Cynical Nation

Barry,
Why do you repeat uncofirmed staff like that? Dont forget that one of the major excuses that the Bush administration used to start the war was an "official" Iraqi document demonstrating that Saddam was attempting to obtain uranium from Africa. That was subsequently proven to be a forgery. The truth of the matter is that the Iraqi regime had nothing to do with Bin Laden. In fact the Bin Laden jihadists were considering Saddam an "infidel" because he was secular.

Barry,
Why do you repeat uncofirmed staff like that? Dont forget that one of the major excuses that the Bush administration used to start the war was an "official" Iraqi document demonstrating that Saddam was attempting to obtain uranium from Africa. That was subsequently proven to be a forgery. The truth of the matter is that the Iraqi regime had nothing to do with Bin Laden. In fact the Bin Laden jihadists were considering Saddam an "infidel" because he was secular.

Blue, there is considerably more to the whole Niger/uranium story than the forged Italian documents. Joe Wilson himself reported that he believed Saddam tried to buy yellowcake in his report to the CIA. This was before his famous Op-Ed piece in the NYT in which he changed his story completely.

And regarding the "Saddam as secular infidel" meme, remember this very important maxim from the Arab world: "The enemy of the my enemy as my friend."

"The enemy of the my enemy as my friend."

Barry,
Thats all true, but dont forget that Saddam fought the 8 year war against Iran with the support of the west (remember his picture with Rumsfeld?). That made him a hated enemy in the jihadist circles. Saddam was a criminal monster, but was unrelated to Bin Laden. I think all the evidence points to that simple conclusion.

> remember his picture with Rumsfeld?

Yes, I was just never really sure what it was supposed to prove. And you keep drawing irrelevant topics into this. How is Iran pertinent? Revolutionary Iran is a Shiite country, and people like OBL regard the Shiite sect as heretical, even punishable by death. The 8-year Iran-Iraq war for regional dominance says nothing about Saddam and al Qaeda.

people like OBL regard the Shiite sect as heretical, even punishable by death.

That's certainly true and thats how they regarded Saddam as well.

Now, the picture with Rumsfeld proves a lot. At least in my opinion. It shows the extreme hypocrisy of certain neocons in the Bush administration. Should I remind you that it was around that time that Saddam killed thousands of people by gas in the Kurdish town? Why did n't Rumsfeld react then? Maybe because Saddam was an "ally" at that time? Dont tell me they did not know about it then...

> Maybe because Saddam was an "ally" at that time?

Uh... yeah, that'd be my guess.

And therefore...?

Well, dont you think is hypocritical for Rumsfeld to say that Saddam is a monster because he "used WMDs on his own people"? Why did he say that with 20 years delay? Why was he supporting him in 1982 as an ally, while he knew what kind of a monster he was and that he had gassed his people?

Yes, I agree, we waited far too long to remove him from power.

Nope. It is not simply that we waited too long. We actively supported him while he was doing these horrendous crimes, simply because he was fighting the Iranians. We only turned against him when he started misbehaving towards us. The whole thing reflects terrible hypocrisy of the republican administrations.

> We only turned against him when he started misbehaving towards us.

Wait, now I'm confused. I thought he wasn't a threat to us?

He was a threat in the 1990s. He was not in 2003.

Why do you repeat uncofirmed staff like that? Dont forget that one of the major excuses that the Bush administration used to start the war was an "official" Iraqi document demonstrating that Saddam was attempting to obtain uranium from Africa. That was subsequently proven to be a forgery.

Excuse me, BW, how is this 'official' document a fraud? Do you have proof or is this just the usual mumbo-jumbo from the left on caprtured documents just now being translated?

And, as always, you seem incapable of committing only one egregious error per post when you trot out a complete misrepresentation of Bush's SOTU speech. Hint:

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

The British government still stands by that today.

Further, as Barry points out, so did Wilson in his original report.

Can you guys ever deal with facts rather than incorrect dogma and the assumption that anything which violates the template that Bush lied, no matter what pedigree it possesses, is automatically dubious because...well, just because?

