2006: Almost 90% of soldiers think war was retaliation for Saddams role in 9/11

[SKINtil8tin]

jms, check your pm box.

[twa]

Are you speaking of the article or of the push to war in 2002?

It certainly works both ways :laugh:

JMS, Iraq being a target has been a fact ever since the first Gulf War for both administrations,non-compliance and aggressive actions by Saddam made sure of it.

It sure seems Tenet and Powell had every reason to believe Iraq had and was pursuing WMD at the time(and both have acknowledged such) which leaves the matter of intell.

Are you saying these intelligent gentlemen(and the previous administration) were completely fooled ?

Bush/Cheney ect. must be geniuses to pull that off

[Leonard Washington]

i hope this doesn't come out the wrong way but....they are soldiers, they aren't paid to think about politics, they're paid to follow orders.

[twa]

i hope this doesn't come out the wrong way but....they are soldiers, they aren't paid to think about politics, they're paid to follow orders.

I'm sure some will take offence,but I agree it is not part of the job description nor relevant to the fact they go where ordered by the civilian leadership.

I have reservations about the validity of the poll, but in the end it matters not at all what their individual feelings are on the matter of Saddam.

A fact I stressed to my son before he enlisted.

[Prosperity]

i hope this doesn't come out the wrong way but....they are soldiers, they aren't paid to think about politics, they're paid to follow orders.

Yeah but they are a part of our society and they do partially elect our leaders. I think its troubling when the views of our citizen-soldiers (I know all aren't citizens, just vast majority) are radically different than civilian citizens.

[JMS]

JMS, Iraq being a target has been a fact ever since the first Gulf War for both administrations,non-compliance and aggressive actions by Saddam made sure of it.

? The articles mentioned don't say Bush was planning to oust Saddam, or conduct a new air campaign against Saddam. The articles show that Bush's first national security meeting was dedicated in a large part to reviewing plans for an Iraqi invasion, that's 9 months before 911.

That goes beyond what any previous administration had done. That goes beyond anything Bush said in his campaign for President which concluded only months earlier.

That wasn't business as usual. The fact he sold the war and misinformed the public's such that 70% of the American people believed Iraq was involved with 911 and Al Quada is a crime. The fact that as many as 40% of the American public and yourself continue to believe such links existed shows both your faith in Bush and how badly he's served your/our interests.

It sure seems Tenet and Powell had every reason to believe Iraq had and was pursuing WMD at the time(and both have acknowledged such) which leaves the matter of intell.

Powell's speech to the UN was riddled with misleading or blatantly false information. Tenant, Powell and half a dozen books written about the build up to war proclaim the information was known to be wrong at the time Powell addressed the UN.

WMD has never really been the issue. Any idiot can make chlorine gas in his garage and we consider chlorine gas a WMD, prohibited by arms agreements. Did we invade Iraq over chlorine gas? No.

Powell's speech claimed one justification for war was, follow the logic

1. Iraq had or shortly would have Nukes.
   
2. Saddam's ties with terrorists would allow him to pass off his nuclear technology to terrorists.
   

Problem with this logic was it was fiction from top to bottom.

1. Saddam's Iraq was not active in international terrorism.
   
2. Saddam's Iraq gave no money, weapons, or bases to terrorists.
   
3. Saddam had no nuclear weapons.
   
4. Saddam had no nuclear program.
   

We certainly knew the first three facts which Powell and the administration distorted to justify the war. You say we didn't know #4. I think you're naive. If they lie to you 3 times how can you trust them on #4.

Tenant says in his book that he really thought they had WMD. Like I said, that's misleading. He says WMD, everybody hears nukes. He could be talking about chemical ( chlorine gas) or biological (anthrax) which just about everybody has and isn't a reasonable justification for war.

As I said, everything claimed Iraq had done was actually known to be true about Pakistan, and still is true. Why aren't we using those same justifications to rattle the saber on Pakistan? Cause Iraq was never about the justifications given. Iraq was always about something else. Security in a post 911 world was just how they sold the war. It was never about American security.

Are you saying these intelligent gentlemen(and the previous administration) were completely fooled ?

I'm saying that the Clinton administration had the same information and didn't see it as justification for war. Never called for war. Never invaded. Bush trying to blur the lines and say Clinton/Bush Sr. call for regime change is equivalent to Jr's implementation of War is again illogical and just wrong. Bush is the only President who invaded Iraq. That's a rubicon Bush crossed which separates him and will in history no matter how he tries to muddle it.

Bush/Cheney ect. must be geniuses to pull that off

Or they were not Geniuses but benefited from the 911 attacks. The country turned to and united behind our leaders in the wake of those attacks; and our leaders used that trust to help them implement a predetermined unrelated agenda; selling it to the American people who were rallying behind them at the time.

[JMS]

I'm sure some will take offence,but I agree it is not part of the job description nor relevant to the fact they go where ordered by the civilian leadership.

I have reservations about the validity of the poll, but in the end it matters not at all what their individual feelings are on the matter of Saddam.

A fact I stressed to my son before he enlisted.

I think it's an eye opener that the misinformation campaign which was perpetrated on the country to sell the war is still so prevalent. This poll says 90% of soldiers believe a 911, Al Qaeda Iraq link. I've seen others that put the number at 40% of the general public. Down from 70% on the eve of the invasion.

