "We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad" and recruit the next round of "holy warriors". Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it -