There's nothing "hypocritical about acknowledging the FACT that there are no permanent alliances, only permanent interests.

In the 1980s Saddam's regime was a useful ally against the Soviet-backed Iranians.

At that time, Saddam's Iraq was a useful and strategic ally and one that helped bring down one of the most "evil empires" on earth - the former USSR.

After that conflict ended, things changed and our relationship with Saddam's Iraq soured.

You're incorrect that, "He was a threat in the 1990s. He was not in 2003," the TRUTH is "HE BECAME A THREAT in the 1990s." A very real threat that was blithely ignored by a Democratic President during that time.

Hussein worked in collusion with the al Qaeda run Ansar al Islam camps in northern Iraq, against a common enemy - the Kurdish freedom fighters, who've long pushed for an independent Kurdistan in that region.

Now other examples of the Hussein regime's cooperative interactions with OBL & al Qaeda are coming to light and those who've sought to dismiss those out of hand before, now find, they CANNOT.

Look, we also sided with the Afghan mujahadim, NEVER the outside/foreign "jihadists," in that country, like OBL, who joined that cause to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Every CIA official alive at that time corroborates that no U.S. aid went to the non-Afghan mujahadim and OBL has denied his group ever received any U.S. aid, as well.

Still, many of those Afghans we DID support, later became the Taliban.

So?

There's NO hypocrisy there!

They were a useful ally or tool for a time, and now they're an enemy. All that proves is that interests CHANGE and alliances SHIFT...big deal.

We give Israel something like $5 BILLION in foreign aid each year as OUR sattelite in that region, but we give Egypt about the SAME EXACT amount!

Why Egypt?

To keep the radical Muslims from overthrowing that government and setting up a Medeaval theocratic state. Ditto for our aide to Pakistan...and Saudi Arabia.

There's NOTHING at all "hypocritical" about looking after your own interests and allowing those interests to shift and change your alliances. In fact, it's good business. It's just common sense!

Excuse me, BW, how is this 'official' document a fraud?

Mal,
Inform yourself better. That document has been accepted as fraud by everyone, including the CIA and the Bush administration. It was supposedly showing a memo from a minister in Hussein's goverment asking for the tubes. It was subsequently discovered that this was not the actual Iraqi minister and the forgery was easy to prove. A good question is not whether the document was forged, but who did the forgery. That remains unknown todate.

JMK,
There are 2 things that reflect extreme hypocrisy by the republican administration:

1. The statements used routinely by Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc. that "Saddam has used WMDs on his own people" referring to the massive killing of the Kurds by gas in the 1980s. Why? Because Rumsfeld was a key member of the administration then that perceived Saddam as an ally because he was fighting the Iranians. Rumsfeld and others knew well then the crimes of Saddam, but they "silently" accepted them. That simply shows that they did not care what happened to the Kurds. 20 years later, when it was in their "interests" to start a war in Iraq, they remembered how terrible was what Saddam did then. If thats not hypocrisy, what is it?

2. Another neocon statement is "Saddam attacked two of his neighbors". Thats something frequently heard in shows in Fox News and, even, by the president. But they never mention the 2 countries by name. Well, one is obviously Kuwait, and the other is of course Iran. The hypocrisy here is that he attacked Iran with the full approval of the republican administratin then. During the 8 year war against Iran there was active military support to Saddam by the republican administration then. I dont criticize that, but I think it is extreme hypocrisy to now imply that Saddam was dangerous because he attacked Iran, as Bush did.

Oh, and let's not forget where Iraq got their WMDs in the first place.

Excuse me, BW, how is this 'official' document a fraud?

Mal,
Inform yourself better. That document has been accepted as fraud by everyone, including the CIA and the Bush administration.

Gee, a newly released document seized from Iraq has already been discredited?

I don't think so.

What you did was cite a years old document which, as you said, has indeed been discredited. Kindly show me where that was mentioned in Barry's original post on this thread, BW.

