A Republican congressman from North Carolina told CNN on Wednesday that the "evidence is clear" that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
"Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Rep. Robin Hayes said.
Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places." Hayes, the vice chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism, said legislators have access to evidence others do not.
Of course, this flies in the face of the 9/11 Commission Report, which concluded that we've seen no "evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States", and President Bush, who said that we have "no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]."
For a follow-up, maybe the Congressman from North Carolina will give us a little insight into those WMD stockpiles in Iraq. [sigh]
It's disturbing enough to have such ignoramuses in Congress—and, with Curt Weldon peddling letters from an already-discredited fabulist, he's not the only one—but this is worse. Congressman Hayes comments distract from the very important point that needs to be made and remade about the connection between Iraq and the (inaptly named) War on Terror, the point made by James Joyner here..
President Bush's attempt to link the two is merely part of the campaign to persuade Americans that the war in Iraq is tied to the fight against global terrorism. Constant reminders of the 9/11 attacks are necessary to remind people of why we're engaged in that fight.
More specifically, we are engaged in a war against a sociopolitical paradigm—the confluence of Fundamentalist Islamist Jihadism and the powerful tyrannies that amplify the danger they present—which obtains predominantly in the Middle East, and can only be minimized to a relatively safe level by altering the fundamental nature of the States in the Middle East in order to disable the incentives that make Islamist terrorism seem worthwhile.
That is, to "win" the so-called War on Terror, we have to change the political landscape in the Middle East and minimize the dangers presented by the nexus of terrorism and Rogue States.
We might disagree on the utility of attacking Iraq for that reason, but that is the connection between the Iraq war and 9/11. It's not particularly hard to understand.
Is it possible that the Congressman meant to refer to the links established between Iraq under Saddam and Al Quaeda, instead of links between Iraq and 9/11? It’s an important distinction, but it’s one the media seems to miss on almost daily basis.
While there is no videotaped evidence nor "DNA evidence" of Saddam’s links with Al Qaeda, there is a helluva lot of circumstancial evidence to suggest that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda. Indeed, that is what Clinton-appointed federal judge Harold Baer ruled in May 2003 when he awarded two 9-11 families a $104 million judgement against the state of Iraq.
Abu Musab al Zarqawi was welcomed into Iraq after Afghanistan fell to the US. And what about that passenger jet that was at the Salman Pak terrorist training camp?
We might disagree on the utility of attacking Iraq for that reason, but that is the connection between the Iraq war and 9/11. It’s not particularly hard to understand
It is if you’re the NY Times editorial board or readership.
Don’t forget, these are the same people who think that Saddam and OBL must’ve hated each other because 1 was religious and the other secular...
Interesting timing—I actually just sent this email out to some of my friends:
I’ve read several news stories and blogs about Bush’s speech last night, and one thing just continues to piss me off.
I’m amazed at how dense the media and liberals are with respect to the whole Terrorism-9/11-Iraq point.
Why do both keep misstating the simple fact that Bush has NEVER said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, but that Iraq is part of a wider war, and that a direct consequence of 9/11 was that we learned that we learned we must sometimes take preemptive military action against perceived threats? We have developed a strategy in fighting Islamofacism, and Iraq is one large piece of a much larger strategy.
Aren’t these the same people who are the self-proclaimed intellectuals? How do they not even understand/acknowledge that this is his point? Is it THAT hard to grasp?
Certainly, reasonable people can disagree over the need for such a strategy. Reasonable people can also disagree about the execution of this strategy. But to continue misstating GWB’s simple position – one which he has set forth in every single speech since his SOTU in 2002, and one which has never changed in 4 years – is really unbelievable to me. And to see it repeated over and over again in the NYT, WaPo, CNN, and every comment given by a Democratic ‘leader’ is ridiculous.
I’ve read several news stories and blogs about Bush’s speech last night, and one thing just continues to piss me off.
I’m amazed at how dense the media and liberals are with respect to the whole Terrorism-9/11-Iraq point.
Why do both keep misstating the simple fact that Bush has NEVER said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, but that Iraq is part of a wider war, and that a direct consequence of 9/11 was that we learned that we learned we must sometimes take preemptive military action against perceived threats? We have developed a strategy in fighting Islamofacism, and Iraq is one large piece of a much larger strategy.
