If Saddam Had Stayed

[BeAChooser]

This is quite Rumsfeldian.

I proclaim you master of one-liners ... and not much else.

 

[joobz]

No, you don't know that, as I've proven in this thread.

YOu have not proved that in this thread.

But Iraq having wmd was but one reason for the war.

It was the original reason.

Might it be said to be accomplished now?

Your point?
That doesn't change that things were done poorly from 2003-2006.

That's your opinion. One not shared by the military, by the way.

So they felt the need to do the surge because everything was working so well?

What's embarrassing is thinking that invalidates in any way the premise for invading Iraq.

It doesn't invalidate the Iraq war. It demonstrates that it was misshandled from 2003-2006. THat was what Darth Rotor stated, and history supports his claim.

What is embarrassing is your not acknowledging what Abu Ghraib was like under Saddam. We can thank Bush for ending THAT embarrassment too.

If that is the best you have to offer, your position is less substantive than I had given it credit for.

 

[joobz]

BeAChooser,
I don't think we can proceed until you address these two contradictory views.

Tell you what, DR.

Why don't you address the OP?

What do you think Iraq and the world would now look like had the US not invaded in 2003?

Noone can really say with any certainty what would have happened had the Bush administration taken a different approach in 2003-2006.

How can anyone take you seriously when you are unable to remain consistent in your views. Are you admitting that speculation is fairly worthless, or do you want people to engage in a battle of speculations?

 

[BeAChooser]

YOu have not proved that in this thread.

Yes, I think I have, given that none of you can answer the 6 questions I asked and the ISG stated that they couldn't be sure if WMD were moved to Syria.

It was the original reason.

No, Bush outlined the reasons for invading Iraq in his 2003 SOU speech. And before that even democrat leaders were stating all the reasons Bush gave in that speech as a reason to topple Saddam.

Your point?

That doesn't change that things were done poorly from 2003-2006.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe doing what your side suggested … nothing? … would have been even poorer in the scope of things. That is, afterall, the point of the OP.

So they felt the need to do the surge because everything was working so well?

Just because what they were doing wasn't working, doesn't mean what they did was "unfocused" or "inappropriate". It just means it didn't work. Isn't it a military maxim that no plan survives contact with the enemy?

It demonstrates that it was misshandled from 2003-2006.

No, it only demonstrates that a few soldiers did stuff that was stupid. That happens all the time in war. It's happening even now, under Obama (who, by the way, is still holding people without formal charges, still interrogating them and still dropping bombs on innocent civilians ... according to many on the left). And rumors are still flying in Muslim countries, doing America harm. Do you know that an American soldier in Afghanistan the other day opened a locker of one of the Afghanis who is being trained and his Quran fell on the floor, completely by accident. And they eventually had to stop all training because word circulated through the camp that the American soldier deliberately threw the Quran on the floor. And even though the story was a complete fabrication, you now will never convince certain muslims and members of the left that didn't happen. Are you going to blame Obama for mishandling this?

What is embarrassing is your not acknowledging what Abu Ghraib was like under Saddam. We can thank Bush for ending THAT embarrassment too.

If that is the best you have to offer, your position is less substantive than I had given it credit for.

LOL! After reading this thread, do you really think that's the best I can offer? LOL!

 

[BeAChooser]

How can anyone take you seriously when you are unable to remain consistent in your views.

LOL!

joobz, I haven't claimed *certainty* about either possibility. I've explained why it is LIKELY that had Bush not invaded, things would now be much worse in Iraq and in the war on terror. And why it is LIKELY, that had we tried Obama's and the left's approach to the war, once the war was on, things would now be much worse than they are. That's the problem with you leftists ... you only want to deal in certainties and that's just not possible. You wanted certainty before we invaded and certainty after we invaded. You seem incapable of seeing the world in the shades of grey that it really is. You seem incapable of understanding and dealing with probabilities. But then the ability to do that is a wisdom that comes only with time and experience.

 

[joobz]

Yes, I think I have, given that none of you can answer the 6 questions I asked and the ISG stated that they couldn't be sure if WMD were moved to Syria.

So your proof of WMD is as solid as the proof of the paranormal.

No, Bush outlined the reasons for invading Iraq in his 2003 SOU speech. And before that even democrat leaders were stating all the reasons Bush gave in that speech as a reason to topple Saddam.

And some were outright wrong. But my point stands, the WMD was a bad reason.

