• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

If Saddam Had Stayed

I don't recall him actually advocating for immediate withdrawal...

I do. It's the sole reason I voted for him in the primaries over Hillary.

I could be wrong of course ... however, I certainly don't recall candidate Obama talking about pursuing Bush's Iraq War strategy ...
 
I do. It's the sole reason I voted for him in the primaries over Hillary.
It might have been one of those things people falsely attributed to Obama at the time because of the cult of personality that developed around him.

I certainly don't recall candidate Obama talking about pursuing Bush's Iraq War strategy ...
Not really the same thing as abiding by an agreed-upon timeline for withdrawal that he had no part in negotiating.

The only people in the '08 campaign that I actually recall advocating precipitous withdrawal were Ron Paul, Kucinich and maybe Mike Gravel.
 
Not really the same thing as abiding by an agreed-upon timeline for withdrawal that he had no part in negotiating.

Even this is following Bush's plan ... I seem to recall an Obama who was more anti-Bush, anti-surge, anti-war, etc. than you do.

At any rate, my question still stands: If Obama is so smart, why is he pursuing Bush's idiotic Iraq strategy as president?

This question has given me pause in assessing my own opinion about Iraq. I, myself, have found no easy answers.
 
Last edited:
The Shrub handed Obama a grenade with no pin. Obama has to be very careful how he gets rid of it. There are certain rules that must be followed like the rules of physics.
 
Even this is following Bush's plan ... I seem to recall an Obama who was more anti-Bush, anti-surge, anti-war, etc. than you do.

At any rate, my question still stands: If Obama is so smart, why is he pursuing Bush's idiotic Iraq strategy as president?

This question has given me pause in assessing my own opinion about Iraq. I, myself, have found no easy answers.

It's following a deal that was brokered between the Iraqi government and the U.S. military and state department and signed off on by Bush. The difference might seem semantic but it's an important one. He's not "following Bush's plan" because Bush didn't hatch the withdrawal strategy unilaterally, the way he did with the initial invasion plan.
The withdrawal of the combat brigades falls right in line with the timeline he promised to pursue during the campaign link Obama has broken a lot of his key campaign pledges, but this is not one of them.
 
4400+ Americans would still be alive.

So you don't think Americans would have just died fighting all those al-Qaeda we killed in Iraq during the war somewhere else instead?

And what about the terrorist plots that would surely have been hatched from the relatively safety of Iraq?

You must be aware of the fact there was a chemical bomb plot against the US embassy in Amman that was funded by al-qaeda associated terrorists in Iraq. This case was tried in a Jordanian court, with witness after witness testifying, with the jury being shown the vehicles, chemicals and explosives the dozen terrorists brought into the country, with the terrorists admitting on video and in the court room to many details of the plot, including it's ultimate purpose, and with the jury convicting the terrorists, including al-Zarqawi. And that plot began in meetings in Baghdad, right under Saddam's nose. A good case can be made that the reason the plot failed is because of intelligence garnered from our presence in Iraq after the invasion and because we kept the mastermind of the plot more focused on running and hiding than overseeing the details of the operation? If so, perhaps that attack would have occurred and tens of thousands of Jordanians would now be dead (along with everyone in the US embassy in Amman at the time). Those were the estimates of casualties had the plot succeeded.

And what would make you think that would have been the only plot to come from the relative safety of an Iraq under Saddam's control in the intervening 7 years? You'd be naive to think it would have stopped there. You'd be naive to think Saddam wouldn't have helped them, given all we know about the connections he had with terrorism against the West and US, and his specific connections to al-qaeda and the Taliban. Only now we'd be worried that the next attack would be with Iraqi supplied WMD.
 
BAC, you are a walking facepalm macro.

You must be aware of the fact there was a chemical bomb plot against the US embassy in Amman that was funded by al-qaeda associated terrorists in Iraq. This case was tried in a Jordanian court, with witness after witness testifying, with the jury being shown the vehicles, chemicals and explosives the dozen terrorists brought into the country, with the terrorists admitting on video and in the court room to many details of the plot, including it's ultimate purpose, and with the jury convicting the terrorists, including al-Zarqawi. And that plot began in meetings in Baghdad, right under Saddam's nose.
[citation needed]
Frankly, if this was such an airtight reason for invading Iraq, the Administration surely would've cited it as such. God knows, they threw everything else out there.