Please stop lying. Here is what Bush said to Congress on March 18, 2003, the eve of the Invasion of Iraq:
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
What part of the foregoing do you not understand? Bush said that the War against Iraq was consistent with a war against a nation that "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Even you are not dense enough to not see that in this letter Bush directly linked Iraq and 9/11.
More to the point, polls consistenly showed that large segements of the American public thought Saddam was behind 9/11. Now, why did they think this? Because Bush and his adminsitration led them to believe that. Cheney was equally direct in his attempts to link Saddam and 9/11.
It is regretful that persons such as yourself continue to lie about the historical record. Bush plainly misled the American people. Your attempt to suggest otherwise is insulting at best. The fact that a leading Republican Congressman is continuing to perpertuate the lie simply shows that the right wing in this country will lie about anything to justify this stupid war. That you defend this lying is despicable.
Words mean things, MK. For example, "including" does not mean "exclusively".
More to the point, polls consistenly showed that large segements of the American public thought Saddam was behind 9/11. Now, why did they think this? Because Bush and his adminsitration led them to believe that.
Please, how weak. He was citing the overall rationale for the "war on terror." Saddam obviously falls under the rationale. The term you have trouble with is "including" which you truncate out of your second quote to justify your assertion. That doesn’t mean Saddam is included in that category, though there is circumstancial evidence the Iraqi’s might have fallen under that as well, though if so, probably without any knowledge of what was planned. However, neither you, I nor the Bush administration knows that and therefore they have not made a case of it.
The Iraqi’s were however supporters of terrorism and to at least a small extent, Al Qaeda, which was involved. They also have been shown to have been discussing a more active association and Iraq provided safe haven to many Al qaeda figures following our invasion of Afghanistan. Maybe that is too thin a reed for you, but it wasn’t for Bush or others. It doesn’t change the truth however, that Bush did not justify the Iraq war on the basis of a direct tie to 9/11. It was justfied on ties to terrorism in general and the full quote you kindly provide for us shows that those directly tied to 9/11 are to be included in that overall justification, but are not the sole recipients of our attention.
That is, to "win" the so-called War on Terror, we have to change the political landscape in the Middle East and minimize the dangers presented by the nexus of terrorism and Rogue States
This is spot on. It’s called the "Big Picture". Iraq is step 1. Bush decided to change the view that dominated our Middle East policy for the last 40 years. Thousands have been killed,(not just on 9/11 but prior to as well), by that 40 year failure of appeasement. I suggest people like MKULTRA come up with a better policy. Offer anything of substance to resolve the hatred of the West. You can’t, because we already tried it.
Free societies rarely war with each other. Free societies war with tyrannical societies because tyranny threatens freedom of thought and expression. It’s the tradeoff price we must pay. Tough love MK. But flights of fantasy don’t make good policy.
I suggest people like MKULTRA come up with a better policy
Here’s one:
Complete the job in Afghanistan before even thinking about going into Iraq. Comopletely rid the country of all Al Qaeda and Taliban before even thinking about going into Iraq. Use the resources wasted in Iraq to do this.
Then, once you have turned Afghanistan into a model democracy, re-built its infrastructure, and rid the country of all foreign terrorist elements, present it to the world as evidence of your good intentions in the Middle East. Then move on to pressuring the Saudis to liberalize their policies. (Work n Yemen as well.) For instance, don’t invite the de facto Saudi leader to your Texas retreat and hold hands with him. If you want to eliminate hatred against the West, don’t make it so obvious that you have allied yourself with the corrupt, tyrannical rulers that the vast majority of the Muslim world despises.
This would be a start. The one thing you shouldn’t do is invade the only major country in the Middle East without serious (as opposed to right-wing, fantasy ties) to transnational terrorist groups, particulary one without any ties whatsoever to 9/11. By concentrating instead on those countries that did have a tie to 9/11, you will show the world that you are trying to make the world safe from the kind of terrorists who carried out 9/11, and that you are not bent on creating a new empire.
But people like Rich think that the answer to solving the problem in the Middle East is to continue to back the Saudi dictators, or the military junta in Pakistan, or the occupiers in Palestine, or the ruling elite in Kuwait. They also believe that providing massive amounts of foreign aid to dictators like Mubarak will also do the trick. For some reason, they believe that if we ally ourselves with ANTI-democratic forces in the Middle East, and arm them, and aid them, that Muslims in the Middle East will believe that we are PRO-democratic. It’s an insance policy, of course, because as it turns out - contrary to what wingers seem to believe - people of the Muslim faith are not only intelligent, they have access to the very information we do.