Your emoticon doesn't answer my question.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe doing what your side suggested … nothing? … would have been even poorer in the scope of things. That is, afterall, the point of the OP.

Dems aren't "My Side".

Things were done poorly. That's what is fact, and not speculation like your WMD evidence.

Just because what they were doing wasn't working, doesn't mean what they did was "unfocused" or "inappropriate". It just means it didn't work. Isn't it a military maxim that no plan survives contact with the enemy?

abu ghraib was NEVER appropriate and the torture wasn't just a few soldiers.

LOL! After reading this thread, do you really think that's the best I can offer? LOL!

It is certainly better than your obvious contradiction in posts. So Yes, It does seem to be your best argument. The rest is mere unsupported speculation.

 

[BeAChooser]

LOL! I think it's time I go back to ignoring most of what you post, joobz.

 

[joobz]

LOL!

joobz, I haven't claimed *certainty* about either possibility. I've explained why it is LIKELY that had Bush not invaded, things would now be much worse in Iraq and in the war on terror. And why it is LIKELY, that had we tried Obama's and the left's approach to the war, once the war was on, things would now be much worse than they are.

As you said:
"Noone can really say with any certainty what would have happened had the Bush administration taken a different approach in 2003-2006"

So your "likely" statement is rather meaningless.
If you actually believe your "likely" stories are somehow valid, you should apply for the million dollar challenge. Or, put your talents to good use, like dosing.

That's the problem with you leftists

I'm not a leftist. Why do you feel the need to lob labels as insults?
I'm trying to have a rational conversation.

... you only want to deal in certainties and that's just not possible. You wanted certainty before we invaded and certainty after we invaded. You seem incapable of seeing the world in the shades of grey that it really is. You seem incapable of understanding and dealing with probabilities. But then the ability to do that is a wisdom that comes only with time and experience.

Seeing the world in shades of gray and making up wild speculations are not synonymous.

 

[joobz]

LOL! I think it's time I go back to ignoring most of what you post, joobz.

You are welcome to ignore me.
You need not defend your arguments.

 

[FireGarden]

LOL! Wikipedia is not exactly an unbiased source, FG.

Yes, i agree that wikipedia is a hotbed of liars. But I suggested you convince those referenced by wiki. I quoted a bit: the 911 commission, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. There are other references.

Perhaps not an "operational" relationship, but many portions of the intelligence community did indeed note friendly meetings between the two occurred. And it is very clear that even if Saddam didn't provide al-Qaeda with money (we isn't something that can be said with any certainty), he looked the other way as al-Qaeda operated within his country. Documents discovered in Iraq after the invasion prove this. In fact, those documents suggest even more. For example,

http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=29746

See this bit from your quote: "The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission's final conclusion in 2004, that there were no "operational" ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents."

I stand by previous suggestion: convince the experts in the US intelligence community first. Then come back and try me. What you have now are stories the US intelligence community do not feel they should tie their colours to.

And let me quote wikipedia, if that's the source you insist on, regarding a 2008 Pentagon report:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda#2007_Pentagon_Inspector_General_Report

The study "found no 'smoking gun' (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda."

Did you miss that bit? When the US intelligence community is willing to commit itself to the allegation that al-Qaeda and Saddam worked together -- rather than just report stories of such -- then come back and talk to me.

Nonsense. Bush went out of his way to get one. He delayed action far longer than was advisable, militarily, to get one.



Let me just quote what Rumsfeld noted:

Feel free. I don't see how it addresses my claim that Bush (and Blair) eventually gave up trying to get the actual resolution they wanted. (That Blair wanted, really).

That's not a claim I ever made. So it doesn't affect my "little world".

It doesn't affect you world view (I didn't call it little) that the US intelligence community acknowledges that they were lied to with the intention of convincing them to believe Saddam was working with al-Qaeda?

 

[FireGarden]

Noone can really say with any certainty what would have happened had the Bush administration taken a different approach in 2003-2006. But what we can say with certainty is that Bush was correct in authorizing the surge despite half of America (the Obama half) being against it.

History proves that was the right thing to do. And we can also say that Obama was Stuck On Stupid when he said at a time when the success of the surge was apparent to all, even him, that had he known back in 2007 that the surge would work he still would have been against it. THAT should be the dumbest thing you've heard, DR.

So no-one can know that there were better options than ones Bush chose -- leading to stuff you don't want to take credit for. But..., everyone must know that there was no better action than the surge?