I think that's newsworthy and troubling, that the majority of the soldiers fighting in Iraq don't even know why we're fighting there. According to this poll worse, they believe in a justification for this war which is just flat out wrong, and was designed to mislead America...

Shows how low we sunk post 911.

[Popeman38]

I think it's an eye opener that the misinformation campaign which was perpetrated on the country to sell the war is still so prevalent. This poll says 90% of soldiers believe a 911, Al Qaeda Iraq link. I've seen others that put the number at 40% of the general public. Down from 70% on the eve of the invasion.

I think that's newsworthy and troubling, that the majority of the soldiers fighting in Iraq don't even know why we're fighting there. According to this poll worse, they believe in a justification for this war which is just flat out wrong, and was designed to mislead America...

Shows how low we sunk post 911.

First of all, nowhere near 90% of the soldiers think Sadaam was linked to 9/11. How do I know? I was in and was on standby to deploy to Afghanistan immediatly after 9/11. I was in until 2005. They will not release the polled questions. That tells me there is a serious slant to the poll.

[Popeman38]

i hope this doesn't come out the wrong way but....they are soldiers, they aren't paid to think about politics, they're paid to follow orders.

I'm sure some will take offence,but I agree it is not part of the job description nor relevant to the fact they go where ordered by the civilian leadership.

I have reservations about the validity of the poll, but in the end it matters not at all what their individual feelings are on the matter of Saddam.

A fact I stressed to my son before he enlisted.

If this is true, then unless you are a politician YOU have no right to think about politics because you aren't paid for it either. You want it both ways: Soldiers need to think and not just shoot at anybody, torture anybody to save their friends. They need to be able to discern what is a lawful/unlawful order. They need to risk their lives every day and return to ungrateful people protesting against the war that just cost them their best friend.

Yet, they aren't qualified to comment on the political process. They can't have opinions? Or their opinions aren't as weighted as others, like Rosie and Michal Moore? Please! If anything, we need more people with conviction enough to stand up and make sacrifices to keep this country great. It is easy to sit hear behind a keyboard and profess that these soldiers shaould and should not do in a warzone AND whether their opinions are worthy of the same weight as some Hollywood blowhard.

Quick, you are wlking down a dusty street and someone begins firing an automatic rifel at you. You can see the muzzle flash but can't distinguish a silhouette and there are ordinary civilians scrambling around for cover between you and the muzzle flash. Your battle buddy goes down with a wound to the lower stomach. What do you do? Fire back? If you do, and a civilian is injured you are likely to be castigated as a war criminal and placed on trial for murder. No, you refrain, provide aid for your buddy and retreat. Without giving it a second thought. yet these people can't have a valid opinion on the political process because they aren't paid to think?

[PeterMP]

?Powell's speech claimed one justification for war was, follow the logic (1) Iraq had or shortly would have Nukes. (2) Saddam's ties with terrorists would allow him to pass off his nuclear technology to terrorists.

Problem with this logic was it was fiction from top to bottom. (1)Saddam's Iraq was not active in international terrorism. (2)Saddam's Iraq gave no money, weapons, or bases to terrorists. (3)Saddam had no nuclear weapons. (4) Saddam had no nuclear program.

We certainly knew the first three facts which Powell and the administration distorted to justify the war. You day we didn't know #4. I think you're naive. If they lie to you 3 times how can you trust them on #4.

Tenant says in his book that he really thought they had WMD. Like I said, that's misleading. He says WMD, everybody hears nukes. He could be talking about chemical ( chlorine gas) or biological (anthrax) which just about everybody has and isn't a reasonable justification for war.

I'll try this again. Powell didn't say that Saddam would shortly have nuclear weapons. He gave no statement about the length of time it would take Saddam to obtain nuclear weapons.

There were known terroist in Baghdad POST-911 that were associated w/ Al Qaeda. Iraq was informed of this by Jordan (NOT THE US) because Jordan wanted them because they were trying to over throw the Jordan goverment. Jordan told them where they were staying and Iraq ignored it.

I don't think Cheney even ever said that Saddam had nuclear weapons and certainly that was not part of Powell's speech. Are you saying that there weren't a group of nuclear scientist in Iraq? Are you saying that Saddam didn't publically refer to these people as his "nuclear mujahedeen"? Are you saying that he didn't have a "blue print" to build a nuclear weapon? Are you saying that the UN (NOT THE US) didn't find classified goverment papers related to nuclear weapons in the home of an Iraqi nuclear scientist? What constitutes a nuclear weapon program?

It isn't Tenant's or Powell's fault that people are stupid and don't understand the difference between WMD and nuclear. The difference between Saddam and "everybody" was that Saddam had agreed to give these things up as part of the Gulf War cease fire. His failure to do so was a violation of that cease fire. Other people aren't violating a cease fire agreement if they have these things.

You can reach the conclusions you want to w/o misrepresenting the facts so quit doing it.

[JMS]

First of all, nowhere near 90% of the soldiers think Sadaam was linked to 9/11. How do I know? I was in and was on standby to deploy to Afghanistan immediatly after 9/11. I was in until 2005. They will not release the polled questions. That tells me there is a serious slant to the poll.

It's hard for me to believe too. But it's hard for me to believe that 40% of the general public still believes such a link exists. It was an eye opener to me when Cheney came out as recently as 4 weeks ago and again stated this link existed. Every time I hear someone restate that fiction I'm amazed.

