Thread: Maybe the worst sitting President ever....

The commission concluded that there was no shred of evidence linking AQ to Iraq when it came to 9-11. In fact quite the opposite. Saddam was not willing to play ball with AQ and this is why the Taliban (especially Mullah Omar and AQ became allies). Saddam simply never was an Islamo-fundamentalist because to be fundamentalist means sharing power with the mullahs. Saddam wasn't going to let that happen and thus the offers of cooperation never materialized beyond limited contacts in fighting the Kurds in northern Iraq.

The notion that Iraq was a threat was cooked up by Wolfowitz...even Rumsfeld originally opposed going into Iraq.

Ironically the fear in the White House was that Saddam was going to use the 9-11 attacks as a means to restrengthen his hold over the portions of Iraq covered by the no-fly zones. That is the only genuine threat Saddam posed. They were afraid that if they allowed Saddam to move his armies in then instablity would erupt. Oh, the fucking irony here.

Enough people under the President convinced Bush that Iraq was an immediate threat. The immediate thinking was that if Saddam even blinked the wrong way that the U.S. would have to move in and protect the oil fields (wow, who could have seen that coming?). There were dissenting voices stating the obvious....that the intel was flawed and there was no threat to America, but, they were shut out by Cheney, Wolfowitz, and others when it came time to make the ultimate decision. It all points to poor decision-making and poor leadership skills on the part of Bush. It's all in the 500+ page report.

Read the report. If you haven't then what position of credibility do you have? Basing it on what someone's blog or what NewsMax claims? There is no link between AQ, Bin Laden, Iraq, and what happened on 9-11.

Care to offer your own evidence?

Originally Posted by surasak

Read the report.

Exposing myself to looking a bit stupid, but which report is this?

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

The PDF of the 9-11 Commission's final report.

This declassified CIA report also questions the link between AQ and Iraq:

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/sup...ort.062102.pdf

Thanks. Most appreciated.
I've only come across quoted extracts so far.

Originally Posted by surasak

The commission concluded that there was no shred of evidence linking AQ to Iraq when it came to 9-11. In fact quite the opposite.

Indeed.

But there are a certain percentage of the American public that doesn't know this.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

But can't deny the link existed can you.

Yes, we can and did.

Originally Posted by Anonymous Coward

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

But can't deny the link existed can you.

Yes, we can and did.

Of course otherwise your gratuitous attacks on GWB would unravel.

But contact between Iraqi officials and Alqueada did exist.
Determining what actually took place is a source of a great deal of subjectivity. Largely due to the lack of transparency of Iraqi affairs during the reign of Saddam.


But given the hostile and aggressive demeanor Saddam maintained against his own people, his neighbors and the USA, the equation isn't very complicated.

So if this is the basis of your claim GBW is the worst president, it goes out the window.
That was the topic!

Who knows what was going on between AQ and Saddam. They could have been shaking him down for a bit of dough. Jesse Jackson does it all the time with US corporations. They donate to the Rainbow Push Coalition and Jesse doesn't picket them. Saddam donates to AQ and they pose no argument against his secular govenment.

Sort of the 'you're guilty anyways no matter what' mentality?

So, because we cannot find any links, therefore, the links are merely obfuscated?

This is just beyond contempt from a society in which justice depends on the presumption of innocence.

Two key facts: Bin Laden is a fundamentalist. Saddam was not. The two simply never cooperated due to this fact.

w

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

The media has "cherry picked" the conclusion that no direct link between Saddam and 9/11 could be made. Alqueada had a presence there before 9/11 and that is established.

the only cherry picking was done at the white house and the pentagon.

AQ had a presence huh? they also have a presence in the US....and the UK....does that mean that these govts are working with AQ?

the lies that continue to be spread on this topic boggle the mind.

Originally Posted by raycarey

the only cherry picking was done at the white house and the pentagon.

AQ had a presence huh? they also have a presence in the US....and the UK....does that mean that these govts are working with AQ?

the lies that continue to be spread on this topic boggle the mind.

Perhaps a slight history review is in order.

Saddam waged an invasion against Kuwait. He was beaten back by the USA.

Numerous UN resolutions and sanctions were placed against him.
For 10 years he was in violation of those sanctions and resolutions.
Draw whatever conclusions you want.

