This has been quoted twice now as evidence that he didn't say that Iraq was an "imminent threat".
Yet that is exactly what he is saying!
His first sentence clashes with the rest, he claims people want to wait until the threat is imminent, then argues against waiting until *after* an attack has occured, which implies an attack is imminent.
A classic "junior" tactic of combining sophistry with stupidity.
There are no semantics to ?wrangle? or hidden implications. Bush argues against waiting until the threat is made manifest (and thus "imminent") PRECISELY because that may not happen in time to take action. Bush is NOT saying the threat is imminent, or that an attack will happen soon, he saying it?s unpredictable and difficult to foresee - therefore, he expresses urgency.
The distinction shouldn?t be difficult for someone who is so self-assured about understanding language. You should know what ?an imminent threat? means. For example, if Bush had said: ?We have conclusive information that Saddam Hussain is about to launch a major military strike on the United States. The threat is imminent and we must take action? ? well THAT?s imminent.
Got it?
Quote:
So you think that a state or a religion murdered 3000 people? And that "strategy" plays no part in the deaths (or murders) of people in wars (or terrorist attacks)?
Are *you* serious?
It's no wonder you have trouble understanding the problems in the semantic wrangling discussed in this thread if this truly reflects your ability to use and understand language (or you could just be a blinkered partisan).
Huh ? Who said strategy had no part in terrorism ? Once again you go ballastic over imagined meaning, I said that Addabox's maintaining that terrorism "IS JUST" (meaning ONLY or EXCLUSIVELY)a strategy is utterly false. Addabox maintained that if it were not a state or religion, it had to be just one thing - strategy.
Got it ?
Perhaps your head would be clearer if you were a little less viscerally fevered.
So, The TPM results are in. Here are the good parts:
Perle:
Quote:
And the only point I want to make is that as long as Saddam is there, with everything we know about Saddam, as long as he possesses the weapons that we know he possesses, there is a threat, and I believe it's imminent because he could choose at any time to take an action we all very much hope he won't take.
And Bush in the speech I linked to twice in this thread:
Quote:
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Ari:
Quote:
Question: Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?
Fleischer: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all.
Bush:
Quote:
We are united in our determination to confront this urgent threat to America.
Rummy:
Quote:
But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
As for Bush's much contended paragraph in the State of the Union, Josh points this out:
But what the president is saying here is that in the context of rogue states in alliance with terrorists we?ll never have the sort of advance warning which used to count as the evidence of an imminent threat. And thus what we had in Iraq actually amounted to an imminent threat. In fact, the administration anticipated this line of reasoning in its National Security Strategy document when it said ?We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today?s adversaries.?
Hey, look. MaxParrish lied, got called on it and he just went on ignoring it. How cute.
These people that base their world views on a series of falsehoods are funny.
My..My. I understand your limitations on time, but for someone that claims he's too busy to fully participate, it certainly annoys you when you?re not promptly answered ? with a little imagination, I?m sure you can appreciate different time zones and bedtimes.
Like you, I also have time limitations on critiquing the extensive the misinformation contained in your link to defense minutia and Saddam apologisms. So before you give me another link attesting to the innocence of the Rosenburgs or the benevolence of Uncle Joe, I?ll address the single quote of mine you selected ? using your ?source? of research.
I stated the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam were murky, but not absent. Among them I said ?Iraq?s ambassador to Turkey met with Bin Laden in 1998 (in Afghanistan), reputedly to offer him Iraqi refuge.?
Your sources says ?USA Today reported on September 26, ?Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counterterrorism chief, said the only known discussion? of Iraq offering to harbor al Qaeda ?occurred in 1998 when Farouk Hijazi, Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and reputedly a top Iraqi intelligence official, went to Afghanistan after al-Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. Hijazi offered al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq, but terrorist leader Osama bin Laden turned it down, Cannistraro says, because he did not want to become a tool of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.?
It supports my contention, so I?m not sure what you point is. Interesting though, if correct, Saddam thought it was in his interest to protect Bin Laden and his organization. Given that Osama did not accept the offer (a point never disputed), the incident showed Saddam?s interest in controlling terrorist operations ? not exactly an endorsement of his innocence is it?
In your reading, I think you missed the essential point of my post: that the American public does not make a granular distinction (nor should they) between different terrorists from the Muslim world. Trying to whitewash these groups (oh they weren?t really THAT close, or they didn?t REALLY like one another, or actually it was a different alphabet terrorist group, or he left that organization before joining another terrorist group, or that fellow in Iraq was Al Qaeda but he was?nt that important, or its been many years since the U.S. was threatened by XYZ group) fails to appreciate the relevant truths; i.e., that Saddam Hussain protected a wide swath of terrorist organizations, he recruited from their ranks, and conducted his own terror operations - just as it fails to acknowledge that almost all Islamic terrorists share a powerful and mutual animosity towards the United States regardless of their specific tactics or ends.