A good case can be made that the reason the plot failed is because of intelligence garnered from our presence in Iraq after the invasion and because we kept the mastermind of the plot more focused on running and hiding than overseeing the details of the operation?
A case based on speculation and conjecture is not "a good case".

If so, perhaps that attack would have occurred and tens of thousands of Jordanians would now be dead (along with everyone in the US embassy in Amman at the time). Those were the estimates of casualties had the plot succeeded.
And if a nuclear plant in upstate New York has a meltdown tomorrow, hundreds of thousands, or maybe millions of people would be dead or irradiated. Is that a convincing argument for outlawing nuclear energy to you?

And what would make you think that would have been the only plot to come from the relative safety of an Iraq under Saddam's control in the intervening 7 years? You'd be naive to think it would have stopped there. You'd be naive to think Saddam wouldn't have helped them, given all we know about the connections he had with terrorism against the West and US
...such as...?

and his specific connections to al-qaeda and the Taliban.
LMAO. Good one. Almost had me going for a moment there.
Only now we'd be worried that the next attack would be with Iraqi supplied WMD.
Iraqi-supplied WMD [that didn't exist] that Saddam would so eagerly hand over to a global terrorist network [with which he had no credible ties].

...riiiiight...

I'd like some of what you're smokin'
 
Not to mention a minimum of 100,000 Iraqi civilians.

Millions of Iraqis died before we ever invaded.

What makes you think more Iraqi civilians would have not died if we hadn't invaded. The UN and WHO were claiming that Iraqi civilians were dying at the rate of thousands every single month prior to our invasion. Dying because Saddam wasn't supplying them with food, medicines, etc, that he was supposed to have purchased using the oil for food program. But instead he spent that money on weapons, palaces, the vices of his boys, secret bank accounts and brides for UN and non-coalition nation officials.

And what makes you think Saddam wouldn't have caused more mischief in the last 7 years leading to many more Iraqis dying, like he had in previous decades? Like the MILLION who died in his attack on Iran. Like all those who died in his attack on Kuwait. Saddam was so unstable (crazy) that he actually ordered his military to attack Israeli cities with chemical weapons during the first Gulf War. And Israel wasn't even a combatant. Fortunately, his military didn't carry out that order. After the war, he ordered an assassination attempt on ex-President Bush. Do you honestly think he would have been a "good boy" and not gotten into any more Iraqi-killing mischief between 2003 and now? Really? :rolleyes:

Oh, and the U.S. would be > $1trillion less in the hole.

NONSENSE. Three Chicago economists did a study of what not invading Iraq would have cost the US. And between the cost of maintaining a military presence to counter him, the cost of even one small Iraqi-supported terrorist attack and the cost of fighting al-qaeda elsewhere than Iraq, the cost would likely have been far MORE than a trillion dollars by the time Saddam and his sons leave power.

And of course there have been absolutely no benefits to promoting a western friendly, terrorist unfriendly, economic powerhouse in the region ... one with control of a sizable fraction of the world's oil. The problem with the anti-war movement is you folks never want to honestly examine the potential benefits of winning in Iraq and the costs of having done nothing about Saddam. Nor did you want to look at the costs of losing once we were in Iraq. And those costs could also be substantially more than the cost of remaining. If we lost, al-Qaeda would have gained strength and respect, and perhaps decided to use the same tactics in other locales. We might have ended up fighting suicide bomb fanatics in dozens of countries. And there would surely be costs ... substantial costs ... in fighting that.

Seriously, anyone still trying to justify this war is both intellectually and morally bankrupt.

LOL!
 
Isn't Bin Laden a Shiite muslim and wasn't Saddam a Sunni muslim? Don't those two hate each other? Isn't it very unlikely they would work together? Didn't Al Qaeda have a presence of about 2 people in Iraq prior to our invasion? Couldn't we have turned Saddam into an "friend" like Gaddafi?
 
Originally Posted by NoScotsman
Which Obama is smarter ... the anti-war, candidate Obama: who promised an immediate troop withdrawal (in early 2009)

I don't recall him actually advocating for immediate withdrawal…

Then you don't know your history.