Amazed to hear PeterMP ( intelligent, eloquent, educated, otherwise informed ) in this thread relate Saddam's links to Al Qaeda. His support of terrorists. All fiction, and all wrong.

[Leonard Washington]

If this is true, then unless you are a politician YOU have no right to think about politics because you aren't paid for it either. You want it both ways: Soldiers need to think and not just shoot at anybody, torture anybody to save their friends. They need to be able to discern what is a lawful/unlawful order. They need to risk their lives every day and return to ungrateful people protesting against the war that just cost them their best friend....

you're reading too much into my comment. of course they can think whatever they want, but they still have to follow orders. there may be some digression, obviously they won't execute orders to rape and kill women and children. but i think there would be disciplinary action if the proper channels aren't followed if a soldier disagrees with command.

[PeterMP]

Amazed to hear PeterMP in this thread relate Saddam's links to Al Quada. His support of terrorists. All fiction, and all wrong.

Saddam had growing ties to terrorist post 911. Read the 911 report or how about this from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800299.html

""There is proof that he was in Iraq during that time," a Jordanian security official said. "We sent many memos to Iraq during this time, asking them to identify his position, where he was, how he got weapons, how he smuggled them across the border."

Hussein's government never responded, according to the official, who added that documents recovered after its overthrow in 2003 show that Iraqi agents did detain some Zarqawi operatives but released them after questioning.

Furthermore, the Iraqis warned the Zarqawi operatives that the Jordanians knew where they were, he said. After he recovered from his injuries, Zarqawi continued to cross borders in the region frequently, using disguises and fake passports to stay one step ahead of the Jordanians.

In the summer of 2002, according to Jordanian court documents, Zarqawi organized a new plot to attack Western and Jewish targets in Jordan and began training a small band of fighters at a base in Syria. On Oct. 28, 2002, the group staged its first strike, fatally shooting a U.S. diplomat, Laurence M. Foley, a senior administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, as he left his house in Amman."

What benifit is to the Jordanians to tie Zarqawi to Iraq if there was not such tie. They clearly believed that Zarqawi was in Iraq and that the Iraqis were helping him. What benefit do they get for lying about documents AFTER the invasion that show an even stronger link between Iraq and Zarqawi (the warning)?

From the same article:

"According to Jordanian officials and court testimony by jailed followers in Germany, Zarqawi met in Kandahar and Kabul with bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. He asked them for assistance and money to set up his own training camp in Herat, near the Iranian border.

With al-Qaeda's support, the camp opened and soon served as a magnet for Jordanian militants. At a time when al-Qaeda was immersed in planning the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, Zarqawi had other targets in mind."

"About a month later, Zarqawi was back in Afghanistan and joined Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters resisting the U.S.-led invasion. In late 2001, he was wounded in the chest during a firefight and broke three ribs, according to a Jordanian intelligence source. By January 2002, he and many of his followers crossed into Iran, with the help of fraudulent passports delivered by supporters in Europe, German investigative files show."

So the Jordanians have him setting up a terrorist training camp w/ the help of Al Qaeda before 2001 and fighting w/ the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Germans have him fleeing w/ followers in Iran.

Are the Germans lying also? For what purpose? Do you have any reason to believe this is actually untrue? You keep saying it is false, but I haven't seen you actually give any real evidence.

I will fully admit that pre-911 there was little interaction between Iraq and Al Qeada (it does seem likely that they had come to an understanding and essentially a non-aggression pact), that Saddam was not willingly housing terrorist (there were terrorist in camps in regions that he had no control over), and that he had nothing to do w/ 911. POST-911 his goverment was not willing to help the Jordanians capture somebody wanted by the Jordanians that was associated w/ the Taliban and Afghanistan and would later become the head of Al Qeada in Iraq and likely passed information to him or his organization. I would consider this as strong evidence for growing ties between Saddam and terrorist.

[JMS]

I'll try this again. Powell didn't say that Saddam would shortly have nuclear weapons. He gave no statement about the length of time it would take Saddam to obtain nuclear weapons.

Ah, Powell said he already had WMD. You're Wrong.... Just wrong. They definitely overstated the case, they definitely mislead. They definitely geared their comments to play on the nations worst fears, without any basis in fact. They definitely played up the non existent terrorist links in order to frighten the country into supporting them.

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device. ( in 1990!!!) The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/

As British intelligence stated about the lead up to the war in the famous "downing street memo".

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html

That's what our allies were saying about the Iraq, WMD and terror tripod which we used to justify the war..

There were known terrorist in Baghdad POST-911 that were associated w/ Al Qaeda. Iraq was informed of this by Jordan (NOT THE US) because Jordan wanted them because they were trying to over throw the Jordan government. Jordan told them where they were staying and Iraq ignored it.

Powell said we told Iraq exactly where Zachary was and asked them to hand him over to us. Powell said that the fact that Iraq did not capture Zachary was proof Saddam supported Zachary and thus Al Qaeda. Fact is we didn't know where Zarchary was. cause it took us three years and more than 100,000 soldiers to finally get him. And we didn't capture him, we got him with a bomb dropped from a plane.

By your logic Al Qaeda is currently Active in Iraq, Are we associated with Al Qaeda? Again That's not a reasonable argument.

I don't think Cheney even ever said that Saddam had nuclear weapons and certainly that was not part of Powell's speech.

Powell says WMD, the world hears nukes.