As to Salmon Pak and Hersch? I won?t close on most of Hersch at this point (you can imagine what I think of some of his crackpot investigations - his history kind of reminds me of my exposure to kook rightists of the CFR, Tri-lateral commission, and the Order of the Illuminati.)
However, I will leave you with this, from the War Over Iraq by Kaplan and Kristol: ?That camp is a school for terrorists, offering classes in assassination, hijacking, kidnapping and sabotage. ?We were training these people to attack installations important to the United States' a senior Iraqi defector told the New York Times?A parade of defectors have described how the plane is used to school terrorists ? including Islamic extremists from across the Arab world ? in the art of seizing commercial aircraft. 'They are even trained on how to use utensils for food, like forks, and knives provided on the plane' another defector told Aviation Week and Space Technology. 'They are trained to plant horror in the passengers by doing such actions.' The stories about the camp and the 707 have been corroborated in recent years by, among others, Charles Duelfer?? and ?Hamas too has benefited from Saddam?s generosity, apparently receiving training in weapons, even suicide bombing, at Iraq?s Salman Pak terrorist camp?.
Of course even Hersch carefully worded his brief on behalf of Saddam, noting that ?the camp?(has not) yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war? which is different than saying it was used for there is no proof or that it yielded evidence for counter-terrorism.
However, I will leave you with this, from the War Over Iraq by Kaplan and Kristol: ?That camp is a school for terrorists, offering classes in assassination, hijacking, kidnapping and sabotage. ?We were training these people to attack installations important to the United States' a senior Iraqi defector told the New York Times?A parade of defectors have described how the plane is used to school terrorists ? including Islamic extremists from across the Arab world ? in the art of seizing commercial aircraft. '
Max, are these the same defectors who said that Saddam was drowning in a sea of WMD? Could deploy WMD within 45 minutes? That there were WMD factories like Starbucks in Seattle?
MaxParrish loses. Obviously the Bush Administration did suggest that the threat was imminent. This is fact is not erased by the additional fact that, at different times, the Bush Administration also suggested that the threat was not imminent, but the U.S. had the right to attack anyway. Clearly the Administration and its allies made both claims - gladly playing both ends ? entirely unconcerned by the contradictions. And, as I have posted previously, either way they were wrong.
Bin Laden rejected the offer. Case closed and all evidence supports this.
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
However, I will leave you with this, from the War Over Iraq by Kaplan and Kristol: ?That camp is a school for terrorists, offering classes in assassination, hijacking, kidnapping and sabotage. ?We were training these people to attack installations important to the United States' a senior Iraqi defector told the New York Times?A parade of defectors have described how the plane is used to school terrorists ? including Islamic extremists from across the Arab world ? in the art of seizing commercial aircraft. 'They are even trained on how to use utensils for food, like forks, and knives provided on the plane' another defector told Aviation Week and Space Technology. 'They are trained to plant horror in the passengers by doing such actions.' The stories about the camp and the 707 have been corroborated in recent years by, among others, Charles Duelfer?? and ?Hamas too has benefited from Saddam?s generosity, apparently receiving training in weapons, even suicide bombing, at Iraq?s Salman Pak terrorist camp?.
Of course even Hersch carefully worded his brief on behalf of Saddam, noting that ?the camp?(has not) yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war? which is different than saying it was used for there is no proof or that it yielded evidence for counter-terrorism.
You do realize that the Irai defectors have been thoroughly and completely discredited, don't you? And you do realize that there was ZERO evidence that Salman Pak was used to train terrorist, hence the disappearance of it from public dialogue, don't you?
Oh, and maybe you should research the lineage of theory that leads straight to Kristol to understand why he does what he does and what his role is. Someone who hasn't done their research and still believes in the tooth fairy might try to say it's a case of he said she said, but one side has a few thousand academics and students backing up the utility of deception for an theoretically practical purpose, while Hersh has thus far been unassailable. You might also have noticed how this spring the usual pattern was the printing of a Hersh article followed by the shake up of the admin. You can go ahead and bullshit about it all you want, but that's all you are doing.
But really, all it comes down to is that there is zero evidence that Salman Pak was used for 'training terrorists' and abundant evidence that it was not.
Tell me, was this iraqi defector the same one that claimed there was a hidden city under baghdad, or was it the one that claimed there were basses in the dunes that could travel underground by remote control?*
*These were actual claims by Iraqi defectors. Amazing, isn't it?
