Powell on Iraq

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

Code also ignores the very real threat that Sadam would happily hand a nuke to Al Qaeda who could then slip it onto a cargo ship and into NY harbor if he could. I guess those americans should simply move out of NY.

Powell has shown an Al Qaeda connection and as was said at the beginning of the war on terrorism "any nation that knowingly harbors terrorist will be considered terrorist themselves."

People who argue that Sadam and Iraq would not work with Al Qaeda are fools. As the saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my freind". Sadam would have no problem kissing up to and using Al Qaeda to attack us, then dumping them when he had no further use for them. Recently Sadam said in a speach that Iraq would prevail against the US "with the will of God". A figure of speach that is chillingly reminicent of Bin Ladens statements. Al Qaeda has said that the WTC attacks were in part a response to US troops in Saudi Arabia during the last gulf war. Do you realy think these people would not put aside their differences to get to us?

Okay, I'm not going to deny that there aren't compelling reasons why we need to involve U.S. troops in Iraq, but I'm just not buying the Sadaam link to al Qaeda, not yet at least.

The fact is, we all know that terrorist factions are allowed to operate and train right here in our own back yard, as witnessed by the Oklahoma bombing. This does not mean that Clinton endorsed terrorists during his watch.

Along those same lines, it's a stretch for Powell and the Bush administration to unequivocally state that Sadaam had first hand knowledge and endorsed al Qaeda operating within the borders of Iraq. And even if he did, why is he held accountable for their actions when U.S. local, state, and federal officials knowingly allow para-military groups to operate freely within U.S. borders?

Does this not sound like a double standard?

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration's efforts to build a case for war against Iraq using intelligence to link it to al-Qaeda and the development of prohibited weapons has created friction within U.S. intelligence agencies, government officials said.

Some analysts at the CIA have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said.

At the FBI, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and, you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said.

The tension within the intelligence agencies comes as Secretary of State Colin Powell is poised to go before the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday to present evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism and its continuing efforts to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and long-range missiles.

Interviews with administration officials revealed divisions between, on one side, the Pentagon and the National Security Council, which has become a clearinghouse for the evidence being prepared for Powell, and, on the other, the CIA, the State Department and agencies such asthe FBI.

In the interviews, two officials, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary, and Stephen Hadley, deputy national security adviser, were cited as being most eager to interpret evidence deemed murky by intelligence officials to show a clearer picture of Iraq's involvement in illicit weapons programs and terrorism.

Bush asserted in his State of the Union address last week that Iraq was protecting and aiding al-Qaeda operatives, but U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement officials said the evidence was fragmentary and inconclusive.

"It's more than just skepticism," said one official, describing the feelings of some analysts in the intelligence agencies. "I think there is also a sense of disappointment with the community's leadership that they are not standing up for them at a time when the intelligence is obviously being politicized."

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by TheKurp

Okay, I'm not going to deny that there aren't compelling reasons why we need to involve U.S. troops in Iraq, but I'm just not buying the Sadaam link to al Qaeda, not yet at least.

The fact is, we all know that terrorist factions are allowed to operate and train right here in our own back yard, as witnessed by the Oklahoma bombing. This does not mean that Clinton endorsed terrorists during his watch.

Along those same lines, it's a stretch for Powell and the Bush administration to unequivocally state that Sadaam had first hand knowledge and endorsed al Qaeda operating within the borders of Iraq. And even if he did, why is he held accountable for their actions when U.S. local, state, and federal officials knowingly allow para-military groups to operate freely within U.S. borders?

Does this not sound like a double standard?

From the New York Times:

A) In any organization there will be differences of opinion.

This is the same CIA that missed all of the clues leading up to 9/11. They are much better at gathering intellegence than interpreting it.

Believe what you want, but I would be suprised if they were NOT working together.

[codeorama]

Art, Art, Art............. Did you not read that I WAS against a millitary action UNTIL I saw Powells commentsj, until I was able to see the entire broadcast??..........!!!

What kills me about you Art is that you are so damn annoying, you talk in circles, you contradict yourself so many times if freaking nuts... I'm not the first nor last to call you on it.

Do you only scan most of my posts?? Haven't you figured out that I'm a very sarcastic person and many of the things that I say in regards to ANYTHING are not so freaking literal.... You ALWAYS take everything so literal, I am convinced that you honestly think that you are so superior to everyone, whether it's football, religion, politics or warfare........ Damn Art, why don't you run for office, you know it all. You are so freaking rude.... you talk down on freaking everone....... Damn. I remember you getting blasted on a Saint message board by one of their mods because you were talking down to everyone and well, just being Art. The sad thing is, I know you have heard it before, not just here in pretend computer land, but at home in your real life. You know it.