Are you saying that there weren't a group of nuclear scientist in Iraq? Are you saying that Saddam didn't publicly refer to these people as his "nuclear mujahedeen"? Are you saying that he didn't have a "blue print" to build a nuclear weapon? Are you saying that the UN (NOT THE US) didn't find classified goverment papers related to nuclear weapons in the home of an Iraqi nuclear scientist? What constitutes a nuclear weapon program?

Their was no ACTIVE nuclear program in Iraq since the first gulf war. The papers found buried in the back yard of one of the nuclear scientists were from before the first gulf war. I think the world understands what an active weapon program refers too.

It isn't Tenant's or Powell's fault that people are stupid and don't understand the difference between WMD and nuclear. The difference between Saddam and "everybody" was that Saddam had agreed to give these things up as part of the Gulf War cease fire. His failure to do so was a violation of that cease fire. Other people aren't violating a cease fire agreement if they have these things.

First off the administrations campaign and build up to war was designed to mislead. When we listen to the Secretary of State and he lays out a terrorist, Al Qaeda Iraq connection, and then uses the words if you know what I know you would agree with me.. Well we know what he knew, cause he's told us exactly what he knew, and the Director of the CIA has told us too. They were wrong.

Second off. Saddam did give up his WMD after the first gulf war. We've proven that conclusively now.

You can reach the conclusions you want to w/o misrepresenting the facts so quit doing it.

The facts are that that you are wrong about most everything. What I'm saying seems misleading to you because it differs from your warped perception of reality. Facts Powell's speech was mostly wrong and entirely misleading, just as Cheney, Tenent, Condi and Bush's speeches around this time were. Facts are Powell himself and Tenant and half a dozen other books written on the subject all say this. You are just being an incredible rock head to not acknowledge these well proven FACTs.

Again, The fact you are in error; wasn't your fault in the lead up and early parts of the war. You, and we were mislead. The fact you are in error today, is definitely your fault however because enough reputable sources including POWELL and TENENT have stated as much.

[Popeman38]

you're reading too much into my comment. of course they can think whatever they want, but they still have to follow orders. there may be some digression, obviously they won't execute orders to rape and kill women and children. but i think there would be disciplinary action if the proper channels aren't followed if a soldier disagrees with command.

If you disagree with an order, there are channels available to you to address your concerns. When done respectfully, usually a compromise is reached, although sometimes some toes get stepped on. When it comes to unlawful orders, it is the soldiers sworn duty not to follow and report to higher. You take the oath when you enlist. That is why the idiots at the prison deserve jailtime. If you know something you are told to do is wrong and you still do it, you are guilty of 2 seperate crimes. Now, were some of the "torture" accusations really just making life a little uncomfortable? Yes, but there was torture going on.

As a soldier, you always hear the line, "You aren't paid to think!". Anyone that has served knows that not only are you paid to think, you are required to think to accomplish anything. It is not like you are simply a mechanical drone completing a task. Every OPORDER is perfect until first contact. After contact, these soldiers adapt and overcome odds that would normally wilt human effort. To think that this is done without thinking is absurd.

As for politics, you would be shocked at the diverse political spectrum represented in the services. Politics is always a colorful topic. Take the election of 2000. This was a huge deal in the barracks. Many didn't ever go to sleep on election night. Discussions on what to do with the country were wide ranging. The military on the whole is a very educated force. And we understood what was at stake.

[JMS]

Saddam had growing ties to terrorist post 911. Read the 911 report or how about this from the Washington Post:

False, the 911 commission, the baker commission, George Tenant, and George Bush have all stated there was no ties between Iraq and Al Quada or even terrorism.

Again, ties means support, ties means agreements, ties means cooperation, ties doesn't mean discussion or contact. If ties meant contact then We should have invaded ourselves because we had "ties" to the Taliban before and after 911.....

Talking to Al Quada as we know Iraq did on one occasion, does not justify invasion. By our own intelligence Al Quada tried to get money, arms, and bases out of that meeting; and Saddam declined.

Again, you are being pedantic getting caught up in the micro definition of the word and loosing the picture that those words are justifying.

What benifit is to the Jordanians to tie Zarqawi to Iraq if there was not such tie. They clearly believed that Zarqawi was in Iraq and that the Iraqis were helping him. What benefit do they get for lying about documents AFTER the invasion that show an even stronger link between Iraq and Zarqawi (the warning)?

First off as I've said many times.. Zarqawi continued to operate in Iraq for years after we took over. Zarqawi's base of operations in Iraq were not in Bagdad, but were in American occupied Northern Kurdish areas of Iraq for years before the invasion. That doesn't mean we supported Zarqawi obviously. The fact that he crossed into Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan is meaningless.

What justification does Jordan have to play up the terrorist ties.. Who cares, the ties have been said over and over again to be non existent.

From the same article:

"According to Jordanian officials and court testimony by jailed followers in Germany, Zarqawi met in Kandahar and Kabul with bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. He asked them for assistance and money to set up his own training camp in Herat, near the Iranian border.

With al-Qaeda's support, the camp opened and soon served as a magnet for Jordanian militants. At a time when al-Qaeda was immersed in planning the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, Zarqawi had other targets in mind."

:doh: Kandahar and Kabul are in Afghanistan, not Iraq. You're saying the Afghanistan Taliban supported Al Quada, that's not news.

So the Jordanians have him setting up a terrorist training camp w/ the help of Al Qaeda before 2001 and fighting w/ the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Germans have him fleeing w/ followers in Iran.