Obama's Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007, that he introduced in January of 2007, called for U.S. combat forces to be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. What do you think Iraq would looked like now had we done that? It would have undone the Anbar Awakening, precluded the surge, significantly strengthened al-Qaeda, increased Iranian influence, and resulted in far greater civilian deaths. And Iraq's future would be a lot more grim than some of you folks seem to think it is now. Even after the surge was shown to be a success, Obama was still stuck on stupid, saying that even knowing it would be a success he still would have been against it.
 
Isn't Bin Laden a Shiite muslim and wasn't Saddam a Sunni muslim?[
Don't those two hate each other? Isn't it very unlikely they would work together? Didn't Al Qaeda have a presence of about 2 people in Iraq prior to our invasion? Couldn't we have turned Saddam into an "friend" like Gaddafi?

Both are Sunni. But Saddam was a Ba'athist, which was a secular Arabic nationalist party - something Bin Laden loathes arguably even more than Americans/Jews/Shi'ites.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by NoScotsman
I do. It's the sole reason I voted for him in the primaries over Hillary.

It might have been one of those things people falsely attributed to Obama at the time because of the cult of personality that developed around him.

... snip ...

The only people in the '08 campaign that I actually recall advocating precipitous withdrawal were Ron Paul, Kucinich and maybe Mike Gravel.

You don't know what you are talking about, CE.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mediate-withdrawal-US-combat-troops-Iraq.html

12 September 2007

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has called for the immediate withdrawal of all US combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.

"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was," said Obama.

"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now."

Of course he forgot to mention that in his recent pat himself on the back speech. :mad:
 
Then you don't know your history.

Obama's Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007, that he introduced in January of 2007, called for U.S. combat forces to be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. What do you think Iraq would looked like now had we done that? It would have undone the Anbar Awakening, precluded the surge, significantly strengthened al-Qaeda, increased Iranian influence, and resulted in far greater civilian deaths. And Iraq's future would be a lot more grim than some of you folks seem to think it is now. Even after the surge was shown to be a success, Obama was still stuck on stupid, saying that even knowing it would be a success he still would have been against it.

...and which of those things were stopped by the mystical "surge"?
 
Isn't Bin Laden a Shiite muslim and wasn't Saddam a Sunni muslim? Don't those two hate each other? Isn't it very unlikely they would work together? Didn't Al Qaeda have a presence of about 2 people in Iraq prior to our invasion? Couldn't we have turned Saddam into an "friend" like Gaddafi?

Yes the dislike of Saddam by Bin Laden is well reported. At best Saddam was agnostic possibly even an athiest. At one point when his popularity was dipping he began indulging in many Islamic observance.

The population reacted fairly poorly when they saw how little he knew about the religion he was supposed to be embracing

I dont think Saddam could ever be turned around, he really did see himself as the new Saladin of the Arab world
 
I dont think Saddam could ever be turned around, he really did see himself as the new Saladin of the Arab world
And pictures like this would only buttress that delusion.

338779856_9479ff0594.jpg
 
Quote:
You must be aware of the fact there was a chemical bomb plot against the US embassy in Amman that was funded by al-qaeda associated terrorists in Iraq. This case was tried in a Jordanian court, with witness after witness testifying, with the jury being shown the vehicles, chemicals and explosives the dozen terrorists brought into the country, with the terrorists admitting on video and in the court room to many details of the plot, including it's ultimate purpose, and with the jury convicting the terrorists, including al-Zarqawi. And that plot began in meetings in Baghdad, right under Saddam's nose.

[citation needed]

You are only demonstrating once again, CE, that you don't know your history. You are woefully uninformed. This was discussed extensively here at JREF with dozens of sources being supplied. You couldn't have missed discussion of this in the news UNLESS YOU WERE TRYING. But I'll go ahead and supply you some links (although some are no longer working):

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_6_30.html

Jordan CW Plot Suspect Admits Meeting with Zarqawi, A suspect in a foiled plot to detonate a chemical weapon in Jordan met beforehand in Iraq with fellow defendant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to discuss the planned attacks, according to a videotaped confession played in court yesterday (see GSN, June 23). The tape shows defendant Azmi al-Jayousi confessing that he planned to carry out attacks in Jordan, the Associated Press reported. “I met with Abu Musab in Baghdad, who told me that a man called al-Jubouri will be the contact man between me and Abu Musab,” said Jayousi, one of 13 suspects in an alleged plan to attack Jordanian intelligence agency headquarters in Amman.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/terencejeffrey/2004/05/05/11586.html