I don't see how that is consistent.
Civil wars don't go on for ever. The one in Iraq may well have ended without the surge.

It looks like you want it both ways: When Bush's actions aren't pretty you want us to accept the alternative might have been worse. When you feel you can take credit for something, then you want us to exclude the possibility of anything better.


Damn, I could have saved time by just reading a little further to where Joobz highlighted two of your posts:

[...]
Didn't you just say?

[...]

 

[BeAChooser]

I quoted a bit: the 911 commission,

I quoted the 911 Commission, too. Let me repeat what I noted (courtesy of wikipedia … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations ):

"There are indications that [by 2001] the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.”

And there is considerable evidence that Ansar al Islam was part of al-Qaeda, thus linking Iraq to al-Qaeda. US and European governments, Kurdish security officials, and journalists all found evidence of links between Ansar al Islam and al-Qaeda. For example, the NYTimes discovered documents in an al-Qaeda guest house that discussed the creation of an "Iraqi Kurdistan Islamic Brigade" just weeks before the formation of Ansar al Islam. And Ansar al Islam members that the PUK captured confessed to having trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.

And let me point out that the 911 Commission report (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm ) also stated the following:

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda -- save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. … snip … With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. … snip … There is also evidence that around this time [1997] Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. … snip … In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. in March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al-Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet iwth Irai intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. … snip … Similar meeting between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship.

To summarize the above, the 911 Commission found numerous connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq … friendly connections. The 911 Commission report says it found no evidence of collaborative relationships, but that's no guarantee they didn't exist. Perhaps that evidence was in the documents that Iraq so desperately wanted to destroy just before, during and after the invasion of Iraq? Perhaps Iraq and al-Qaeda were trying to hide those connections (see sources below). Certainly documents found in Iraq and finally translated after the 9/11 Commisssion had already written it's report suggest there were collaborative relationships.

We certainly know that Iraq appears to have had a heads-up about the impending 9/11 attack, since a Iraqi newspaper owned by one of Saddam's sons (Qusay) published an article that seems to have made reference to it before it occurred. The author was an Iraqi with ties to Iraqi intelligence who stated bin Laden would “demolish the Pentagon after he destroys the White House and ” bin Laden would strike America “on the arm that is already hurting.” (perhaps referencing a second Iraqi sponsored attack on the World Trade Center). Another reference to New York was “[bin Laden] will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra everytime he hears his songs.” (e.g., “New York, New York”) which identified New York City as a target. Mulhalhal also stated, “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer." which perhaps references an airplane attack. All in all, quite a coincidence. How could these people have had such foreknowledge without Iraq being involved at some level? A court here in the US heard that evidence and concluded that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

And we know that by the time of the invasion, there were numerous terrorist training camps in Iraq. After the capture of the northern camp, American soldiers found among the dead foreign ID cards, airline-ticket receipts, visas, and passports from Yemen, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Tunisia, Morocco, and Iran. During the invasion, American soldiers encountered people of these nationalities (often engaged in acts of resistance and terror) all over Iraq. American soldiers found terrorist training camps in Samarra, Ramadi and Salman Pak, all directed by elite Iraqi military units. At Salman Pak, Marines found, suicide vests wrapped in plastic ready for shipment (to whom?). And facts like these were just ignored by the mainstream media (and the 911 Commission). James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, stated "there are at least five individual witnesses -- two American inspectors and three Iraqi defectors -- who tell us about Iraqi government training of non-Iraqi Arabs at Salman Pak on the southern edge of Baghdad, on an old Boeing 707 [aircraft], in hijacking techniques, including hijacking with knives." Charles Duelfer, saw the aircraft in 1995, and said "We were told it was for counterterrorist training." He then added "We automatically knocked off the word 'counter.'"

Here's an article on one of several murals discovered during the invasion and apparently depicting 9/11.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.mural/index.html

The article says this mural was found in an Iraqi military headquarters building. Note the date of the article ... March 26, 2003. The shock and awe attacks only began on March 20th. So do you really think that irked "Saddam supporters" found time to paint such daubs in that time frame? Did they paint this before the invasion but after Saddam invited in the inspectors? Unlikely. By the way, did you notice that the plane in the mural has the logo and color of Iraq airlines?