Are the Germans lying also? For what purpose? Do you have any reason to believe this is actually untrue? You keep saying it is false, but I haven't seen you actually give any real evidence.

What does that have to do with Iraq? NOTHING!

I will fully admit that pre-911 there was little interaction between Iraq and Al Qeada (it does seem likely that they had come to an understanding and essentially a non-aggression pact), that Saddam was not willingly housing terrorist (there were terrorist in camps in regions that he had no control over), and that he had nothing to do w/ 911.

Little? none. No support, no weapons, no bases and no money.

POST-911 his goverment was not willing to help the Jordanians capture somebody wanted by the Jordanians that was associated w/ the Taliban and Afghanistan and would later become the head of Al Qeada in Iraq and likely passed information to him or his organization.

Likely? Dude, Zarchary was in Lebanon, Jordan, Sudan, American occupied northern Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran in the years preceding the invasion. He spent 3 years evading us in Iraq after the invasion. He was even detained by American troops after the Iraqi war who released him cause they didn't know who he was.. I think your assertion that this shadowy guy enjoyed Iraqi support for doing what he did in so many other areas is illogical. Nowhere is it claimed Saddam gave money weapons, bases or support to Zarchary. You say because Saddam didn't capture him is proof he enjoyed that support..:doh:

IS that proof we supported Zarchary too? Cause we weren't successful in capturing him either. We killed him with a bomb from a plane after 3 years of trying.... I think your on thin ice with your "strong evidence"..

I would consider this as strong evidence for growing ties between Saddam and terrorist.

Not Reasonable. :doh:

[PeterMP]

Ah, Powell said he already had WMD. You're Wrong.... Just wrong. They definitely overstated the case, they definitely mislead. They definitely geared their comments to play on the nations worst fears, without any basis in fact. They definitely played up the non existent terrorist links in order to frighten the country into supporting them.

Let me try this again

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/

I'm not wrong. You said that Powell said that he would have nuclear weapons shortly. Surely at this point in time YOU understand there is a difference between nuclear and WMD. I said that was false. Now you've switched and given a quote from Condi Rice. I've already said that there were statments made by the Bush administration that were at best misleading and that I am not defending the Bush administration just the general facts.

Why pull the switch from Powells speech to Condi? Just admit you made a mistake.

Let's try this again. You said in the previous post:

Powell's speech claimed one justification for war was, follow the logic (1) Iraq had or shortly would have Nukes.

Powell did not say that in his speech to the UN. He definitely did not say that Iraq had nuclear weapons, and I know of no case that anybody associated w/ the Bush administration did. Powell gave no time frame in his speech in which Iraq might obtain nuclear weapons. Those are FACTS, and I am not wrong.

Powell said we told Iraq exactly where Zachary was and asked them to hand him over to us. Powell said that the fact that Iraq did not capture Zachary was proof Saddam supported Zachary and thus Al Qaeda. Fact is we didn't know where Zarchary was. cause it took us three years and more than 100,000 soldiers to finally get him. And we didn't capture him, we got him with a bomb dropped from a plane.

By your logic Al Qaeda is currently Active in Iraq, Are we associated with Al Qaeda? Again That's not a reasonable argument.

As I've already extensively laid out, the Jordanians wanted him. They were in communication w/ Iraq about his where abouts. The Iraqis ignored them at best and at worse actually passed info on to Zarqawi. If you can't see the difference between that and us actively hunting, giving rewards for information, and killing Al Qaeda when we find them, then this is a pointless discussion.

Powell says WMD, the world hears nukes.

That's not Powell's fault.

Their was no ACTIVE nuclear program in Iraq since the first gulf war. The papers found buried in the back yard of one of the nuclear scientists were from before the first gulf war. I think the world understands what an active weapon program refers too.

The fact of the matter is that they should have been handed over to the UN after the first Gulf War and instead Iraq continued to hide them from multiple teams on inspectors for an extended period of time. Why? So that when they got a chance they could go back to developing nuclear weapons.

Second off. Saddam did give up his WMD after the first gulf war. We've proven that conclusively now.

This simply isn't true. There were things found and destroyed under Blix, which wouldn't have happened if they had given up WMD as they were suppossed to after the first Gulf War.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2763653.stm (these are quotes from Blix, the UN weapons inspector):

"We have now commenced the process of destroying approximately 50 litres of mustard gas declared by Iraq that was being kept under Unmovic seal at the Muthanna site."

"To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". "

"The experts concluded that, based on the data provided by Iraq, the two declared variants of the Al Samoud 2 missile were capable of exceeding 150km in range." (not WMD, but a violation)

"The Iraqi side also informed us that the commission, which had been appointed in the wake of our finding 12 empty chemical weapons warheads, had had its mandate expanded to look for any still existing proscribed items." (not WMD, but a violation).

These violations were found despite years of inspections that the Iraqis were suppossed to be cooperating with. Saddam was in violation of the Gulf War cease fire.

[PeterMP]

What justification does Jordan have to play up the terrorist ties.. Who cares, the ties have been said over and over again to be non existent.

If there were not ties between Zarqawi and the Iraqi goverment then that means the Jordanians lied about it before the war, after the war, and continue to do so today. To dismiss the Jordanian claims that there were ties (passing of information and refusing to give him to the Jordanians despite knowledge of his location) w/o any information suggesting that the Jordanians were/are lying or even a logical reason as to why the Jordanians were lying doesn't seem reasonable to me.