Bush and the Neoconservatives made many arguments for pre-emptive war.
Iraq was a threat because of its vast array of WMD.
Iraq has LINKS to Al-Qaeda and Ansar al Islam.
Iraq is attempting to procure yellow-cake.
Iraqi's want us to come and free them... we'll greeted with roses. Iraq we'll be easy to rebuild... they have all that oil to pay for it.
Have any of these been proven to be TRUE?
It doesn't matter if they said the threat was imminent... it's obvious now that Iraq was never a threat that warranted a pre-emptive war.
They gambled. And lost their shirt. Even if their intentions were noble... which I doubt... it was the wrong thing to do.
Next time when we go to war to fight terrorism... maybe we should fight terrorists. Our war with Iraq has done more harm than good in the effort to fight terrorism.
What's frustrating is that some good could still come out of Iraq... but the way the Bush administration went about it has made it several times harder than it should of been. And many more lives will be lost because of it.
The majority of electorate may not be as conversant in the details of a major issue as you are, but they seem more perceptive to the underlying truth. While the links between Al Queda and Iraq have been murky, it is untrue and misleading that there was a lack of evidence of such links. Iraq was strongly involved in the 1993 WTC bombing and subsequently protected several of the principals involved - at least one of which has close relatives in Al Queda leadership. Iraq?s ambassador to Turkey met with Bin Laden in 1998 (in Afghanistan), reputedly to offer him Iraqi refuge. Before that, when Osama lived in Sudan, Iraq funneled funds to the radical Islamic regime in the Sudan and to their supporter Osama Bin Laden. It is believed that, in 1994, Iraq directly supplied Osama with funds to support the Islamic radicals in Algeria that were seeking to overthrow the government. More recently, after the World Trade Center destruction, an Al Queda senior terrorist, was hospitalized in Baghdad and treated for his wounds (and released)and then resided in Iraq. It is known that Al Queda and Iraq have participated in conference(s) of terror groups in Lebanon.
In seeing the connection, the public perceives the larger, essential truth, i.e.; Saddam Hussein was a terrorist and a supporter of terrorism. Iraq was one of the principals of the 93 WTC bombing. Iraq dispatched two agents to kill President Bush in Kuwait in the early 90s. Iraq has provided haven and home for five or six other terrorist groups including: the Abu Nidal organization, the MEK (Muslim), PFLP, (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) and the PKK (Kurdish). At least two terrorist training camps (one at Salmon Pak) were established in Iraq. In other words, the electorate understands, that the essential truth is that in this war against the U.S. and its allies, one does not need to make such granular distinctions between two declared enemies and mutual supporters of terrorism ? anymore that one would have to make such distinctions regarding Japan and Germany.
Yes the Bush administration encouraged these beliefs so the public would think 911 = Iraq. None of these were talked about in support of going to war with Iraq for the simple reason it wouldn't have been enough to sway public opinion. The last sentence is just stupid and really has no relevence to the subject matter at hand as the elements of WWII were compleatly different.
Maybe the american public doesn't make "granular" distinctions between terrorists, but they should, and as a matter of policy the United States must.
The precise reason for many American's growing resistance to the Iraqi occupation is the (better late than never) realization that, in a campaign to improve the security of the United States against terrorists attack, Iraq is the wrong target.
Your arguments seem to consist of citing the odd bit of inconclusive data to butress the idea that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, but failing that, you fall back on the notion that it doesn't really matter, an evil Muslim is an evil Muslim. After all, if we are engaged in a global war of cultures, why get hung up on a little thing like culpability?
And this is why: America's response to the threat of terrorism must reamain proportionate, targeted, and just, or we will become the global equivalant (if we haven't already) of the frightened National Guardsman in Tikrit, spraying automatic weapon fire in a 360 degree circle because he thought he heard a shot.
The result? Dead civilians, another family filled with rage and hatred for the United States and all it stands for. Not "freedom". Not "democracy". The wanton exercise of disproportionate power.
Would you really have us turn the whole world into our West Bank, an endless and unwinnable cycle of opportunistic attack followed by massive retaliation that kills the guilty and innocent alike?
I made the point that terrorism is a strategy not because I don't think it dangerous, but because declaring "war" on it is absurd on the face of it.
We can no more win a "war" on terrorism than we could win a war on hatred.
You would solve this problem by ascribing terror to transnational coalition of Islamic jihadists to which you attribute the capacities and motives of a more convential enemy, such as the Soviet Union or facist Germany. This is convenient for your argument, since it allows you to coopt the rhetoric of those struggles (appeasement is a proven failure, the dsitinction between Iraq and, well, some other terrorist outfit is of no more importance than the difference between Japan and Germany).