Never Art, Never... in any of my posts, ever have I called you "boy" or "moron"....... You are sad. Even when we have disagreed, I have not resulted to name calling. I can accept that people have different views. For you Art and others who feel the way you do, there are tons and tons of people who feel differently. But in Art's world, they are all wrong.

[Art]

Code,

"Art, Art, Art............. Did you not read that I WAS against a millitary action UNTIL I saw Powells commentsj, until I was able to see the entire broadcast??..........!!!"

As I said. I read what you wrote. Do you know when what you wrote was what you wrote? You wrote your first entrance in this thread AFTER Powell had completed his portion of the comments. Now, you say you were for military action after you heard his comments, and yet, you weren't for military action until any number of posts in. But, that's pointless. Whether Powell spoke today or whether he played Old McDonald with Michael Jackson's children is irrelevant. You spent two pages attempting to explain how the U.S. had no worries with Iraq as if you were never aware Iraq existed until this morning.

"What kills me about you Art is that you are so damn annoying, you talk in circles, you contradict yourself so many times if freaking nuts... I'm not the first nor last to call you on it."

Code, I speak in a straight line. As you, and others, dance around the idiocy they've said, attempting to pretend it never happened, I continue to point back to that idiocy until there's some semblance of recognition from the poster that he did, in fact, say it. See, what is common here and with the others you've noticed who call me on my contradictions is no one has EVER quoted one contradiction I've been said to make and usually they point out my contradictions in a thread where I've pointed out a string of contradictions, by direct attribution, they've made. I call this the little boy syndrome. When logic escapes him, just spit and snarl and deflect.

So, what you can do here is point to the obvious nature of our conversation. You have not a single contradiction I've written. I have a dozen you've written -- and worse, just plainly stupid commentary -- and you're doing the Pee Wee Herman saying you're rubber and I'm glue. Ouch, baby, ouch. The FIRST person to call me on my condradictions will do just as I display to them by actually using my words to display my contradictions. Until then, you just seem like a mewling child, as so many before you, who are out of their league and who should have shut up long ago, like, when they said they were done. But, keep crying wolf and make sure you don't recognize anything I'm saying to you. Then, you'll still be a dolt, but at least you won't recognize it and bliss is found in ignorance I suppose.

"Do you only scan most of my posts?? Haven't you figured out that I'm a very sarcastic person and many of the things that I say in regards to ANYTHING are not so freaking literal...."

I get it. So, you didn't mean literally, when you said repeatedly, that the U.S. was fighting for someone else? That was figurative said in a repetitive manner, right? You know what I want to see one day? I want to see a person realize how completely idiotic they make themselves sound when they back off comments like you're doing here and just say, "You know, ok, that was pretty dumb. But, what I really meant was...." I have done that. The reason you NEVER see someone hammer at me like I hammer at them is because when I'm busted, I say, "Yeah, you have a point." I NEVER scream until I'm blue in the face that when I said something a half a dozen times that what I wanted to be is taken in a figurative, not a literal sense. Bad form, Code.

"You ALWAYS take everything so literal, I am convinced that you honestly think that you are so superior to everyone, whether it's football, religion, politics or warfare........"

No. I'm superior to you on warfare. Don't confuse that with the feeling of any resemblance to a superiority on any other issue. It may be so, but, I've not ever found it to be so. And, again, what you MUST do is find out how an air of superiority on my part somehow lifts the nescience on your part.

"Damn Art, why don't you run for office, you know it all. You are so freaking rude.... you talk down on freaking everone....... Damn. I remember you getting blasted on a Saint message board by one of their mods because you were talking down to everyone and well, just being Art. The sad thing is, I know you have heard it before, not just here in pretend computer land, but at home in your real life. You know it."