I've given in support the quotes from the Washington Post in the previous post. You claim I am wrong, can you please provide a single quote from a respectable source to do demonstrate that? The 911 commission report does not even mention Zarqawi to my knowledge most likely because there is no claim that he was involved in 911. His interactions w/ the Iraqi goverment in general appear to be well after 911 and only after he was forced to flee Afghanastan due to our invasion, and therefore beyond the scope of their function. I also find no mention of him in the Iraq Study Group report most likely because he died 6 months before they released their report so I do not find that these documents refute anything the Jordanians have said.

[JMS]

If there were not ties between Zarqawi and the Iraqi government then that means the Jordanians lied about it before the war, after the war, and continue to do so today. To dismiss the Jordanian claims that there were ties (passing of information and refusing to give him to the Jordanians despite knowledge of his location) w/o any information suggesting that the Jordanians were/are lying or even a logical reason as to why the Jordanians were lying doesn't seem reasonable to me.

? No. The Jordanians said, as Powell said, that Zarqawi was in Baghdad for a time. That they requested Saddam's regime turn him over, and that the failure to do so is evidence of Saddam having ties with Al Qaeda, and Zarqawi is/was an Al Quada franchise operator. Thus linking Saddam to Al Queda.

The premise is wrong. Zarqawi's base of operations at this time was in American occupied norther Kurdish Iraq. We were trying to throw a net on the guy and failed for half a decade before the war. Failing to apprehend the guy isn't evidence of support. Not in America's case. Not in Iraq's case.

The evidence presented don't support the premise. America spent 3 years after the "mission accomplished" press conference trying to get Zarqawi. Were we "suupporting" him during that time cause we failed to get him?

I've given in support the quotes from the Washington Post in the previous post. You claim I am wrong, can you please provide a single quote from a respectable source to do demonstrate that?

About Powells speech, I think Powell is a reputable source.

Powell regrets UN speech on Iraq WMDs, Calls speech a blot on his record.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1456650.htm

About Saddam's "terrorist" links.. Richard Clark was the #1 anti terror officer in the US government for 3 administrations. Originally appointed by Bush Sr. He served under Clinton for 8 years and Bush Jr for 3 years. I assume the former terror czar is a reputable source.

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

When Stahl pointed out that some administration officials say it's still an open issue, Clarke responded, "Well, they'll say that until hell freezes over."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

If you go on and read Clarks account, the only example of Saddam ever being active in international terrorism was an attempt on Bush Sr's life after he left the Presidency. This attempt was taken as fact originally when reported by the Kuwaiti's who also took credit for foiling the plot. Problem is in a decade no evidence was ever produced to support this claim. Clark goes on to say that many inteligence agencies question whether the plot was ever real.

The 911 commission report does not even mention Zarqawi to my knowledge most likely because there is no claim that he was involved in 911. His interactions w/ the Iraqi goverment in general appear to be well after 911 and only after he was forced to flee Afghanastan due to our invasion, and therefore beyond the scope of their function. I also find no mention of him in the Iraq Study Group report most likely because he died 6 months before they released their report so I do not find that these documents refute anything the Jordanians have said.

The reason you can't find mention of Zarqawi in either report is because they spell the name differently. Which is common when representing Arabic names in English. ( multiple ways to spell the name ). Try Zawahiri.

He's mentioned 23 times in the 911 comission report..which I refferenced earlier in this thread.

He's not mentioned in the Baker commission report, but Al Queda is only mentioned three times in that report.

[PeterMP]

No. The Jordanians said, as Powell said, that Zarqawi was in Baghdad for a time. That they requested Saddam's regime turn him over, and that the failure to do so is evidence of Saddam having ties with Al Qaeda, and Zarqawi is/was an Al Quada franchise operator. Thus linking Saddam to Al Queda.

The premise is wrong. Zarqawi's base of operations at this time was in American occupied norther Kurdish Iraq. We were trying to throw a net on the guy and failed for half a decade before the war. Failing to apprehend the guy isn't evidence of support. Not in America's case. Not in Iraq's case.

The evidence presented don't support the premise. America spent 3 years after the "mission accomplished" press conference trying to get Zarqawi. Were we "suupporting" him during that time cause we failed to get him?

The Jordanians go much further and say that the Iraqis did not even respond to their request, which suggest that they didn't even try and capture him, that Zarqawi was in Baghdad for an extended period of time w/ a large number of associates traveling in and out of the country that would have made it difficult for him to avoid detection, that some of his associates were questioned by the Iraqis, but were released, and that the Iraqis told them that the Jordanians knew that he was in Iraq and that they were looking for him. Read the quotes from the Washington Post I gave.

Mostly the Jordanians were looking for any information the Iraqis could supply. The Iraq response was at best silence, and the Jordanians suggest that they were cooperating w/ him. I no see no reason to believe they are lying and have not ever seen anybody give a reasonable explanation for why the Jordanians would lie or evidence to suggest they were.

About Powells speech, I think Powell is a reputable source.

Nothing there even remotely suggest that the Jordanians are lying. Clearly, we misunderstood the status of Iraq's WMD programs, and I'm sure that Powell considers that a blot on his record. I've never claimed that their WMD program was extensive as Powell was making the case. Did they have some WMD after they were no suppossed to? Yes. Was that a violation? Yes.