You see, FG, things aren't quite as black and white as you present. And that's the point of this whole thread. It's why your side of this debate can't answer the 6 questions I asked with any honesty or rationality.

the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

And I can quote the Senate Intelligence Committee too.

For example, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee released a 511-page report on the intelligence that served as the foundation for the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq. The report included a 48-page section on Ambassador Wilson (who statements liberals point to as proof Bush lied) that demonstrates, in painstaking detail, that virtually everything Joseph Wilson said publicly about his trip, from its origins to his conclusions, was false.

For example, the Senate Intelligence Committee cited a secret CIA memo that said Iraqi intelligence bankrolled Mohamed Atta in the months leading up to 9/11. That Atta met as many as four times in Prague with an Iraqi Intelligence asset, al-Ani, prior to the 9/11 attacks. "Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in June 2002, that "it is possible that Atta traveled under an unknown alias" to "meet with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague."

For example, the Senate Intelligence Committee report in 2004 found that al-Zarqawi roamed freely around Iraq. In fact, the report conclude that the CIA "reasonably assessed" that al-Qaeda or associated operatives were present in 2002 in Baghdad, and in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq? It notes the 2002 CIA document that stated "The presence of al-Qa'ida militants on Iraqi soil poses many questions. We are uncertain to what extent Baghdad is actively complicit in this use of its territory by al-Qa'ida operatives for safehaven and transit. Given the pervasive presence of Iraq's security apparatus, it would be difficult for al-Qa'ida operatives to maintain an active, long-term presence in Iraq without alerting the authorities or without at least their acquiescence." Their report noted "During a postwar debriefing with the FBI, a high-ranking Iraqi official stated that in October 2002, the IIS received a request from a foreign government service to locate five individuals who were also suspected of involvement in the Foley murder. According to the official, the IIS Headquarters passed down a written order to locate and arrest these individuals. In early 2003, the IIS successfully arrested one of the individuals, Abu Yasim Sayyem." But after noting that documents confirmed this, the report says "Although Sayyem denied any affiliation with al-Qa'ida or Zarqawi, the IIS officer believed the evidence of criminal activity provided by the foreign intelligence service against Sayyem was compelling. For this reason, the IIS officer was shocked when the Director of his division ordered Sayyem to be released. According to the Iraqi official, the Director of his division told him that Saddam Hussein ordered Sayyem's release." And then comes a statement that according to the CIA, a former IIS officer believed that Saddam released Sayyem because he "would participate in striking U.S. forces when they entered Iraq." Connect the dots, FG.

For example, the 2008 Senate Intelligence Committee report also concluded that "statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al Qaeda-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments." It says "intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi's presence in the country." It states that "postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al Qaeda was present in northern Iraq." It's a myth that Zarqawi and other al Qaeda operatives lived in Saddam's dictatorship without receiving at least the dictator's tacit support. That's cooperation whether you like it or not.

And regarding the 911 Commission and Senate *Intelligence* Committee, in general, the fact is that these reports were in many ways witch hunts, designed to point fingers in political fashion, rather than serve the truth. They were controlled by extreme partisans like John D. Rockefeller, who wrote a memo to democrat leaders talking about plans to beat Bush over the head using 9/11. So the members of these commissions and committees weren't above playing political games. Perhaps you should have read the minority views of Senators Bond, Hatch, Lott and Chambliss at the end of the 911 report ... which wasn't published in the liberal mainstream press. It contains statements like the following:

rather than attempt to improve our efforts to combat terrorism and make our country safer, the results of this investigation were calculated to promote a partisan agenda

Simply stated, this second series of reports is designed to point fingers in Washington and at the Administratin. The conclusions in the reports were crafterd with more partisan bias than we have witnessed in a long time in Congress. The "Phase II" investigatin has turned the Senate Intelligence Committee, a committee initially designed to be the most bipartisan committee in the Senate, into a political playground stripped of its bipartisan power, and this fact has not gone unnoticed in the Intelligence Community.

"We joined the Senate Intelligence Committee to conduct oversight, not to perform witch hunts;

There are other references.

Yes. And I can provide other references, too.

Like that 2002 CIA document that I mentioned which summarized its overall view of possible Iraqi complicity regarding al-Zarqawi's presence and activities this way:

The presence of al-Qa'ida militants on Iraqi soil poses many questions. We are uncertain to what extent Baghdad is actively complicit in this use of its territory by al-Qa'ida operatives for safehaven and transit. Given the pervasive presence of Iraq's security apparatus, it would be difficult for al-Qa'ida operatives to maintain an active, long-term presence in Iraq without alerting the authorities or without at least their acquiescence.

