First No WMD, and Now No Al Qaeda Contact...

[Stringer]

Originally posted by Eagler
hindsight is 20/20

the evidence/intelligence against Iraq was not created after Sept 11 2001, it was being gathered, discussed and BELIEVED way back into the early 90's.
All Sadam had to do to avoid the fight was to stick to the deal he agreed to when Bush Sr 1st handed him his arse after Desert Storm. Of course the next admin was slightly distracted with fat interns & a bubbling economy so they just let everything stew for 8 years and were happy to hand the entire mess off to the next group, Bush Jr.

Actually no.......

Those in the Bin Laden unit within the CIA and others KNEW there was no link and repeatedly said so during the run up to the Iraq war.

And in the Senate Report, Saddam admitted during one of his interrogations that he was aprehensive about Al Qaeda and what it would mean to his dictatorship.  He did not want radical Islam to get any traction in his country.

[Elfie]

I'm not sure how this is news? This is something we have known for some time.


We did find a couple terrorist training camps in Iraq, and Saddam was supporting terrorists. I think to many people hear *terrorist* and automatically think *AL-Qaeada*.

[john9001]

sooo, you libruls want to make saddam king of iraq or something?

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by Stringer
From the Senate Report released earlier....

USA Today Article

I agree with the repubs that this is election year posturing, but even the Admin is not fighting the reports conclusion.....

The same Senate that gave GWFern the "okay dokie" for the war?.. so the senate is admitting they are incompetent fools too... is this really news to anyone who lives here?

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by lukster
pffffffftttt

We've been bankrupt in at least the moral category for some time. To do nothing while Sadaam continued to thumb his nose at us would have only weakened our diplomatic influence even further.

Pretty much every leader in the world is thumbing his nose at us now.  We gonna invade them under false pretenses too?

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by Stringer
Actually no.......

Those in the Bin Laden unit within the CIA and others KNEW there was no link and repeatedly said so during the run up to the Iraq war.

And they were ignored in favor of Rummy and Shotgun Dick's ad-hoc PNAC intelligence agency.  

Maybe ignored is the wrong word.  More like suppressed.

[MIShill]

I want to thank all of you who seem to feel that brutal dictatorships and mercenary-run governments like the Taliban are "ok" as long as they have no impact on you personally. You allow me to at least FEEL I have the moral high ground when I see Saddam in jail and the Taliban decimated. Perhaps North Korea, Darfur and Myanmar and all the other benighted places in the world also "deserve" what they have as well, but I don't agree. I consider the removal of Saddam justified based on his history of brutality. WMD was just a convenient excuse.

[lukster]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Pretty much every leader in the world is thumbing his nose at us now.  We gonna invade them under false pretenses too?

Only if they shoot at our planes and try to assasinate our leaders. Oh yeah, and if they are a threat to the flow of spi, er oil.

Most of'em never liked us anyhow. So long as they fear us I'm fine with that.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by lukster

Most of'em never liked us anyhow. So long as they fear us I'm fine with that.

Ehh.. most of the countries didnt like you? Im pretty sure most did and still do. Intel and requests made by the US will be checked and tripple checked alot more than before. The trust is there, its just not unconditional any more.

[FUNKED1]

You guys DID see Team America:  World Police, right?

[Stang]

Fawk Yeah!

[Viking]

Originally posted by Eagler
hindsight is 20/20

Your hindsight was Europe’s (minus Bush’s lapdog) foresight. Nice of you to finally see reality for what it is.

Originally posted by Eagler
the evidence/intelligence against Iraq was not created after Sept 11 2001, it was being gathered, discussed and BELIEVED way back into the early 90's.

Same evidence everyone else had, but Europe was not so easy to con into an unjust war.

Originally posted by Eagler
All Sadam had to do to avoid the fight was to stick to the deal he agreed to when Bush Sr 1st handed him his arse after Desert Storm.

Doesn’t all this mean that Saddam actually DID stick to the deal since he didn’t have any WMD and no active programs to develop WMD and no connections to terrorism? Why yes it does! Again with your hindsight Mr. Eagler, you should be able to come to the same conclusion that Hans Blix foresight gave him. Saddam was in compliance with the UN resolutions.

I find people who still argue that the war was justified somewhat like people who argue the Holocaust never happened. Slightly amusing, but mostly just tragic.

[john9001]

Originally posted by Viking


Same evidence everyone else had, but Europe was not so easy to con into an unjust war.

so removing saddam and his two idiot sons was "unjust", maybe you should ask the kurds about that.

[Viking]

Originally posted by john9001
so removing saddam and his two idiot sons was "unjust", maybe you should ask the kurds about that.

Why should I ask the Kurds about that? Turkey, our vaunted NATO ally, has been at war with the Kurds longer than Iraq has. The Kurds are a non-issue and a perfect example of what you get for inciting a rebellion in TWO countries. Much the same the insurgents get in Iraq now.

Perhaps you should ask the insurgents how justified the war is? That would be equally irrelevant to this discussion, but then again, when your grip fails you grasp at straws.

[Gh0stFT]

ah now i see it,

Mission accomplished - Free Kurdistan!

am i wrong?