BB, the report says what it says. Trying to pass it off as offering evidence of proven connections based on the language therein constitutes word games by Republicans.
Vroom,
“Wow, you have proven connections where those doing official studies have not. Perhaps you should be doing the studies instead. Alternately, what point of doing these studies if you, with no information at all, are able to come to better conclusions.”
You clearly didn’t read all the way through my piece. All I acknowledge is what is known - terrorist support for Palestianian suicide bombers, safe haven for al-Zarqawi, and the Chair of the 9-11 Commission saying that there are definitely connections.
No more, no less. I don’t have better conclusions or evidence than what is generally and publicly known - nor am I pretending to. What I do suggest is that shoving your head in the sand like an ostrich in light of this general and public information is foolish and dishonest. It isn’t a ‘word game’ for a qualified, priviliged public servant to announce that there were connections.
[quote]vroom wrote:
BB, the report says what it says. Trying to pass it off as offering evidence of proven connections based on the language therein constitutes word games by Republicans.[/quote]
Exactly – it says what it says – no more, and no less… You’re just doing the reverse of what you claim the Republicans are doing.
The report says: contacts, but not a working relationship, with both “contacts” and “working relationship” essentially undefined.
To the extent you take the report as proof, that is proof of contacts, but not of a working relationship - whatever that distinction happens to mean.
Vroom,
When was the last time that Canada was attacked? Why do you care so much about what happens here in the USA?
What happens in the USA is not going to change your life, so why care so much?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The report says: contacts, but not a working relationship, with both “contacts” and “working relationship” essentially undefined.
[/quote]
I think you made a great point here. The pretext for war was “Iraq has WMD” or, alternatively, “Saddam was directly linked to 9/11.”
Now the story is “Iraq wanted but did not have WMD.” And, “Saddam’s regime had some contacts with terrorism.”
Perhaps this is too subtle of a difference to change your mind about things, but to me, the later story is not enough. It is not what I was informed of when war was declared, and, in MY opinion, not a good reason to start a unilateral conflict.
Saddam is still a ratbastard regardless.
[quote] Sugar wrote:
Vroom,
When was the last time that Canada was attacked? Why do you care so much about what happens here in the USA?
What happens in the USA is not going to change your life, so why care so much?
[/quote]
A handful of answers to your post (not that it was addressed to me, but I like Vroom’s posts:) )
(1) The discussion is about international war. It concerns every human on this planet.
(2) Canada is a major US ally, is our closest neighbor (sorry Mexico), participates in NATFA, etc: our domestic and foriegn policy matter A LOT up there. What we as a nation choose to do very well might change his life.
(3) Lets assume that the discussion was about domestic policy, and that said policy had nothing to do with him, in any possible way. Why does that bar him from creating criticism? Outsiders to a system can offer a unique and useful point of view. I think all Americans can agree that we should at least see what other citizens of the world think, even if that isn’t going to modify our behaviour.
[quote]JandersUF wrote:
I think you made a great point here. The pretext for war was “Iraq has WMD” or, alternatively, “Saddam was directly linked to 9/11.”
Now the story is “Iraq wanted but did not have WMD.” And, “Saddam’s regime had some contacts with terrorism.” [/quote]
Janders – It was sold as “Saddam sponsored terrorism.” Now it’s “Saddam sponsored terrorism generally, including Palestinian terrorists and some specific terrorists who had hijacked airliners and killed Americans, was haroboring terrorists, and had some level of ties between “contacts” and a “working relationship” with al Queda specifically.”
As for WMD, I’ll repost the relevant part of the Mickey Kaus’ take that I posted on a thread specifically related to the WMD claims:
“1) If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that?”
To me, what we have now is plenty justification – and don’t forget that WMD was only one of the main justifications. It got the most play because that’s the one those who wanted to avoid going in to Iraq fixated upon it, so that’s the one that got defended over and over.
On that we can definitely agree.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
JandersUF wrote:
I think you made a great point here. The pretext for war was “Iraq has WMD” or, alternatively, “Saddam was directly linked to 9/11.”
Now the story is “Iraq wanted but did not have WMD.” And, “Saddam’s regime had some contacts with terrorism.”