And, Code, I'm equally certain you've heard, "Son, the world needs ditch diggers too," in your real life. You know it. Does the simple statement make these words powerful or meaningful? Have you ever seen me comment upon what a person is or is not in real life, or do you only ever see me comment up on the content of the words they share here? So, again, instead of looking at WHY this conversation took place, and addressing the quoted words YOU said, it is somehow uplifting to you to attempt a petty remark. Do you NOT know about me that I LOVE that stuff? I eat that stuff up. You keep imagining whatever it is you can about what I am in real life. Dream about it. Talk to your friends about it. I'll continue to point out where you are a niggling fool on these boards. And I'll still be right, based on your words, and you'll still be dreaming up ways to limit the messenger because the message isn't nice to you. And, here's the best part, once you figure out you should EITHER ADDRESS the contradictions you've had pointed out to you, OR ACTUALLY HOLD to your pledge to shut the hell up, in a day or two, you and I are going to be on the same (or roughly the same) side of something and you are going to wonder if you should be because you were mad at me here, while I'm going to continue to address each thread as it's own wonderous exploration in to the human mind and soul and wonder how a person I've had any number of reasonable, polite and lively discussions with in the past now doesn't realize that I only turn on the dumb and never the thoughful.

"Never Art, Never... in any of my posts, ever have I called you "boy" or "moron"."

Never in any of my posts have I displayed boyish or moronic tendencies. I may not always have an opinion that is shared by another, but, I NEVER post repetitively outright ignorance and try to give it credence by calling it an opinion by saying over and over that the U.S. is talking about Iraq to protect its allies, as if that's ever been mentioned ONCE. Fiction can be fun. Now that I see you meant it figuratively, I'll ask what the the use of a figure of speech has to do with repeatedly saying we have no self-interest in Iraq. I call a spade a spade. You feel absolutely free to do the same when I display I'm a spade. Since your comments were repeatedly nonsensical and fictional in nature, I'm going to have a great deal more leverage though in comparison in this thread.

"...... You are sad. Even when we have disagreed, I have not resulted to name calling. I can accept that people have different views."

Again, your comments don't rise to the level of a view. They weren't opinion. They were sheer, unadulterated, uncompromised, unhidden, unfettered, bald-faced fiction and displayed an amazing and rather frightening lack of any basic knowledge. When you HAVE shared your views, have we not had fairly engaging and reasonable discussions?

"For you Art and others who feel the way you do, there are tons and tons of people who feel differently. But in Art's world, they are all wrong."

Code, you can feel the sky is yellow. Hundreds can say the world is flat. Reality is still reality and what is, still is. And that's the only thing that matters. In the world, what's wrong is wrong, because, simply put, what is, is, and no amount of fiction you feel can make it not so. But, of course, you were just being figurative and not literal and all. I got it. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

[Art]

Kurp,

For your comparision to be meaningful, you'll have to demonstrate that the para-military organizations operating in our country have conducted acts of terrorism and violence the world over. Until then, there is a distinct difference between knowing that a bunch of redneck racists are forming a militia and wining and dining Al Queda.

So, no, there's no contradiction. If we were aware of any group within our borders that were operating bases and then launching global terrorist operations and we did nothing, then we'd be who we despise and there'd be a massive contradiction.

For the record, I do believe Iraq has knowledge of and has looked the other way with certain Al Queda groups, but they've done this more since 9-11 than prior and I don't think there's a reasoned or reasonable link between Iraq, Al Queda and 9-11. So, I join you in a bit of ho-hum belief on that "link". I think that's just dressing to be honest and I believe it's the smallest of all reasons to consider the need to act against Iraq.

[fansince62]

kurp...sorry dude...can't let you go with such a slippery equivocation.......please produce the evidence that these paramilitary organizations are devloping nerve agents, chemical and nuclear weapons. what was the last building they flew jetliners into?

[redman]

Originally posted by TheKurp

The fact is, we all know that terrorist factions are allowed to operate and train right here in our own back yard, as witnessed by the Oklahoma bombing.

What are you talking about, "allowed to"?!?! Every terrorist organization we've learned about whose existence even hinted at violence has been whacked, and that's been the case since long before 9/11. Heck, even our definition of "terrorist organization" has been relatively loosely defined.

Do you remember Jim Jones? David Koresh and the Branch Davidians? Ruby Ridge? The Freemen?

If anything, the feds have been accused of being too intrusive into the affairs of fringe groups prior to 9/11, not of being too lax. Indeed, that was the purported reason for OK City: McVeigh, Nichols and others were supposed PO'd about the government attacking the Branch Davidians, which is why they chose the two-year anniversary to blow up the Murrah Building.

That level of intrusiveness has only increased since 9/11. There are people who are U.S. citizens who are locked up without legal representation or even contact with the outside world in the name of "national security".

Anyway, before I digress, you're way off the mark here. If our government - led especially on this point by Bush, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft - had their way, there'd be a hell of a lot more incidents resembling the Hellfire missile attack in Yemen in November, than some other more diplomatic incidents we've done.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Art

Kurp,

For your comparision to be meaningful, you'll have to demonstrate that the para-military organizations operating in our country have conducted acts of terrorism and violence the world over. Until then, there is a distinct difference between knowing that a bunch of redneck racists are forming a militia and wining and dining Al Queda.