We need a term for those who refuse to acknowedge Jihad. Because there is no public document whereby Saddam orders 9/11, he is off the hook? These guys remind me of the first grader who says "How much is 1 and 1?" when you answer two, they respond "No, it’s 11."
"including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001" is a participle phrase that serves as an adjective, refering back to the immediately preceding noun(s), which was: "international terrorists and terrorist organizations."
Saddam was much earlier in the sentence. If Bush meant to refer back to Saddam, an English teacher would call that a dangling participle and his speech writers would be marked down, probably in a non-red ink so as not to hurt their feelings. Since Bush’s speech writers are not idiots, I will take the sentence in its normal, correct interpretation. In other words, Saddam was part of those that supported terrorits. These groups of world wide terrorists of course include those who aided or abetted the 9/11 hijackers. But "include" does not mean "all" nor does it even imply it. It just means "include."
E.g., I like all dogs that are retrievers, including black labs. That does not mean that all retrievers are black labs. It also doesn’t mean that all dogs are black labs or that all dogs I like must be black labs.
Complete the job in Afghanistan before even thinking about going into Iraq. Comopletely rid the country of all Al Qaeda and Taliban before even thinking about going into Iraq. Use the resources wasted in Iraq to do this.
Right ... that makes about as much sense as saying to Patton, "look, make sure you completely take all the towns in your area of operations before moving on. No bypassing any, because, you know, we don’t want any loose ends".
Meanwhile the Germans simply set up their next defensive line at their leisure.
Strategy’s a real strong suit for you, isn’t it, MK?
Thanks to all who made MK look like the moron he claims others are.
MK, I would appreciate it if you didn’t accuse me of lying, particularly when you are too dumb to understand the difference between ’including’ and ’exclusively’.
Let me guess - you are another one of these self-proclaimed ’intellectual’ liberals that also believes Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat. Despite the fact he completely said the opposite in his 2003 SOTU.
Words mean things, MK. For example, "including" does not mean "exclusively".
Yes - they do, Jon. And if you carefully read the letter, you would see that is precisely what Bush meant. The word "nations" is NOT used before the word "including." It is used only after it. In other words, Bush did mention terrorist made no mention of the term "nations" except in the context of singling out those nations that had something to do with 9/11.
A similar observation applies to KI’s analysis. The quoted portion does mention "terrorists" and "terrorist organizations" that may have had nothing to do with 9/11. However, it mentions "nations" only in the context of 9/11- not otherwise. You recognize this problem, but then attempt as sleight of hand to get around it. You claim that Saddam was one of the "terrorists" referred to earlier in the sentence.
But we did not invade Saddam KI - we invaded Iraq. And the letter Bush sent to Congress was a discussion of the "nation" we were about to invade, not the person. Indeed, the authorization to which Bush refers did not authortize an invasion of Saddam or of a terrorist organization - it authorized an invasion of Iraq - a nation. And clearly the passage distinguishes between the two - as do most clear thinking persons. Even Cheney talks about terrorist organizations and the nations that harbor them.
For instance, here is the US government’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations as of 2003:
Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (as of January 30, 2003)
Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) Abu Sayyaf Group Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade Armed Islamic Group (GIA) Asbat al-Ansar Aum Shinrikyo Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group) HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM) Hizballah (Party of God) Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed) al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad) Kahane Chai (Kach) Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) a.k.a. Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress (KADEK) Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous) Lashkar i Jhangvi Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) National Liberation Army (ELN) Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC) al-Qa’ida Real IRA Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA) Revolutionary Organization 17 November Revolutionary People’s Liberation Army/Front (DHKP/C) Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC) Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL) United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army (CPP/NPA) Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI)
As you can see, Iraq is not on the list, nor is any other nation state. That’s why Bush’s speech writers must have known - presuming they are aware of what consitutes a terrorist organization, that when they used the term "nation" in the foregoing passage, the only way in which it was used was in reference to 9/11.
That’s why your dog analogy is inapposite. Black labs can be retrievers, but a nation cannot be a terrorist organization.
Try again.
*****
As for the administration’s attempts to link 9/11 and Saddam, there is this golden oldie from Cheney from September of 2003:
If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11 . .
There are other statements, of course, that led the American public to believe there were ties between 9/11 and Saddam. But if a statement that says the 9/11 terrorists were geogrpahically based in Iraq is not sufficient for you, then nothing is.