This is the same self serving lie that made the cold war such a disaster for the "domino" states unlucky enough to serve as a battleground, overt or clandestine, for "freedom" vs. "tyrany". More importantly, it is a lie that can only lead to repeated "preemptive" attacks on countries within which the difference between military and civilian targets are impossible establish, since the "enemy" is any person or child who is willing to do violence to the US or her interests.
In other words, your world view requires the US to become a terrorist state in order to combat terrorism. Since the enemy is somehow simultaneously mighty, organized, diffuse and fluid, we have no choice but to set aside all standards of international relations and rules of engagement and wallop the bejezus out of anything tthat moves. After all, our very existence is threatened, so who could bame us?
And the answer to that question is: the next generation of terrorists.
The majority of electorate may not be as conversant in the details of a major issue as you are, but they seem more perceptive to the underlying truth. . . . In seeing the connection, the public perceives the larger, essential truth, i.e.; Saddam Hussein was a terrorist and a supporter of terrorism.
And therefore Iraq = terrorism = Imminent Threat.
Sorry I can't be more in depth. On dialup across the country and taking a break from sitting in the hospital with a dying friend. God, hospitals always have the worst cable....
The US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan killing 100's of thousands of civilians, and at a time when the Japanese leader was considered a living god. I'm sure Saddam is not held nearly to the same esteem by the Iraqi people. The same can be said regards Germany and Hilter.
The US made it clear what the goal in Iraq is. And so far there's nothing to suggest otherwise. And given the US's past history in such matters, I don't see how your statement above has any validity.
Once again your comparisons to germany and japan bear no resmblence to the realities of Iraq.
Japan attacked America and the whole pacific rim.
Germany... western and eastern europe and north africa.
Iraq? Kuwait in 1990.
Hey... I don't disagree with the idea that deposing Saddam was a good idea. But so would deposing the leaders of libya, cuba, various south american countries, north korea... france(hehe)... the sudan
It's a nice idea. Create democracy everywhere!
But pre-emptive war isn't the answer. Despite this justification.
Creating democracy is a long; culturally specific and economically driven endeavour. War is the weakest tool for its success.
1. Iraq was a threat because of its vast array of WMD.
2. Iraq has LINKS to Al-Qaeda and Ansar al Islam.
3. Iraq is attempting to procure yellow-cake.
4. Iraqi's want us to come and free them... we'll greeted with roses. Iraq 5. we'll be easy to rebuild... they have all that oil to pay for it.
1. Read the preliminary Kay report?
2. The al-queda link is there. Unclassified intel is the only thing you see. None of us do.
3. England stands behind the Intel on the yellowcake.
4. There are countless reports on how the Iraqis are welcoming all the help. Get real.
5. They do and overtime that will pay off, but the bush adminb does not want to destablise a budding democracy by burdening it with huge debt. They don't really even have any kind of economy there. You can thank Saddam for that. A bank loans you money based on your ability to repay. That country is in shambles and most of it has nothing to do with this current war. So many things need to be rebuilt. There is no real ability for them to pay it back now.
You are so full of it. Let me see any of those points backed by quotes from anyone important. That seems like a bunch of extremist talking points.
My experience has been that anyone that starts their argument with the word "Neoconservative" or "ulta left wing" is usually just a brainless partisan anyway. You have set yourself up as Uber Lefty.
See, I find that if you take the far left out of it and the far right out of it you get closer to the truth.
By the way, since there is formal definition of 'Neoconservative' explain in what your definition of the word is.
Once again your comparisons to germany and japan bear no resmblence to the realities of Iraq.
Japan attacked America and the whole pacific rim.
Germany... western and eastern europe and north africa.
Iraq? Kuwait in 1990.
Hey... I don't disagree with the idea that deposing Saddam was a good idea. But so would deposing the leaders of libya, cuba, various south american countries, north korea... france(hehe)... the sudan
It's a nice idea. Create democracy everywhere!
But pre-emptive war isn't the answer. Despite this justification.
Creating democracy is a long; culturally specific and economically driven endeavour. War is the weakest tool for its success.
Iraq attacked the US as well, although more indirectly. It also seems to me you want to play this both ways. On the one hand, you seem to imply the Muslim culture is incapable of democracy, yet on the other you would call me a bigot when I raise the kind of argument.
Hey... I don't disagree with the idea that deposing Saddam was a good idea. But so would deposing the leaders of libya, cuba, various south american countries, north korea... france(hehe)... the sudan
It's a nice idea. Create democracy everywhere!
But pre-emptive war isn't the answer. Despite this justification.
Creating democracy is a long; culturally specific and economically driven endeavour. War is the weakest tool for its success.