Janders – It was sold as “Saddam sponsored terrorism.” Now it’s “Saddam sponsored terrorism generally, including Palestinian terrorists and some specific terrorists who had hijacked airliners and killed Americans, was haroboring terrorists, and had some level of ties between “contacts” and a “working relationship” with al Queda specifically.”[/quote]
And in another week or two it will be “Saddam knew some terrorists, and actually attended a wedding or party or something where terrorists were possibly present.”
The point is that the justification keeps shifting to fit the facts as they emerge. The problem was that the original lie was too specific, they should have lied broadly, then it would have been easier to hit these moving targets as they pop up now.
[quote]
As for WMD, I’ll repost the relevant part of the Mickey Kaus’ take that I posted on a thread specifically related to the WMD claims:
“1) If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that?”[/quote]
The issue here is that the sheriff had kept a close eye on the man in question for ten years and had pretty severly restricted his capability to aquire a gun. The sheriff had also just spent a few years doing a pat down search of the man and said he had no gun. The sheriff then offered to perform a cavity search of the man, at which point Bushleague declared that that was pointless, because it was obvious that the man had not just a gun up his ass, but an entire arsenal. Bushleague then ordered the sheriff to “get the hell out of the way, cause I’ma gonna shoot his ass.”
Now he says “dang, looks like the sheriff was right. He didn’t have a gun after all, but if he could have got one he’d have shot somebody. So I was right anyway.”
[quote]
Perhaps this is too subtle of a difference to change your mind about things, but to me, the later story is not enough. It is not what I was informed of when war was declared, and, in MY opinion, not a good reason to start a unilateral conflict.
To me, what we have now is plenty justification – and don’t forget that WMD was only one of the main justifications. It got the most play because that’s the one those who wanted to avoid going in to Iraq fixated upon it, so that’s the one that got defended over and over.[/quote]
to you, yes.
[quote]
Saddam is still a ratbastard regardless.
On that we can definitely agree.[/quote]
No arguement at all, just questioning the return on the $200B investment of removing him.
Bad idea, bad justification, bad plan, bad execution.
[quote]Saddam supported terrorism - that is not disputed. Whether it was offering financial assistance to Palestinian Islamikazes or giving sanctuary to al-Zarqawi, the Baathist regime was an element of terror.
[/quote]
Zarqawi was not supported by Saddam, he was operating in the northern territory where the Kurds are. Saddam didn’t have control over this area… Saddam didn’t even control major regions of his own country (let alone pose a threat to the US).
It’s pathetic how Team Bush keeps moving the goalposts, first from Cheney saying there is “NO DOUBT” that Saddam has reconstituted his weapons programs and Rumsfeld saying “we know where the WMDs are”, now to the weaker and weaker reasoning that Iraq “had contact” with terrorists.
When W. wins his second term, are any of you ABB’rs going to root for success in Iraq?
The only reason I can think of for you to continue to highlight difficulties in Iraq is that you think people will want to punish W. at the voting booth.
When he wins, are you going to cut it out?
I’m not going to keep typing the list of reasons the U.S. and the Coalition went into Iraq.
The VAST majority are undebatable.
Did any of you run-and-hides notice in the Duefler report that Saddam was actively trying to bypass the Oil-for-Food program with the intention to restart his illicit weapons programs?
Funny how you leave that out.
JeffR
Lumpy,
“Zarqawi was not supported by Saddam, he was operating in the northern territory where the Kurds are.”
Zarqawi had sanctuary in Baghdad.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Lumpy,
Zarqawi had sanctuary in Baghdad.[/quote]
Not until after Saddam was gone. Before that he was holed up in the north, in what was essentially a Kurdish autonomous zone. Ironically enough, protected from Saddam by the US “no-fly” rules.
He pretty much has the run of the country now, it seems.
tme,
“Not until after Saddam was gone.”
Zarqawi was granted safe haven in May of 2002 in Baghdad for medical treatment.
Bush gave his initial speech to the UN regarding action in Iraq in September, 2002.
Cruise missiles were launched at Saddam in a decapitation strike in March 2003.
Zarqawi is still in Iraq.