Ditto KMan - if you knew a damm thing about US law, you would know that a nation is not and cannot be a terrorist organization. And since the cited passage discussed US law, it must be presumed that the term "terrorist organization" was used in its legal sense. And since it was, it cannot mean Iraq. And since it cannot be Iraq, the term "including" is meaningless.
Thanks to all who made MK look like the moron he claims others are.
MK, I would appreciate it if you didn’t accuse me of lying, particularly when you are too dumb to understand the difference between ’including’ and ’exclusively’.
Let me guess - you are another one of these self-proclaimed ’intellectual’ liberals that also believes Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat. Despite the fact he completely said the opposite in his 2003 SOTU.
Thanks to all who made MK look like the moron he claims others are.
MK, I would appreciate it if you didn’t accuse me of lying, particularly when you are too dumb to understand the difference between ’including’ and ’exclusively’.
Let me guess - you are another one of these self-proclaimed ’intellectual’ liberals that also believes Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat. Despite the fact he completely said the opposite in his 2003 SOTU.
Thanks to all who made MK look like the moron he claims others are.
MK, I would appreciate it if you didn’t accuse me of lying, particularly when you are too dumb to understand the difference between ’including’ and ’exclusively’.
Let me guess - you are another one of these self-proclaimed ’intellectual’ liberals that also believes Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat. Despite the fact he completely said the opposite in his 2003 SOTU.
As for the administration’s attempts to link 9/11 and Saddam, there is this golden oldie from
Cheney from September of 2003: If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11 . .
There are other statements, of course, that led the American public to believe there were ties between 9/11 and Saddam. But if a statement that says the 9/11 terrorists were geogrpahically based in Iraq is not sufficient for you, then nothing is.
MK - hmmm—"right to the heart of the base, the geographical base" means the Middle East, dipshit. How on earth do you think this means Iraq?
You have some serious reading comprehension issues, my friend.
As to your other point, as usual, you miss the boat. I don’t claim that a nation is named or listed as a terrorist organization. However, a nationa can be governed by a leader who supports terrorist organizations (as SH did). In those cases, as Bush has made clear in every single speech he has given in the last 4 years, those leaders are fair game for violent removal.
In Iraq the American Military command claims that the majority of violence is being caused by foriegn "Al Qaeda" fighters. One pathetic politician has called Al Qaeda an Iraqi organisation. I say support the troops and call Robin Hayes on his lies. As to why he said it, maybe he is in the pay of Islamic fundamentalist states who wish to spread this kind of propoganda to hide their support and funding of Al Qaeda.
But people like Rich think that the answer to solving the problem in the Middle East is to continue to back the Saudi dictators, or the military junta in Pakistan, or the occupiers in Palestine, or the ruling elite in Kuwait. They also believe that providing massive amounts of foreign aid to dictators like Mubarak will also do the trick. For some reason, they believe that if we ally ourselves with ANTI-democratic forces in the Middle East, and arm them, and aid them, that Muslims in the Middle East will believe that we are PRO-democratic.
Are you brain-dead???? Didn’t Rice just go over there and tell Mubarak to support free elections. Pressure is on fella..And how have we not played both ends against the middle with the Palestian/Israerili conflict? For years.The Israelis could of taken them out years ago...look at history...which war did they lose? What part of the policy vs. the Saudis did you miss? We been telling them the last few years to listen up... Did you fail to see that? They got their ministers on the cable news shows telling us this is this, "That our policy is we’re gonna become more democratic"...Point is we do not support anti-democratic forces without self interest. The whole idea is start a pro-market economy in a place where we knew the landscape (Iraq, been there done that in the early 90’s), and let it expand to the so called non-democratic areas. That’s a "Big Picture" view. Pure Capitalism wins every time.. Which was the point of my original comment. To sit there and say we should do nothing but to pursue 40 years of failed policy is just ignorant or stupid ...or both...
But people like Rich think that the answer to solving the problem in the Middle East is to continue to back the Saudi dictators, or the military junta in Pakistan, or the occupiers in Palestine, or the ruling elite in Kuwait. They also believe that providing massive amounts of foreign aid to dictators like Mubarak will also do the trick. For some reason, they believe that if we ally ourselves with ANTI-democratic forces in the Middle East, and arm them, and aid them, that Muslims in the Middle East will believe that we are PRO-democratic.