Comments
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
This has been quoted twice now as evidence that he didn't say that Iraq was an "imminent threat".
Yet that is exactly what he is saying!
His first sentence clashes with the rest, he claims people want to wait until the threat is imminent, then argues against waiting until *after* an attack has occured, which implies an attack is imminent.
A classic "junior" tactic of combining sophistry with stupidity.
There are no semantics to ?wrangle? or hidden implications. Bush argues against waiting until the threat is made manifest (and thus "imminent") PRECISELY because that may not happen in time to take action. Bush is NOT saying the threat is imminent, or that an attack will happen soon, he saying it?s unpredictable and difficult to foresee - therefore, he expresses urgency.
The distinction shouldn?t be difficult for someone who is so self-assured about understanding language. You should know what ?an imminent threat? means. For example, if Bush had said: ?We have conclusive information that Saddam Hussain is about to launch a major military strike on the United States. The threat is imminent and we must take action? ? well THAT?s imminent.
Got it?
So you think that a state or a religion murdered 3000 people? And that "strategy" plays no part in the deaths (or murders) of people in wars (or terrorist attacks)?
Are *you* serious?
It's no wonder you have trouble understanding the problems in the semantic wrangling discussed in this thread if this truly reflects your ability to use and understand language (or you could just be a blinkered partisan).
Huh ? Who said strategy had no part in terrorism ? Once again you go ballastic over imagined meaning, I said that Addabox's maintaining that terrorism "IS JUST" (meaning ONLY or EXCLUSIVELY)a strategy is utterly false. Addabox maintained that if it were not a state or religion, it had to be just one thing - strategy.
Got it ?
Perhaps your head would be clearer if you were a little less viscerally fevered.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Perhaps your head would be clearer if you were a little less viscerally fevered.
Perle:
And the only point I want to make is that as long as Saddam is there, with everything we know about Saddam, as long as he possesses the weapons that we know he possesses, there is a threat, and I believe it's imminent because he could choose at any time to take an action we all very much hope he won't take.
And Bush in the speech I linked to twice in this thread:
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Ari:
Question: Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?
Fleischer: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all.
Bush:
We are united in our determination to confront this urgent threat to America.
Rummy:
But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Check it all out here: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc...02.html#002175
As for Bush's much contended paragraph in the State of the Union, Josh points this out:
But what the president is saying here is that in the context of rogue states in alliance with terrorists we?ll never have the sort of advance warning which used to count as the evidence of an imminent threat. And thus what we had in Iraq actually amounted to an imminent threat. In fact, the administration anticipated this line of reasoning in its National Security Strategy document when it said ?We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today?s adversaries.?
Originally posted by giant
Hey, look. MaxParrish lied, got called on it and he just went on ignoring it. How cute.
These people that base their world views on a series of falsehoods are funny.
My..My. I understand your limitations on time, but for someone that claims he's too busy to fully participate, it certainly annoys you when you?re not promptly answered ? with a little imagination, I?m sure you can appreciate different time zones and bedtimes.
Like you, I also have time limitations on critiquing the extensive the misinformation contained in your link to defense minutia and Saddam apologisms. So before you give me another link attesting to the innocence of the Rosenburgs or the benevolence of Uncle Joe, I?ll address the single quote of mine you selected ? using your ?source? of research.
I stated the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam were murky, but not absent. Among them I said ?Iraq?s ambassador to Turkey met with Bin Laden in 1998 (in Afghanistan), reputedly to offer him Iraqi refuge.?
Your sources says ?USA Today reported on September 26, ?Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counterterrorism chief, said the only known discussion? of Iraq offering to harbor al Qaeda ?occurred in 1998 when Farouk Hijazi, Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and reputedly a top Iraqi intelligence official, went to Afghanistan after al-Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. Hijazi offered al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq, but terrorist leader Osama bin Laden turned it down, Cannistraro says, because he did not want to become a tool of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.?
It supports my contention, so I?m not sure what you point is. Interesting though, if correct, Saddam thought it was in his interest to protect Bin Laden and his organization. Given that Osama did not accept the offer (a point never disputed), the incident showed Saddam?s interest in controlling terrorist operations ? not exactly an endorsement of his innocence is it?
In your reading, I think you missed the essential point of my post: that the American public does not make a granular distinction (nor should they) between different terrorists from the Muslim world. Trying to whitewash these groups (oh they weren?t really THAT close, or they didn?t REALLY like one another, or actually it was a different alphabet terrorist group, or he left that organization before joining another terrorist group, or that fellow in Iraq was Al Qaeda but he was?nt that important, or its been many years since the U.S. was threatened by XYZ group) fails to appreciate the relevant truths; i.e., that Saddam Hussain protected a wide swath of terrorist organizations, he recruited from their ranks, and conducted his own terror operations - just as it fails to acknowledge that almost all Islamic terrorists share a powerful and mutual animosity towards the United States regardless of their specific tactics or ends.