Like the Institute for Defense Analyses study of captured Iraqi regime documents in November 2007 (http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/206xwlcs.asp ) that found that when it came to "attacking Western interests": "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda - as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision."

Or like a formerly secret memo written by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to several senators in October of 2003 which stated, among other things, that:

According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

A CIA report from a contact with good access, some of whose reporting has been corroborated, said that certain elements in the "Islamic Army" of bin Laden were against the secular regime of Saddam. Overriding the internal factional strife that was developing, bin Laden came to an "understanding" with Saddam that the Islamic Army would no longer support anti-Saddam activities. According to sensitive reporting released in U.S. court documents during the African Embassy trial, in 1993 bin Laden reached an "understanding" with Saddam under which he (bin Laden) forbade al Qaeda operations to be mounted against the Iraqi leader.

Reporting from a well placed source disclosed that bin Laden was receiving training on bomb making from the IIS's [Iraqi Intelligence Service] principal technical expert on making sophisticated explosives, Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed. Brigadier Salim was observed at bin Laden's farm in Khartoum in Sept.-Oct. 1995 and again in July 1996, in the company of the Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti.

The Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti, met privately with bin Laden at his farm in Sudan in July 1996. Tikriti used an Iraqi delegation traveling to Khartoum to discuss bilateral cooperation as his "cover" for his own entry into Sudan to meet with bin Laden and Hassan al-Turabi. The Iraqi intelligence chief and two other IIS officers met at bin Laden's farm and discussed bin Laden's request for IIS technical assistance in: a) making letter and parcel bombs; b) making bombs which could be placed on aircraft and detonated by changes in barometric pressure; and c) making false passport [sic]. Bin Laden specifically requested that [Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed], Iraqi intelligence's premier explosives maker--especially skilled in making car bombs--remain with him in Sudan. The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with bin Laden as long as required.

According to a sensitive reporting [from] a "regular and reliable source," [Ayman al] Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz.

Indeed, documents unearthed in April 2003 in the Iraqi Intelligence headquarters by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, included a 1998 memo written by Iraq's intelligence service detailing coming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered by liquid paper that, when revealed, exposed a plan to increase cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to that memo, the IIS agreed to pay for "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The document set as the goal for the meeting a discussion of "the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The al Qaeda representative, the document went on to suggest, might provide "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden." And just four days after the date on that memo, bin Laden issued his fatwa on the plight of Iraq at the hands of America, calling on his followers to "kill all Americans and their allies--civilians and military".

You'd have to be blind not to connect these dots, FG.

And there are many, many more dots. For example, from the Woolsey memo ...

According to sensitive reporting, a Malaysia-based Iraqi national (Shakir) facilitated the arrival of one of the Sept 11 hijackers for an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur (Jan 2000). Sensitive reporting indicates Shakir's travel and contacts link him to a worldwide network of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Shakir worked at the Kuala Lumpur airport--a job he claimed to have obtained through an Iraqi embassy employee.

And just to remind you, Shakir was detained in Qatar in September of 2001. Found in his possession was contact information for terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and the September 11 hijackings. The CIA had previous reporting that Shakir had received a phone call from the safe house where the 1993 World Trade Center attacks had been plotted. The Qataris released Shakir shortly after his arrest. On October 21, 2001, he flew to Amman, Jordan, where he then change planes to a flight to Baghdad. But Shakir was detained before the flight took off and for several months the CIA interrogated him in Jordan. The Iraqi regime pressured Jordan to release him. So did Amnesty International. So they did, at which point he's believe to have fled to Iraq.

You'd have to be blind not to connect the dots, FG.

Now one of the attendees of that meeting in the Kuala Lumpur Hotel in January 2000 was Tawfiz al Atash, a top bin Laden lieutenant, who was later identified as the mastermind of 2000 attack on the USS Cole. What a coincidence. Sorry, but you and the 9/11 Commission missed the obvious. There were indeed operational connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

And then we have the Atta/al-Ani connection. As pointed out in the Woolsey memo,

The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, [Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir] al Ani, on several occasions. During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office.

… snip …

CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague--in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000; data surrounding the other two--on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information.