Are you brain-dead???? Didn’t Rice just go over there and tell Mubarak to support free elections. Pressure is on fella..And how have we not played both ends against the middle with the Palestian/Israerili conflict? For years.The Israelis could of taken them out years ago...look at history...which war did they lose? What part of the policy vs. the Saudis did you miss? We been telling them the last few years to listen up... Did you fail to see that? They got their ministers on the cable news shows telling us this is this, "That our policy is we’re gonna become more democratic"...Point is we do not support anti-democratic forces without self interest. The whole idea is start a pro-market economy in a place where we knew the landscape (Iraq, been there done that in the early 90’s), and let it expand to the so called non-democratic areas. That’s a "Big Picture" view. Pure Capitalism wins every time.. Which was the point of my original comment. To sit there and say we should do nothing but to pursue 40 years of failed policy is just ignorant or stupid ...or both...
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION. In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
...you’d see that the intent of the President’s letter is glaringly obvious.
Well, perhaps you don’t think so, MK. Oh well. As Mayor Koch once said, "I can explain this to you; I can’t comprehend it for you."
Are you brain-dead???? Didn’t Rice just go over there and tell Mubarak to support free elections. Resulting in an electoral system that makes Iran look democratic and fair.
What part of the policy vs. the Saudis did you miss? We been telling them the last few years to listen up... Did you fail to see that? The part where we denounce the regime as a corrupt brutal dictatorship that is fuelling terrorism - oh, but that has not actually happened. Did they hear admonishment when walking hand in hand through the garden?
Point is we do not support anti-democratic forces without self interest. So it is all about the oil, a constrained commodity market justifies the death of a few thousand Americans?
Pure Capitalism wins every time.. Eventually, when the oil runs out, until then...
"Point is we do not support anti-democratic forces without self interest.
So it is all about the oil, a constrained commodity market justifies the death of a few thousand Americans? "
Wow. These liberals are stooo-pid with a capital ’S’. Someone apparently missed a few history, government, and/or world affairs classes during their high school days.
The point is, there needs to be self interest in addition to anti-democratic forces in play in order for the US to intercede. (That has only been the general policy of the US for a solid 200 years now.) So a ruthless dictator who kills his people by the 1000s AND has WMDs AND has shown a desire to use them AND is a sworn enemy of the United States? That’s a pretty solid reason for US military intervention. Particularly with the new post-9/11 Bush Doctrine of not waiting for a threat to become imminent.
A civil war and genocide in a small African nation that has little direct impact on the nation’s well-being? That carries little reason for military involvement, but certainly calls for diplomatic and other methods of ending this tragedy (such as bringing in your beloved United Nations).
It’s a pretty simple and straightforward foreign policy equation, at least to some of us. Self interest + humanitarian reason = cause for military action.
It’s a pretty simple and straightforward foreign policy equation, at least to some of us. Self interest + humanitarian reason = cause for military action.
You are deluded - it is all self interest. Humanitarianism is a minute PR exercise.
So a ruthless dictator who kills his people by the 1000s AND has WMDs AND has shown a desire to use them AND is a sworn enemy of the United States? That’s a pretty solid reason for US military intervention. Particularly with the new post-9/11 Bush Doctrine of not waiting for a threat to become imminent.
Self interest only.
A ruthless dictator who quashes dissent and has led "pogroms" against minority religions in his country AND sponsors the religion of Al Qaeda AND it is from his regime the major part of Al Qaedas funds flow - is a friend of the USA as long as he sits upon the largest oil reserves in the world.
Self interest only.
1. It is in Americas self-interest to not associate with a brutal dictatorship, because as long as America supports a brutal dictatorship the people of this country will hate America.
2. It is in American self interest to have an uninterrupted flow of oil.
A judgement call needs to made when these conflict. I think 1. should be favored because brutal regimes tend to end suddenly and such an ending could destroy all hope of achieving 1. or 2.
I said both self interest and humanitariasm. I didn’t say it was equal part each.
Perhaps there is more than 50% self interest; perhaps it is 99% self interest. Either way, both are required to justify military intervention, as I stated.
I believe both 1. and 2. are necessary, by the way. Please don’t even pretend to tell me what I beleive in.
Ever hear the expression that you catch more flies with honey? Sometimes that approach is required during foreign diplomacy. Sometimes the carrot, sometimes the stick.