It wasn't, was it?

So why trot that out when Barry and I were referring to a new document which doesn't deal with uranium at all but with the interaction between Hussein and bin Laden?

If you wish to post about the uranium, try another thread.

If you wish to respond to the topic at hand, I would like to hear it.

"What you did was cite a years old document which, as you said, has indeed been discredited.

Exactly. But that forged document then was one of the strong arguments that the Bush administration used as a proof that Saddam was an imminent threat. Now there is another "document" linking Saddam to OBL. How could one trust "documents" like that, after our previous experience with "documents" that support the administration's arguments. Especially when their validity has not been confirmed. Thats all I said.

If you wish to post about the uranium, try another thread.

No, Thanks. I like hanging out in this post. Cheers.

BW,

It doesn't matter where Saddam "got his WMDs from," nor that he was once an ally in that region. Interests change and alliances shift.

We didn't invade Iraq over Iran...we DID invade Iraq, when they attacked Kuwait, but neither of those are the reasons for the current invasion/occupation of Iraq.

Nor are "WMDs" the reason for the current invasion.

Nor is "bringing democracy to Iraq" the reason for the current invasion.

The primary REASONS for the current invasion were (1) our inability to trust the Hussein regime - his own generals believed he had WMDS right up until the U.S. & British invasion...leading EVERY Intelligence Agency on earth to believe he had stores of WMDs as well, and (2) his known ties to al Qaeda and support for international terrorism.

The SOLE TRIGGER for the invasion was Saddam's regime's refusal to abide by the "last chance Resolution," UN Resolution 1441.

Once he violated 1441, the invasion was necessitated by the stands both the U.S. & Britain took before going to the UN Security Council in 2002.

As for the Niger charge, that charge has never been debunked!

Where'd you get the idea that it was?

Britain's M-16 still stands by that claim, so does Italy Intelligence Service and the Czech Republic's...and Joe Wilson NEVER even sought to "debunk" the Iraq in Niger story. In fact, his report noted that Iraq officials were in Niger at that time and also noted that "Niger's only two exports were goats and Uranium."

The forged document did NOT debunk that charge in any way, or else Britain would not still stand by it. Hell, Joe Wilson would've felt vindicated and he has not, in fact since his ill-fated NY Times editorial, he's kept insisting that his report DID NOT undermine the British view...and as his observations noted above show - he did not.

Nor are "WMDs" the reason for the current invasion.

JMK,
I am glad that you finally agree with me that the Bush administration deliberately lied to the American people.

Again, EVEN the "hated Bush administration" NEVER claimed that WMDs were the reason that Sadam's regime had to be toppled.

Of course, G W Bush, like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, like the CIA, Britain's M-16, Italian, Russian, Czech, and Spanish Intelligence Services ALL BELIEVED that Iraq had not disposed of the WMDs it was known to have (the ones we sold them). In fact EVERY Iraqi General believed that, so the Bush administration HAD to reasonably assume that the Iraqi Military leaders knew even more than any outside Intelligence Services.

The ONLY REASONABLE course pre-invasion was to believe that Iraq still possessed WMDs.

STILL, the ONLY reason for the invasion was Iraq's violation of 1441.

Italian, Czech, and Spanish Intelligence Services ALL BELIEVED that Iraq had not disposed of the WMDs

I am intrigued that you take seriously the intelligence services from these countries. The spy agencies in these countries are probably great in spying on the mistresses of the pime ministers there, but can not be taken seriously on security matters. The references to them show how low and desperate the republican arguments have become.

What do you have invested in believing what is clearly not so?

The FACT is that ALL the world believed that Saddam's Iraq had WMDs because Saddam saw threats from neighbors like Iran more imminent than any Coalition invasion and postured to all, as though he still possessed them.

The FACT that the Iraqi Military believed they had stockpiles of WMDs right up to within a few months of the Coalition invasion makes it clear that the ONLY reasonable position for anyone outside Iraq before March 2003 to take, was precisely the position that the CIA, M-16 and the REST of the WORLD's vaunted Intelligence agencies all took - that Saddam's Iraq had WMDs.