As I've already noted, there were issues w/ some of the things that Powell said. IMO, he did an okay job of making it clear that we were depending on outside information that may have been incorrect and that there were disagreements about things, but I could certainly see how he would feel. I myself give talks professionally w/ some frequency and try to always be clear about how well I know things and believe things, but if I made a case for something that later turned out to be false, I'm sure I'd be embarrassed also.

About Saddam's "terrorist" links.. Richard Clark was the #1 anti terror officer in the US government for 3 administrations. Originally appointed by Bush Sr. He served under Clinton for 8 years and Bush Jr for 3 years. I assume the former terror czar is a reputable source.

I don't doubt that Iraq was not involved in terrorism in the US and have said they were not involved in 911. Zarqawi was not wanted by the US until after the Iraq war started, at least not in a public sense. It doesn't mean that Iraqis weren't moving in that direction prior to the war, and it doesn't mean that the Jordanians were lying about them passing information to Zarqawi, while he was Baghdad.

The reason you can't find mention of Zarqawi in either report is because they spell the name differently. Which is common when representing Arabic names in English. ( multiple ways to spell the name ). Try Zawahiri.

He's mentioned 23 times in the 911 comission report..which I refferenced earlier in this thread.

He's not mentioned in the Baker commission report, but Al Queda is only mentioned three times in that report.

It appears to me to be two different people.

I'm talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarqawi a Jordanian.

All of the references to Zawahiri in the 911 report appear to be w/ respect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zawahiri an Egyptian.

The Jordanians wanted the Jordanian for attacks in their country. He was losely associated w/ Bin Laden. Zawahiri is closely associated w/ Bin Laden and to my knowledge is not wanted by the Jordanians, but is wanted by the Egyptians. Zawahiri is still believed to be alive, while it is believed that Zarqawi was killed in Iraq.

Let me be clear. The Jordanian regime really believes this. The Jordanian King has even weighed in (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2005/May/middleeast_May570.xml&section=middleeast&col)

There are either two conclusions to be had here:

1. That the Jordanians are lying.

2. That Saddam was protecting a terrorist w/ links to Bin Laden that would later become the head of Al Qeada in Iraq POST 911. Clearly, this would be evidence for growing ties between Saddam and terrorist. Whether it represented a dramatic change in policy by Saddam is unclear.

I have not seen any reputiable source to provide information or even a logical reason why the Jordanians would lie about this.

[JMS]

I have not seen any reputable source to provide information or even a logical reason why the Jordanians would lie about this.

But you have seen a reputable sourse saying Iraq wasn't active in terrorism against the US for almost a decade... Also that Iraq wasn't supporting Al Quada... We have those reputable sources?

So the US government's credibility is totally trashed over this because the President and his administration mislead in order to move the country to war.

But you want to rely on the Jordanians reputation for square dealing?

What part of Richard Clarks Statement was confusing/imprecise?...

1) "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

Zarqawi and Zawahiri were both associated with Al Qaeda right... So it's direct logic that the country's to official with regard to terrorism didn't see Iraq as supporting, working with, or enabling these guys.

Why would Jordan lie, cause they hate Saddam? Cause Bush made it known he would appreciate it. Take your pick. The "evidence" they offer of a connection between Saddam and Al Quada is not very damming. Not when you know our success rate tracking down Al Quada and Zarqawi. Not when you know Jordan's success rate in tracking down Al Qaeda.

Why would Saddam not respond to the Jordanians. Cause Jordan sided with the US in the first gulf war. Cause Saddam didn't have assets to use to run down Jordan's problems. Cause Jordan's information was bogus. Who knows.

Oh and I don't think it's true Zarqawi was not wanted by the US prior to 911. Zarqawi was wanted by us since the embassy attacks in Africa, as were all known Al Qaeda operatives. Zarqawi was also in an ongoing and loosing confrontation with the Kurds who we were supporting since just after the first gulf war. We wanted him for that too.

[PeterMP]

But you have seen a reputable sourse saying Iraq wasn't active in terrorism against the US for almost a decade... Also that Iraq wasn't supporting Al Quada... We have those reputable sources?

So the US government's credibility is totally trashed over this because the President and his administration mislead in order to move the country to war.

But you want to rely on the Jordanians reputation for square dealing?

What part of Richard Clarks Statement was confusing/imprecise?...

1) "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

Zarqawi and Zawahiri were both associated with Al Qaeda right... So it's direct logic that the country's to official with regard to terrorism didn't see Iraq as supporting, working with, or enabling these guys.

Well, this is where thing get tricky and most people don't understand. Depending on when he made that comment, it might be 100% true. Zarqawi didn't get aid from Iraq until AFTER he fled from Afghanastan so anytime before that and this is fine.

After that he might even have a legitimate excuse. Some people didn't consider Zarqawi part of Al Qaeda until he became annointed as the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq by Bin Laden. Zarqawi refused to swear allegiance to Bin Laden before that. Zarqawi believed in attacking Shia and didn't like Bin Laden's strict form of Islam. Bin Laden thought Zarqawi's desire to attack Shia was devisive and didn't believe he was a true follower of Islam (for example, he didn't like Zarqawi's tatto), but even though these people didn't consider Zarqawi part of Al Qaeda, they don't deny that Bin Laden helped set up and approved his camp in Afghanastan. If Clarke makes this distinction (which is a legitimate thing to do), then again his comment is 100% correct, but that doesn't mean that was not a change in Saddam's policy and that Saddam wasn't helping a terrorist w/ ties to Al Qaeda.