You have seen how well our ’carrot’ approach has worked with Pakistan, who many wanted us to alienate. Working through diplomatic channels, we befriended them, and showed it was in our common interest to fight terrorism side by side. This has resulted in a ton of arrests and a treasure trove of intelligence with assistance of the Pakistani govt.
Military Intervention is only a last resort. Between "unconditional love of dictators" and "regime change through invasion" there exists a whole spectrum of threats and promises.
Yes - Pakistan’s a success, but it was not merely a carrot approach. It was the threat that either you work with us or against us that caused Pakistan to become a valuable ally. Now that they are working with America they are rewarded.
The unconditional cuddling of oil rich dictatorships does not imply any kind of threat, without the threat they will not change. What carrot can America offer a massively rich dictatorship such as this?
I believe both 1. and 2. are necessary, by the way. Please don’t even pretend to tell me what I beleive in.
When you infer someone is a Stoopid Liberal you give them the right to make this presumptions
The war in terror and terrorist is so open ended, that whatever misconceived adventure is pursued could be rationalized to fighting "terror".
Al Qaida is the terrorist group that was determined to conceive, finance, and carry out the attacks on the WTC. So, principally, the USA wanted to focus on that organization that was based in Afghanistan and supported by the Islamic Taliban government. Through some tenuous association, this administration created an appearance of a substantive relationship between Al Qaida and the Hussein/Baathist regime of Iraq.
The Hussein/Baathist regime was supportive of the Palistinean (terror) groups opposing Israel, and provided rewards to suicide bombers. Iraq Baathist’s promote a pan-Arab ideal and oppose Isreal. Al Qaida is an islamic fundamentalist group, and the Taliban was islamic fundamentalist government recognized by two nations, Iran and United Arab Emirates.
Al Qaida would likely not support the Baathist/secular government. Although, to serve a grander purpose, perhaps they would cooperate in much the same way as the Soviet Union, Britain and the USA did during World War II. But, no substantive ties were ever determined between Iraq and Al Qaida.
This administration is trying to maintain a connection, since they wanted there to be at least a determined threat by Iraq to the United States. These threats were lauded to be WMDs (including nuclear) and a means to deliver them, even as far away as the USA.
Of course, the Bush administration used debunked intelligence (uranium from Niger), misconstrued intelligence (aluminum tubes ONLY suitable for nuclear enrichment and unmanned aircraft). They implied that there was substantive evidence of nuclear weapons, when there was none. They implied that a nuclear attack could be imminent.
Unfortunately, the intelligence was fabricated. It never existed. And the administration knew it.
The administration also knew that its only way to invasion was to associate Iraq with the 911 attack. They never shared complete intelligence and the pleathera of doubts that existed with all of these thing (Downing Street Memo) with Congress or the public.
So, of course, the war is going badly. And citizen’s are getting wise to it. So, the president wants to follow the old recipe that propelled him to popularity. Unfortunately, they are mostly debunked fabrications. Still, the president has heart. He is trying in every way to imply a connection to the real enemy the one we created in Iraq. And based on these thread’s, there are still a large number of sucker-fish in the pond.
"Bush said that the War against Iraq was consistent with a war against a nation that ’planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.’"
MK Ultra is exhibiting yet another characteristic of modern liberalism. All he has to offer is a nonsensical, semantical argument. That helps him cover for the fact that he doesn’t have any substanive arguments that can be supported by fact outside of the fantasy world he inhabits. MK is maintaining the liberal tradition that led the left to parse the words of Bush’s 2002 State of the Union Address for two years while Bush was busy liberating 50 million people from two of the most repressive regimes in the world. They give us word games and Bush gives us actions. I think this triviality is strong evidence that liberals just don’t take our national security seriously.
Furthermore, the statement reads:
"acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions..."
See numbnuts, the phrase "consistent with" means that acting pursuant to PL 107-203 (i.e. deposing Saddam) is consistent with the U.S. taking action against terrorist organizations including those responsible for 9/11. Invading Iraq is consistent with fighting terror. Reasonable people may disagree about the value of the war in Iraq to the overall WOT, but they can’t say that the statement alleges Iraqi responsibility for 9/11. The statement’s clear meaning should be evident to anyone with above a double digit IQ but, then again, that excludes MK Ultra and most of the Democratic base. There just comes a time when you’ve got to call a spade a spade. Liberals are stupid.
They give us word games and Bush gives us actions.
...unencumbered by the thought process, evidently, at least when it comes to planning for post-invasion stabilization.