Four surviving alleged terrorists were shown in videotaped statements. Their self-professed leader was identified as Azmi al-Jayyusi. "In Herat (Afghanistan), I began training for Abu Musab," Jayyusi says in a translation published by the BBC. "The training included high-level explosives and poison courses. I then pledged allegiance to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and agreed to work for him without any discussion. After the fall of Afghanistan, I met al-Zarqawi once again in Iraq. "In Iraq, Abu Musab told me to go to Jordan along with Muwaffaq Udwan to prepare for a military operation in Jordan," said Jayyusi. Once he was in Jordan, Zarqawi sent him money via couriers, said Jayyusi. "He also supplied me, through messengers, with forged passports, identity cards and car registrations and all that is necessary."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4838076/

Jordan militants confess to 'chemical' plot, Alleged al-Qaida suspects wanted to kill 80,000, The Associated Press ... snip ... Azmi al-Jayousi, identified as the head of the Jordanian cell of al-Qaida, appeared Monday in a 20-minute taped program and described meeting Jordanian militant Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi in neighboring Iraq to plan the foiled plot.


Jordan Times 2005, 30 June 2005, by Rana Husseini

Jaiousi admits meeting with Zarqawi in Baghdad, receiving instructions for attacks ... snip ... Amman - The main defendant in the case of nine men standing trial for plotting the first chemical attack in the Kingdom, on Wednesday said he met with Abu Mussab Zarqawi in Baghdad to prepare for the alleged attacks. In a videotape confession screened during the trial at the State Security Court (SSC) yesterday, Azmi Jaiousi said he met with Zarqawi and two other men in Iraq. "Zarqawi told me there would be military operations in Jordan soon and we needed to prepare for them... he gave me around $50,000, weapons, explosive devices and instructions to launch attacks. Our first target was State Prosecutor Mahmoud Obeidat," Jaiousi was quoted as saying in the videotape. A second target was a General Intelligence Department (GID) officer who had blue eyes and a white Mercedes, he added. Jaiousi said he infiltrated into the Kingdom from Iraq in February 2002, hidden in a truck, and later met up with the rest of the defendants. Jaiousi also reenacted how he bought chemical substances, electric and electronic equipment and lab devices from shops in the downtown area.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184927,00.html

The 13 men — Jordanian, Syrian and Palestinians — were charged with conspiring to attack various sites in Jordan by setting off a cloud of toxic chemicals that would have killed thousands of people, according to prosecution estimates. The prosecution told the court that al-Zarqawi sent more than $118,000 to buy two vehicles which the plotters were to use in the attack. Suicide bombers were to drive the vehicles, loaded with explosives and chemicals, into the grounds of the General Intelligence Department in Amman and detonate them, prosecutors said. The plot also planned to attack the U.S. Embassy, the prime minister's office, and various intelligence and military court officials, the indictment said. The indictment said that when investigators conducted an experiment with small amounts of the chemicals found with the defendants, it produced "a strong explosion and a poison cloud that spread over an area of 500 square meters (yards).

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005/2/24/26d8fb80-a4d1-4de8-b790-a631a4b7a4d3.html

Nine men being tried in Jordan for allegedly plotting a foiled chemical attack asked yesterday to be put to death rather than let the trial continue, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Dec. 15, 2004).

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005/4/21/b3156726-58b2-447b-ae27-7669bf04a708.html

Suspects in a planned chemical weapons attack in Jordan possessed instructions on preparing germ and conventional weapons, witnesses said yesterday at the trial of the alleged plotters (see GSN, Feb. 24).

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_5_5.html

The trial of 13 people suspected of plotting a chemical attack last year in Jordan was halted yesterday following an angry outburst by the defendants that included a death threat and thrown shoes, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, April 21).