As to Salmon Pak and Hersch? I won?t close on most of Hersch at this point (you can imagine what I think of some of his crackpot investigations - his history kind of reminds me of my exposure to kook rightists of the CFR, Tri-lateral commission, and the Order of the Illuminati.)
However, I will leave you with this, from the War Over Iraq by Kaplan and Kristol: ?That camp is a school for terrorists, offering classes in assassination, hijacking, kidnapping and sabotage. ?We were training these people to attack installations important to the United States' a senior Iraqi defector told the New York Times?A parade of defectors have described how the plane is used to school terrorists ? including Islamic extremists from across the Arab world ? in the art of seizing commercial aircraft. 'They are even trained on how to use utensils for food, like forks, and knives provided on the plane' another defector told Aviation Week and Space Technology. 'They are trained to plant horror in the passengers by doing such actions.' The stories about the camp and the 707 have been corroborated in recent years by, among others, Charles Duelfer?? and ?Hamas too has benefited from Saddam?s generosity, apparently receiving training in weapons, even suicide bombing, at Iraq?s Salman Pak terrorist camp?.
Of course even Hersch carefully worded his brief on behalf of Saddam, noting that ?the camp?(has not) yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war? which is different than saying it was used for there is no proof or that it yielded evidence for counter-terrorism.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
However, I will leave you with this, from the War Over Iraq by Kaplan and Kristol: ?That camp is a school for terrorists, offering classes in assassination, hijacking, kidnapping and sabotage. ?We were training these people to attack installations important to the United States' a senior Iraqi defector told the New York Times?A parade of defectors have described how the plane is used to school terrorists ? including Islamic extremists from across the Arab world ? in the art of seizing commercial aircraft. '
Max, are these the same defectors who said that Saddam was drowning in a sea of WMD? Could deploy WMD within 45 minutes? That there were WMD factories like Starbucks in Seattle?
Just asking.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
However, I will leave you with this, from the War Over Iraq by Kaplan and Kristol: ?That camp is a school for terrorists, offering classes in assassination, hijacking, kidnapping and sabotage. ?We were training these people to attack installations important to the United States' a senior Iraqi defector told the New York Times?A parade of defectors have described how the plane is used to school terrorists ? including Islamic extremists from across the Arab world ? in the art of seizing commercial aircraft. 'They are even trained on how to use utensils for food, like forks, and knives provided on the plane' another defector told Aviation Week and Space Technology. 'They are trained to plant horror in the passengers by doing such actions.' The stories about the camp and the 707 have been corroborated in recent years by, among others, Charles Duelfer?? and ?Hamas too has benefited from Saddam?s generosity, apparently receiving training in weapons, even suicide bombing, at Iraq?s Salman Pak terrorist camp?.
Of course even Hersch carefully worded his brief on behalf of Saddam, noting that ?the camp?(has not) yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war? which is different than saying it was used for there is no proof or that it yielded evidence for counter-terrorism.
You do realize that the Irai defectors have been thoroughly and completely discredited, don't you? And you do realize that there was ZERO evidence that Salman Pak was used to train terrorist, hence the disappearance of it from public dialogue, don't you?
Oh, and maybe you should research the lineage of theory that leads straight to Kristol to understand why he does what he does and what his role is. Someone who hasn't done their research and still believes in the tooth fairy might try to say it's a case of he said she said, but one side has a few thousand academics and students backing up the utility of deception for an theoretically practical purpose, while Hersh has thus far been unassailable. You might also have noticed how this spring the usual pattern was the printing of a Hersh article followed by the shake up of the admin. You can go ahead and bullshit about it all you want, but that's all you are doing.
But really, all it comes down to is that there is zero evidence that Salman Pak was used for 'training terrorists' and abundant evidence that it was not.
Tell me, was this iraqi defector the same one that claimed there was a hidden city under baghdad, or was it the one that claimed there were basses in the dunes that could travel underground by remote control?*
*These were actual claims by Iraqi defectors. Amazing, isn't it?
Bush and the Neoconservatives made many arguments for pre-emptive war.
Iraq was a threat because of its vast array of WMD.
Iraq has LINKS to Al-Qaeda and Ansar al Islam.
Iraq is attempting to procure yellow-cake.
Iraqi's want us to come and free them... we'll greeted with roses. Iraq we'll be easy to rebuild... they have all that oil to pay for it.