...they can’t say that the statement alleges Iraqi responsibility for 9/11. The statement’s clear meaning should be evident to anyone with above a double digit IQ
So either you’ll be working actively to replace Robin Hayes in Congress, or you think we need more double-digit IQ’s in Congress. Which is it?
Hussein was a known state sponsor of terrorism. This was documented by the 9/11 commission. When you are going after criminals, you go after both the guy who pulls the trigger and the guy who pays him to do it. It is well documented that Hussein was paying liberal bounties to terrorists (not just Palestinians) as well as providing refuge for those fleeing pursuit. One of these was the man who planned the 1st WTC attack in 1993. Another was a fellow named Abu Nidal:
From MK’s earlier comment:
Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (as of January 30, 2003)
Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
Saddam Hussein granted avowed international terrorists refuge in Baathist Iraq. Terror mastermind Abu Nidal also enjoyed his hospitality.
Nidal lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002. As the Associated Press reported on August 21, 2002, Nidal’s Beirut office said he entered Iraq “with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.” 13 Prior to his relocation, he ran the eponymous Abu Nidal Organization — a Palestinian terror network behind attacks in 20 countries, at least 407 confirmed murders, and some 788 other terror-related injuries. Among other savage acts, Nidal’s group used guns and grenades to attack a ticket counter at Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci airport on December 27, 1985. Another cell in Austria simultaneously assaulted Vienna’s airport, killing 19 people.
At the risk of appearing to come down on one side or another, because the stupidity has been strong from both sides, but I have to address this point:
"including" does not mean "exclusively".
For those of you harping on about the semantical difference between these words in mkultras quote... do you not realize that the difference is irrelevant?
The assertion was made that the administration never directly linked Iraq and 9/11 by certain commenters. Mkultra supplied a quote from the administration that gave justification for the war based on the direct involvement of Iraq in the 9/11 attacks. At that point it dosent matter if Iraqs 9/11 ties where the "exclusive" justification for the war or whether that was merely "included" in the long list of reasons for the war... because that wasnt the contention. The contention was that the administration never directly linked the two, and as far as I can tell mkultra fairly accurately disproved that notion.... everything else is irrelevant to the claim that was made.
But seriously, everyone needs to calm down with the blind partisan hatred for a moment... Half of you people sound like your ready to go to war with each other instead of, you know, the actual terrorist. Your hatred and anger is clouding your faculties for rationality.
Congress and the public would have never went along with the Iraq invasion without a link to the Al Qaida regime and the adminstration warning them that Iraq had WMDs and that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the USA.
On all these counts, the administration was wrong. What they said was "certain" was not. Were they inept are just lying? Were they using all available intelligence or selecting the intelligence that pointed where the wanted to go? Or, were they just flat out lying because they are good at it?
Iraq was not as dangerous a threat as what the American public was told. That’s a fact. Shouldn’t we all be a bit more concerned about that?
Setting aside your ad hominem addendum, how so? Please provide evidence that the administration’s post invasion planning and strategies have been adequate to the task.
...everyone needs to calm down with the blind partisan hatred for a moment.
The reason mk’s quote doesn’t work is obvious if you read both statements. The first statement is specifically about Iraq. The law in question was merely consistent with what Bush in the previous statement had claimed. It is the previous statement which describes the particular case against Saddam. It in no way claims Saddam falls under every part of the second statement. Especially given all the other times when the administration has gone out of its way to say they were not justifying the war by connecting it directly to 9/11, both before that motion and afterward.
To put it another way the second statement wasn’t about Iraq at all, it was a previously existing law being used as justification for the war. Therefore it is very relevant that Iraq is not necessarily included in the sections addressing 9/11. Thus this is the part that would apply to Iraq:
consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations,
As I said, Bush’s case against Iraq is laid out in the first statement, not the one quoting the law. Iraq is part of the "neccessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations," because as he says in the first statement:
further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
That was how it was understood at the time. This is just mk Googling up stuff and pouring his own meaning into things as if we cannot remember what was being said around the time Bush invoked the resolution.
Now if you want to argue that by including the language about 9/11 and not truncating the citation that the administration wanted to let willing minds go where they wanted to go? Maybe. However, given how few saw the event and the constant refrain from the media that Saddam wasn’t involved, I would suggest it didn’t work. Those who believed it on 9/13 just figured it was true and didn’t pay much attention. Big surprise, but this statement has nothing to do with it.