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200405030839.asp

Jordanian TV carried an interview with captured members of the attack teams, including the leader of the group, a Jordanian named Azmi al-Jayyusi, a long-time member of al Qaeda. He trained in Osama bin Laden camps in Herat, Afghanistan prior to the fall of the Taliban, under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who currently is orchestrating al Qaeda attacks against Coalition forces in Iraq. He was given "high level courses in explosives and poisons." After Afghanistan was liberated, Zarqawi ordered al-Jayyusi to Iraq — apparently before Operation Iraqi Freedom. He later infiltrated Jordan with others to plan their attack. Safe houses were procured by a Syrian who worked with Zarqawi. The team began to procure chemicals, they said through companies that used them for other purposes. Al-Jayyusi weaponized the chemicals himself, at small labs in secure warehouses. Money, trucks, forged passports, I.D. cards, and car registrations all came by courier through Syria. So did four of the ten members of the attack teams, three of whom chose to fight to the death with Jordanian security forces.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/06/historys-largest-wmd-trial-begins.html

Pictures of the captured chemical weapons aired on Jordanian television last year.

Al- Jayouzi received $170,000 for the suicide attack, the first large-scale chemical weapons attack by Al-Qaida:

Al-Jayousi said he received about $170,000 from al-Zarqawi to finance the plot and used part of it to buy 20 tons of chemicals. He did not identify the chemicals, but said they "were enough for all the operations in the Jordanian arena."

Images of what the commentator said were vans filled with blue jugs of chemical explosives were included in the broadcast.

Hussein, the car mechanic, said he met al-Jayousi in 1999 but did not clearly say when the terror plans were laid out.

The bearded Hussein, looking anxious, said al-Jayousi told him the aim was "carrying out the first suicide attack to be launched by Al Qaeda using chemicals" and "striking at Jordan, its Hashemite (royal family) and launching war on the Crusaders and nonbelievers.

Satisfied that this actually happened?

Quote:
And what would make you think that would have been the only plot to come from the relative safety of an Iraq under Saddam's control in the intervening 7 years? You'd be naive to think it would have stopped there. You'd be naive to think Saddam wouldn't have helped them, given all we know about the connections he had with terrorism against the West and US

...such as...?

And this time, I'm not going to bother repeating the facts discussed dozens and dozens of times in dozens and dozens of venues (including many mainstream left-leaning ones). I'll just let you wallow in your self-induced ignorance. Now of course, you could learn to use your browser...

Iraqi-supplied WMD [that didn't exist]

The Duelfer report concluded (didn't you read it?) that once the sanctions were gone, Iraq would have been able to produce chemical warheads within 6 months to a year and that Saddam had every intention of doing so. Wallow in ignorance, CE, if that' what you'd like to do. :D
 
I knew about the plot. My issue was with your claim that this was being planned "under Saddam's nose", and thus represented a compelling case of Saddam colluding with/providing safe haven for terrorists, for which you've still offered not a shred of evidence.
 
Last edited:
Both are Sunni. But Saddam was a Ba'athist, which was a secular Arabic nationalist party - something Bin Laden loathes arguably even more than Americans/Jews/Shi'ites.

Here's an excerpt from a translated, captured IIS (you do know who that is, don't you, CE?) report that was written after 9/11:

Our source in Afghanistan No 11002 (for information about him see attachment 1) provided us with information that that Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him the following:

1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama Bin Laden group visited Iraq.

2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama Bin Laden group have shown cooperation to hit target within America.

3. That in case it is proven the involvement of Osama Bin Laden group and the Taliban in these destructive operations it is possible that American will conduct strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh no, there was nothing going on between Iraq and al-Qaeda before the invasion. :rolleyes:

Ever hear the name Farouk Hijazi, CE? He was an Iraqi intelligence officer, who reportedly met with Bin Laden in Kandahar in December 1998. He is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," according to a 1999 report in the Guardian. Also in 1998, two of bin Laden’s senior military commanders, Muhammad Abu-Islam and Abdullah Qassim, visited Baghdad and met with Qusay Hussein. In its issue dated January 11, 1999, Newsweek quoted an anonymous "Arab intelligence officer who knows Saddam personally as warning that 'very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis' against Western targets. The Iraqi plan would be run under one of three 'false flags': Palestinian, Iranian, and the 'al Qaeda apparatus.' All of these groups, Newsweek reported, had representatives in Baghdad."

You just go on wallowing, CE. It behooves you.
 

Back
Top Bottom