....and Israel has had numerous resolutions passed against them as well.

If Israel can ignore UN resolutions why should Saddam have been expected to adhere to them? If we expect nation A to follow UN resolutions then country B shouldn't be given a free pass to simply ignore them. This undermines the credibility of the entire UN and is a major reason why so few nations trust our intentions.

And what does Saddam's invasion of Kuwait have to do with the presumption that AQ and Saddam somehow cooperated together to plan 9-11?

Non-sequitur. The invasion of Kuwait and subsequent prolonged weapons inspections have nothing to do at all with any presumed link between AQ and Saddam with regards to 9-11 (to which there has never been one shred of evidence supporting such a link brought forward by any credible source).

Did you bother to read the Commission's report? I guess not, otherwise, you wouldn't be making such foolish remarks.

Originally Posted by surasak

Did you bother to read the Commission's report? I guess not, otherwise, you wouldn't be making such foolish remarks.

are you new here?

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by raycarey

the only cherry picking was done at the white house and the pentagon.

AQ had a presence huh? they also have a presence in the US....and the UK....does that mean that these govts are working with AQ?

the lies that continue to be spread on this topic boggle the mind.

Perhaps a slight history review is in order.

Saddam waged an invasion against Kuwait. He was beaten back by the USA.

Numerous UN resolutions and sanctions were placed against him.
For 10 years he was in violation of those sanctions and resolutions.
Draw whatever conclusions you want.

I do not see how what you say refutes the comment you quoted?
"Draw whatever conclusions you want." Well, seems this is what you have been doing, but it defies reason and logic!

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by raycarey

the only cherry picking was done at the white house and the pentagon.

AQ had a presence huh? they also have a presence in the US....and the UK....does that mean that these govts are working with AQ?

the lies that continue to be spread on this topic boggle the mind.

Perhaps a slight history review is in order.

Saddam waged an invasion against Kuwait. He was beaten back by the USA.

Numerous UN resolutions and sanctions were placed against him.
For 10 years he was in violation of those sanctions and resolutions.
Draw whatever conclusions you want.

I do not see how what you say refutes the comment you quoted?
"Draw whatever conclusions you want." Well, seems this is what you have been doing, but it defies reason and logic!

I'm trying to stay focused on the topic by pointing out the context of the situation in Iraq prior to the USA led liberation.
I think Bush an company underestimated the depth of madness which existed after 1200 years of sunni/shia power struggles.

It's way to easy to jump on the current Jane Fonda bandwagon.
It takes some back bone to take a stand other than the blithering and blathering appeaser/defeatist platitudes.

The world has become too small a place to allow a group of fanatics to have free reign to annihilate anyone they don't like.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

[b]I'm trying to stay focused on the topic by pointing out the context of the situation in Iraq prior to the USA led liberation.
I think Bush an company underestimated the depth of madness which existed after 1200 years of sunni/shia power struggles.

This is one of the many reasons why it would have been better to leave Saddam in power.

appeaser/defeatist platitudes.

The defeatist attitude was not listening to Gen. Eric Shinseki.

^ I fear that the 12 century long conflict systematically killing anyone with a backbone in Iraq has perhaps created a permanent mutation or aberration of human beings residing there.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

I fear that the 12 century long conflict systematically killing anyone with a backbone in Iraq has perhaps created a permanent mutation or aberration of human beings residing there.

Well, frankly, that's just a pretty silly thing to say. Guess it helps to dehumanise your 'enemy'.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

It takes some back bone to take a stand other than the blithering and blathering appeaser/defeatist platitudes.

this sort of macho posturing played a significant role in getting the US into the quagmire that is iraq.

istead of denigrating those with different opinions by questioning the 'backbone' you would be better served to look at the ideas in their heads.

BTW earl, has your backbone been anywhere near iraq since 2003?

^ no, too busy to look pretty and "hard" on his motorbike

what a hero.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

I think Bush an company underestimated the depth of madness which existed after 1200 years of sunni/shia power struggles.

Perhaps one reason that Bush underestimated the depth of madness that existed between the Sunnis and Shias is because in early 2003 (according to the former U.S. ambassador to Croatia), Bush did not even know that these two sects of Islam existed. When they were brought up as a topic of conversation, Bush replied, "I thought Iraqis were Muslims".