Regardless, the Coalition invasion wasn't predicated upon Iraq having WMDs. That was a mere "selling point."

Iraq's clear ties to international terrorism, including al Qaeda terrorists was far more vital an interest of ours at the time.

Still, the SOLE "reason" for the invasion of Iraq was Saddam's refusal to comply with UN Resolution 1441.

The U.S. and Britain BOTH made it very clear that it was a "last chance" Resolution and that they would proceeed Militarily if that Resolution was NOT adhered to, with or without UN support.

The NY Times, of all outlets wrote a recent article that dispelled the famous "The Bush administration lied" charge!

See? If it's true that Iraq's Military leaders believed they had WMDs and most of the world's Intel Agencies believed the same, then the CIA's and the Bush administration's agreement with that is NOT a "lie."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/international/middleeast/12saddam.html?_r=2&adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=1142132938-g+zmA6soi5lK28n2EbRmqQ&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

“The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense...”

“...In December 2002, he told his top commanders that Iraq did not possess unconventional arms, like nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, according to the Iraq Survey Group, a task force established by the C.I.A. to investigate what happened to Iraq's weapons programs. Mr. Hussein wanted his officers to know they could not rely on poison gas or germ weapons if war broke out. The disclosure that the cupboard was bare, Mr. Aziz said, sent morale plummeting.

"To ensure that Iraq would pass scrutiny by United Nations arms inspectors, Mr. Hussein ordered that they be given the access that they wanted. And he ordered a crash effort to scrub the country so the inspectors would not discover any vestiges of old unconventional weapons, no small concern in a nation that had once amassed an arsenal of chemical weapons, biological agents and Scud missiles, the Iraq survey group report said.

"Mr. Hussein's compliance was not complete, though. Iraq's declarations to the United Nations covering what stocks of illicit weapons it had possessed and how it had disposed of them were old and had gaps. And Mr. Hussein would not allow his weapons scientists to leave the country, where United Nations officials could interview them outside the government's control.

"Seeking to deter Iran and even enemies at home, the Iraqi dictator's goal was to cooperate with the inspectors while preserving some ambiguity about its unconventional weapons — a strategy General Hamdani, the Republican Guard commander, later dubbed in a television interview "deterrence by doubt."

"That strategy led to mutual misperception. When Secretary of State Colin L. Powell addressed the Security Council in February 2003, he offered evidence from photographs and intercepted communications that the Iraqis were rushing to sanitize suspected weapons sites. Mr. Hussein's efforts to remove any residue from old unconventional weapons programs were viewed by the Americans as efforts to hide the weapons. The very steps the Iraqi government was taking to reduce the prospect of war were used against it, increasing the odds of a military confrontation."

NY Times

Saddam may have been lying (he may have cleaned up his country before the attack, relying on promises from, uhhh, interested countries to protect him so long as he wasn't caught with their WMD tech), but if Saddam's top generals assumed he had WMD's, how can it be said Bush lied?

Can a foreign President really be expected to have better intelligence than a country's top military leaders?

But it gets even worse!

How about Democrat Bob Kerry (former Senator from Nebraska) now admitting that Saddam's Iraq clearly had ties to al Qaeda?!

Is Bob Kerry now a "traitor" to the Democratic cause?

Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show

BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 24, 2006
http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=29746

"CAIRO, Egypt - A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner (bob Kerry) says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

"In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerry, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.

"Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." Mr. Kerrey said he believed America's understanding of the deposed tyrant's relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed.

"Last night ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden."

Blue, it gets worse and it gets worse and it gets worse for those who simply choose to deny links between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda and continue to cling to the foolish notion that Iraq was "no threat" to vital U.S. interests" (oil & Israel).

I mean the NY Times defects...and then Bob Kerry!