Have any of these been proven to be TRUE?
It doesn't matter if they said the threat was imminent... it's obvious now that Iraq was never a threat that warranted a pre-emptive war.
They gambled. And lost their shirt. Even if their intentions were noble... which I doubt... it was the wrong thing to do.
Next time when we go to war to fight terrorism... maybe we should fight terrorists. Our war with Iraq has done more harm than good in the effort to fight terrorism.
What's frustrating is that some good could still come out of Iraq... but the way the Bush administration went about it has made it several times harder than it should of been. And many more lives will be lost because of it.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
It doesn't matter if they said the threat was imminent... it's obvious now that Iraq was never a threat that warranted a pre-emptive war.
Exactly. It doesn't matter if it was said.
But, just for the record, it was.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
The majority of electorate may not be as conversant in the details of a major issue as you are, but they seem more perceptive to the underlying truth. While the links between Al Queda and Iraq have been murky, it is untrue and misleading that there was a lack of evidence of such links. Iraq was strongly involved in the 1993 WTC bombing and subsequently protected several of the principals involved - at least one of which has close relatives in Al Queda leadership. Iraq?s ambassador to Turkey met with Bin Laden in 1998 (in Afghanistan), reputedly to offer him Iraqi refuge. Before that, when Osama lived in Sudan, Iraq funneled funds to the radical Islamic regime in the Sudan and to their supporter Osama Bin Laden. It is believed that, in 1994, Iraq directly supplied Osama with funds to support the Islamic radicals in Algeria that were seeking to overthrow the government. More recently, after the World Trade Center destruction, an Al Queda senior terrorist, was hospitalized in Baghdad and treated for his wounds (and released)and then resided in Iraq. It is known that Al Queda and Iraq have participated in conference(s) of terror groups in Lebanon.
In seeing the connection, the public perceives the larger, essential truth, i.e.; Saddam Hussein was a terrorist and a supporter of terrorism. Iraq was one of the principals of the 93 WTC bombing. Iraq dispatched two agents to kill President Bush in Kuwait in the early 90s. Iraq has provided haven and home for five or six other terrorist groups including: the Abu Nidal organization, the MEK (Muslim), PFLP, (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) and the PKK (Kurdish). At least two terrorist training camps (one at Salmon Pak) were established in Iraq. In other words, the electorate understands, that the essential truth is that in this war against the U.S. and its allies, one does not need to make such granular distinctions between two declared enemies and mutual supporters of terrorism ? anymore that one would have to make such distinctions regarding Japan and Germany.
Yes the Bush administration encouraged these beliefs so the public would think 911 = Iraq. None of these were talked about in support of going to war with Iraq for the simple reason it wouldn't have been enough to sway public opinion. The last sentence is just stupid and really has no relevence to the subject matter at hand as the elements of WWII were compleatly different.
Maybe the american public doesn't make "granular" distinctions between terrorists, but they should, and as a matter of policy the United States must.
The precise reason for many American's growing resistance to the Iraqi occupation is the (better late than never) realization that, in a campaign to improve the security of the United States against terrorists attack, Iraq is the wrong target.
Your arguments seem to consist of citing the odd bit of inconclusive data to butress the idea that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, but failing that, you fall back on the notion that it doesn't really matter, an evil Muslim is an evil Muslim. After all, if we are engaged in a global war of cultures, why get hung up on a little thing like culpability?
And this is why: America's response to the threat of terrorism must reamain proportionate, targeted, and just, or we will become the global equivalant (if we haven't already) of the frightened National Guardsman in Tikrit, spraying automatic weapon fire in a 360 degree circle because he thought he heard a shot.
The result? Dead civilians, another family filled with rage and hatred for the United States and all it stands for. Not "freedom". Not "democracy". The wanton exercise of disproportionate power.
Would you really have us turn the whole world into our West Bank, an endless and unwinnable cycle of opportunistic attack followed by massive retaliation that kills the guilty and innocent alike?
I made the point that terrorism is a strategy not because I don't think it dangerous, but because declaring "war" on it is absurd on the face of it.
We can no more win a "war" on terrorism than we could win a war on hatred.
You would solve this problem by ascribing terror to transnational coalition of Islamic jihadists to which you attribute the capacities and motives of a more convential enemy, such as the Soviet Union or facist Germany. This is convenient for your argument, since it allows you to coopt the rhetoric of those struggles (appeasement is a proven failure, the dsitinction between Iraq and, well, some other terrorist outfit is of no more importance than the difference between Japan and Germany).