I've never seen Richard Clarke directly address the Jordanian claims.

The "evidence" they offer of a connection between Saddam and Al Quada is not very damming. Not when you know our success rate tracking down Al Quada and Zarqawi. Not when you know Jordan's success rate in tracking down Al Qaeda.

There is a difference in this one case. Zarqawi was caught in an bad situation having to flee from Afghanastan while injured. He was in trouble and needed help quick.

Why would Saddam not respond to the Jordanians. Cause Jordan sided with the US in the first gulf war. Cause Saddam didn't have assets to use to run down Jordan's problems. Cause Jordan's information was bogus. Who knows.

Doesn't really matter why. The nonresponse is an indication of support of terroism. Let's take your first case, "Jordan sided with the US in the first gulf war." The same logic would say that Saddam would have aided terroist against the US, which you are arguing is impossible.

Oh and I don't think it's true Zarqawi was not wanted by the US prior to 911. Zarqawi was wanted by us since the embassy attacks in Africa, as were all known Al Qaeda operatives. Zarqawi was also in an ongoing and loosing confrontation with the Kurds who we were supporting since just after the first gulf war. We wanted him for that too.

I'm pretty sure Zarqawi was not wanted as part of the embassy bombings. He was considered a minor player until Powell "outed" him in his speech. If he was wanted as part of the embassy bombings, then he wouldn't have been considered a "minor" player and would have been considered more of the mainstream Al Qaeda, which he wasn't.

[JMS]

Well, this is where thing get tricky and most people don't understand. Depending on when he made that comment, it might be 100% true. Zarqawi didn't get aid from Iraq until AFTER he fled from Afghanastan so anytime before that and this is fine.

Clark wrote and said that statement in his book and in the press shortly before the the second Bush Jr. Election after we invaded. He's also made that statement recently in response to Chenny's recent statement on Rush Limbaugh's show re-asserting Saddam Al Quada relationship existed... Since Clark originally spelled out that no connection has ever existed he has been backed up by Colin Powell, The Pentagon, George Bush himself, and George Tenant recently.

Their has never been any credible evidence of Saddam's Iraq supporting international terrorists ( 8 years prior to invasion), Al Qaeda, or any linkage between Iraq and 911..

The entire relationship was manufactured for America's public consumption.

here are some more links..

(2007)Pentagon report debunks prewar Iraq-Al Qaeda connection

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html

(2007) Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted by Pentagon

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html

2005 Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee

Releases/Unclassified intelligence reports on Iraq Al Qaeda relationship.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2005_cr/levin041505.html

Senator Levin said: "It is important for the public to see why the Pentagon's Inspector General concluded that Secretary Feith's office 'developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda relationship,' which included 'conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community.' "

(2004)Iraq and Al Quada: What Evidence?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/01/b23816.html

2003 response to Douglas Feith's 50 pieces of evidence of an Iraq, Al Quada link. An Iraqi's likely story..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17609-2003Nov27.html

I've never seen Richard Clarke directly address the Jordanian claims.

I don't think the Jordanian claims that Zachary was treated at an Iraqi hospital are very conclusive or damming evidence of an Iraqi, Al Qaeda relationship. Zachary, as you've said, wasn't a major terrorist figure then. He wasn't affiliated with Al Qaeda then, publically. He wasn't even the leader of his group then. I don't think it really means much, even if it's true. Certainly it's not cause for to justify an invasion.

Doesn't really matter why. The non response is an indication of support of terrorism. Let's take your first case, "Jordan sided with the US in the first gulf war." The same logic would say that Saddam would have aided terrorist against the US, which you are arguing is impossible.

First off, according to Wikipedia the Jordanians arrested and released Zarchary as late as 2001. He had been in Jordanian prison for five years and had only just gotten out in 1999.

Sometime in 2001, Zarqawi was arrested in Jordan but was soon released. He was later convicted in absentia and sentenced to death for plotting the attack on the Radisson SAS Hotel.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DMUS_en___US204&q=Zarqawi+pre+Invasion

Second off, non response isn't an indication of anything especially when it's consistent as Iraq's non contact with Jordan was.

Thirdly, I'm not arguing that Iraq's support of terrorism was impossible. I'm stating the facts which are well known that there is no credible evidence of such a link ever existed.

Fourthly, Not talking to an enemy as the Jordanians because they sided with us in the first gulf war, is not equivalent to sponsoring terrorism. Especially Islamic radical terrorists like Al Qaeda who are sworn enemies of the secular Bathists. There is just no smoking gun.

I'm pretty sure Zarqawi was not wanted as part of the embassy bombings. He was considered a minor player until Powell "outed" him in his speech. If he was wanted as part of the embassy bombings, then he wouldn't have been considered a "minor" player and would have been considered more of the mainstream Al Qaeda, which he wasn't.

You're right here. Zarqawi was actually in Jordanian jail from early 1990's up to 1999. He was also in jail again shortly in 2001 before being released by the Jordanians. Clearly he wasn't a major target, as you say he was a minor player until around Powell's UN speech. He did have al Quada ties and support prior to that time however. It also seems there were talks pre-invasion on whether to take him and his base in Northern Iraqi Kurdish region out with an airstrike. But Bush, and this administration decided not to.

Holy Zarqawi: Why Bush let Iraq's top terrorist walk.

http://www.slate.com/id/2108880/