The FACT is that ALL the world believed that Saddam's Iraq had WMDs

JMK,
I have news for you. I did not! I thought that Saddam had no WMDs then. So your statement is incorrect :)

To me it looked like a hoax then (late 2002) and I thought Bush was lying then. The facts proved me correct. Pretty much the majority of the country now believes Bush lied (you are in the minority).

You also distort how Europe viewed the whole thing. Do you forget that France, Germany and the vast majority of the european countries desperately tried to stop the war from starting? Know why? Because they knew the whole thing was a fake.

"I have news for you. I did not!" (Blue Wind)

You're not a CIA official, or a member of M-16 are you, Blue?

OK then, your GUESS was that Saddam had no WMDs.

Guesses don't count for much and Intelligence agencies try not to rely on them all that much.

With Saddam's Military leaders all believing that Iraq possessed WMDS the ONLY prudent course was to "take them at thier word." That's why the CIA, M-16, and most of the rest of the world's Intelligence Services all believed that Iraq still possessed WMDs.

France, Germany and Russia ALL rushed in to protect their illicit under-the-table deals that violated the Oil for Food Program, as the invasion neared.

Now France and Germany are two of the most vehemently anti-Muslim nations in Western Europe.

I'm breathlessly awaiting the mass expulsion of Arabs and Muslims from those lands and the reclamation of French and German culture by REAL French & Germans.

At any rate, potential WMDs and ties to al Qaeda were the reasons we were wary of Saddam's Iraq.

But it was Iraq's refusal to comply with 1441 that triggered, or was "the reason" for the invasion of Iraq.

As I showed, the NY Times printed a piece that completely discredited the "Bush Lied" myth and Bob Kerry just jumped onto the "Saddam had ties to al Qaeda" camp.

Did you hear that crackling sound?

That's the ice breaking beneath bulwark of your arguments.

As I showed, the NY Times printed a piece that completely discredited the "Bush Lied" myth.

I read the article but it did not discredit anything. Are you sure it was not in a dream in your sleep that the NYT turned pro-Bush? :)

Well, let me help you isolate the portions that debunked the "Bush administration lied" myth; "Seeking to deter Iran and even enemies at home, the Iraqi dictator's goal was to cooperate with the inspectors while preserving some ambiguity about its unconventional weapons — a strategy General Hamdani, the Republican Guard commander, later dubbed in a television interview "deterrence by doubt."

"That strategy led to mutual misperception. When Secretary of State Colin L. Powell addressed the Security Council in February 2003, he offered evidence from photographs and intercepted communications that the Iraqis were rushing to sanitize suspected weapons sites. Mr. Hussein's efforts to remove any residue from old unconventional weapons programs were viewed by the Americans as efforts to hide the weapons. The very steps the Iraqi government was taking to reduce the prospect of war were used against it, increasing the odds of a military confrontation."

AND

“The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense...

“...In December 2002, he told his top commanders that Iraq did not possess unconventional arms, like nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, according to the Iraq Survey Group, a task force established by the C.I.A. to investigate what happened to Iraq's weapons programs. Mr. Hussein wanted his officers to know they could not rely on poison gas or germ weapons if war broke out. The disclosure that the cupboard was bare, Mr. Aziz said, sent morale plummeting."

What that refreshingly candid article proved was that Saddam's own Generals believed they had stockpiles of WMDs, which is what Saddam Hussein encoraged everyone to believe - "deterence by doubt."

If Saddam's generals assumed he had WMD's, how can it be said Bush lied?

It CAN'T.

WHY?

Because a foreign President can never be expected to have better intelligence than a country's top military leaders.

Like I said, first THAT and then Bob Kerry, former D-Senator from Nebraska and member of the 9/11 Commission says this, "In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerry, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.

"Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." Mr. Kerrey said he believed America's understanding of the deposed tyrant's relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed."

The NY Times debunks the "Bush LIED" myth and Bob Kerry acknowledges that Saddam Hussein was deeply involved with al Qaeda.

Who'd have thunk it?