And not just Gross was standing by that information. Five high-ranking members of the Czech government publicly confirmed meetings between Atta and al Ani. And their opinion has not changed to this day. If al Ani and Atta met, and al Ani provided (at the minimum) funds to Atta just prior to 9/11, then that can only be described as operational cooperation.

And that cooperation apparently continued after 9/11. Again, from the Woolsey memo …

al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The report also said that al Qaeda members involved in a fraudulent passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel.

… snip …

References to procurement of false passports from Iraq and offers of safe haven previously have surfaced in CIA source reporting considered reliable. Intelligence reports to date have maintained that Iraqi support for al Qaeda usually involved providing training, obtaining passports, and offers of refuge. This report adds to that list by including weapons and money. This assistance would make sense in the aftermath of 9-11.

Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi's procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere.

Quote:
The study "found no 'smoking gun' (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda."

Did you miss that bit?

No, that's why I quoted it. What you miss is that the reasons they failed to find a smoking gun is that a smoking gun implies certainty where none is possible, or that Iraq sanitized it's archives of the smoke and gun. And there plenty, as noted in this thread, to suggest that's what they did.

When the US intelligence community is willing to commit itself to the allegation that al-Qaeda and Saddam worked together

Like I said, you folks demand *certainty* where there is none. Which perhaps is one reason your side of the political aisle consistently leaves messes that need cleaning up. That's the whole point of this thread. Maybe by not insisting on *certainty*, Bush avoided an even bigger mess than what we created/encountered. The left's insistance on certainty, may mean waiting till people are dying by the tens of thousands in the street (or in a subway tunnel) from a WMD attack before doing anything at all. And I don't think most people want that. Nor do they want the response that Obama and company seem to suggest when that finally happens ... of empathy training and sending in the clowns (I mean lawyers) rather than the military.

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

If nothing else, you have to admire his tenacity.

 

[BeAChooser]

Civil wars don't go on for ever. The one in Iraq may well have ended without the surge.

Well there's your mistake. Thinking it was just a "civil war".

 

[willhaven]

They'd be alive.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/iraq/

 

[BeAChooser]

They'd be alive.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/iraq/

Not necessarily. Why do you think we'd not have had to fight al-Qaeda somewhere had we not fought it in Iraq? Long before the invasion in Iraq, al-Qaeda had tens of thousand of would be terrorists and supporters moving through it's camps in Afghanistan. Iraq simply acted as fly paper. If those terrorists hadn't gone there to die, they'd have gone somewhere else, where we'd have had to fight them. Perhaps under conditions that were much less advantageous than in Iraq. Plus, how do you know that had they not died in Iraq they wouldn't have killed Americans (and others) in terrorists attacks elsewhere? al-Qaeda murdered over 3000 on 9/11. Perhaps one reason they haven't been able to mount such a successful large scale attack since is that they've been preoccupied with the fly paper. Hmmmmmm?

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

here we go again...

 

[BeAChooser]

here we go again...

And we can always depend on you for one-liners.

 

[leftysergeant]

Not necessarily. Why do you think we'd not have had to fight al-Qaeda somewhere had we not fought it in Iraq?

Remeber when that moron Rummy whined about there being no good targets in Afghanistan? Guess the old coot forgot about the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Long before the invasion in Iraq, al-Qaeda had tens of thousand of would be terrorists and supporters moving through it's camps in Afghanistan. Iraq simply acted as fly paper.

So what gave Rummy and ther Shrub to dump manure on Saddam's steps to bait al Qaeda there?

Don't those idiots realize that it is easier to hit an enemy with an actual location in time and space, rather than small cells making up ad hoc operational units?

(OH! Silly me, presuming a capability on the part of Rummy and the Shrub to grasp a military concept much more complex than keeping the narrow end down-range.)

If those terrorists hadn't gone there to die, they'd have gone somewhere else, where we'd have had to fight them.

Yeah, they would have gone to die where we had already ammassed troops to arrange their transportation to the Garden.

 

[joobz]

here we go again...

Let's remember that the entirety of BAC's arguments and counterarguments are going to take the following form.

What do you think Iraq and the world would now look like had the US not invaded in 2003?

What do you think it's relationship with terrorists would now be?

What would it's relationship with neighboring countries be?

What would now be our and the world's response to Iraq's behavior?

Address the points I made above about those things.

Think you can do that? In the interest of non-stupidity?

Noone can really say with any certainty what would have happened had the Bush administration taken a different approach in 2003-2006.