This is the same self serving lie that made the cold war such a disaster for the "domino" states unlucky enough to serve as a battleground, overt or clandestine, for "freedom" vs. "tyrany". More importantly, it is a lie that can only lead to repeated "preemptive" attacks on countries within which the difference between military and civilian targets are impossible establish, since the "enemy" is any person or child who is willing to do violence to the US or her interests.
In other words, your world view requires the US to become a terrorist state in order to combat terrorism. Since the enemy is somehow simultaneously mighty, organized, diffuse and fluid, we have no choice but to set aside all standards of international relations and rules of engagement and wallop the bejezus out of anything tthat moves. After all, our very existence is threatened, so who could bame us?
And the answer to that question is: the next generation of terrorists.
Originally posted by addabox
And the answer to that question is: the next generation of terrorists.
hmm,..
You seem to imply that Arabs are incapable of introspection.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
The majority of electorate may not be as conversant in the details of a major issue as you are, but they seem more perceptive to the underlying truth. . . . In seeing the connection, the public perceives the larger, essential truth, i.e.; Saddam Hussein was a terrorist and a supporter of terrorism.
And therefore Iraq = terrorism = Imminent Threat.
Sorry I can't be more in depth. On dialup across the country and taking a break from sitting in the hospital with a dying friend. God, hospitals always have the worst cable....
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Introspection with a gun to your head?
C'mon!
The US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan killing 100's of thousands of civilians, and at a time when the Japanese leader was considered a living god. I'm sure Saddam is not held nearly to the same esteem by the Iraqi people. The same can be said regards Germany and Hilter.
The US made it clear what the goal in Iraq is. And so far there's nothing to suggest otherwise. And given the US's past history in such matters, I don't see how your statement above has any validity.
Japan attacked America and the whole pacific rim.
Germany... western and eastern europe and north africa.
Iraq? Kuwait in 1990.
Hey... I don't disagree with the idea that deposing Saddam was a good idea. But so would deposing the leaders of libya, cuba, various south american countries, north korea... france(hehe)... the sudan
It's a nice idea. Create democracy everywhere!
But pre-emptive war isn't the answer. Despite this justification.
Creating democracy is a long; culturally specific and economically driven endeavour. War is the weakest tool for its success.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
1. Iraq was a threat because of its vast array of WMD.
2. Iraq has LINKS to Al-Qaeda and Ansar al Islam.
3. Iraq is attempting to procure yellow-cake.
4. Iraqi's want us to come and free them... we'll greeted with roses. Iraq 5. we'll be easy to rebuild... they have all that oil to pay for it.
1. Read the preliminary Kay report?
2. The al-queda link is there. Unclassified intel is the only thing you see. None of us do.
3. England stands behind the Intel on the yellowcake.
4. There are countless reports on how the Iraqis are welcoming all the help. Get real.
5. They do and overtime that will pay off, but the bush adminb does not want to destablise a budding democracy by burdening it with huge debt. They don't really even have any kind of economy there. You can thank Saddam for that. A bank loans you money based on your ability to repay. That country is in shambles and most of it has nothing to do with this current war. So many things need to be rebuilt. There is no real ability for them to pay it back now.
You are so full of it. Let me see any of those points backed by quotes from anyone important. That seems like a bunch of extremist talking points.
My experience has been that anyone that starts their argument with the word "Neoconservative" or "ulta left wing" is usually just a brainless partisan anyway. You have set yourself up as Uber Lefty.
See, I find that if you take the far left out of it and the far right out of it you get closer to the truth.
By the way, since there is formal definition of 'Neoconservative' explain in what your definition of the word is.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Once again your comparisons to germany and japan bear no resmblence to the realities of Iraq.
Japan attacked America and the whole pacific rim.
Germany... western and eastern europe and north africa.
Iraq? Kuwait in 1990.
Hey... I don't disagree with the idea that deposing Saddam was a good idea. But so would deposing the leaders of libya, cuba, various south american countries, north korea... france(hehe)... the sudan
It's a nice idea. Create democracy everywhere!
But pre-emptive war isn't the answer. Despite this justification.
Creating democracy is a long; culturally specific and economically driven endeavour. War is the weakest tool for its success.
Iraq attacked the US as well, although more indirectly. It also seems to me you want to play this both ways. On the one hand, you seem to imply the Muslim culture is incapable of democracy, yet on the other you would call me a bigot when I raise the kind of argument.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Hey... I don't disagree with the idea that deposing Saddam was a good idea. But so would deposing the leaders of libya, cuba, various south american countries, north korea... france(hehe)... the sudan
It's a nice idea. Create democracy everywhere!
But pre-emptive war isn't the answer. Despite this justification.
Creating democracy is a long; culturally specific and economically driven endeavour. War is the weakest tool for its success.
Bingo!