Art,

The comparison was meant to illustrate Sadaam's culpability, or lack of, in holding him responsible for al Qaeda's presence in Iraq. As far as I can tell, there's still no damning evidence that Sadaam directly supports or supported their terrorist activities. However on this point I think we agree, so there's no need to further belabor the issue.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by fansince62

kurp...sorry dude...can't let you go with such a slippery equivocation.......please produce the evidence that these paramilitary organizations are devloping nerve agents, chemical and nuclear weapons. what was the last building they flew jetliners into?

FanSince62,

Re-read my post. I'm not arguing Sadaam's involvement in the building of weapons of mass destruction.

My post was a direct reference to Mad Mike and Powell's assertion today that there's a definitive link between al Qaeda and Sadaam.

Just so we're clear on this, I'm not arguing against military intervention in Iraq. But I'm not going to swallow every pill the government feeds me in justifying the pending war in Iraq without question. I think the administration, meaning Powell, should shoot straight with the American public and refrain from making conclusions from fragmentary evidence and feeding it to us as fact.

[codeorama]

Art, When I started one this thread, I had not seen Powells comments for my self. From day one, my opinion has been, I'm not 100% behind war unless they show some evidence or the UN is behind us. Look back at any old thread, that has been where I have stood.

When I had the chance to see Powell's speech for myself, I changed my opinion. Military action will probably be needed.

It is still my opinion that if the US takes action, it will be mostly because of our MidEast allies that could be attacked by Iraq. We all know that terrorist attacks can occur at anytime and as others have pointed out, there still is not proof that Iraq is supporting Bin Laden. Terrorism is the ONLY way that Iraq is a threat to the US. And in that case, we may not ever know if it's Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or the mormons in Utah. Say what you want, but thats a fact.

[Tarhog]

Kurp, it doesn't really matter if you 'swallow' everything you feel you are being fed. Fortunately, we do not live in a pure democracy. Don't get me wrong. Dissent is good. Americans forget that the primary difference separating the 'good guys' from 'bad guys' like Hussein is that your right to question, disbelieve, even mock the US Government and its policies if you like is not only tolerated, but protected. I think there is more evidence linking Al Qaeda and Hussein's regime, but I"m betting its based mostly on human intelligence, which is information we aren't going to share with anyone but our closest allies as it puts our sources at almost certain peril.

If you remember, Bush put all of the suspect countries on notice from the start that they were either 'with us or against us'. I agree that the PUBLIC case linking the Iraqis and Al Qaeda has not been made, but by willingly allowing Al Qaeda into their northern territories (and some intel says it goes way beyond that), Hussein is at a minimum thumbing his nose and hampering the war on terrorism, and potentially actively planning future sponsorship of their activities.

Again, I have no problem with dissenting discussion, and I think a healthy dose of skepticism regarding all governments is a positive and common sense approach. But I'll put my faith in the US government's stated position over a bunch of lying, torturing, invading, raping *******s any day. But thats just me.

[redman]

Originally posted by TheKurp

My post was a direct reference to Mad Mike and Powell's assertion today that there's a definitive link between al Qaeda and Sadaam.

Powell went far beyond making a naked, unsupported assertion. He provided extensive details:

My friends, the information I have presented to you about these terrible weapons and about Iraq's continued flaunting of its obligations under Security Council Resolution 1441 links to a subject I now want to spend a little bit of time on, and that has to do with terrorism.

Our concern is not just about these illicit weapons; it's the way that these illicit weapons can be connected to terrorists and terrorist organizations that have no compunction about using such devices against innocent people around the world.

Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the Intifadah. And it's no secret that Saddam's own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s.

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Massad Al-Zakawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.

Zakawi, Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialties, and one of the specialties of this camp, is poisons.

When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zakawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp, and this camp is located in northeastern Iraq. You see a picture of this camp.

The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch -- imagine a pinch of salt -- less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock, followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote. There is no cure. It is fatal.

Those helping to run this camp are Zakawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered al-Qaida safe haven in the region.

After we swept al-Qaida from Afghanistan, some of those members accepted this safe haven. They remain there today.

Zakawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of northeast Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May of 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.

During his stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These al-Qaida affiliates based in Baghdad now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they have now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months.

Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with al-Qaida. These denials are simply not credible. Last year, an al-Qaida associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was "good," that Baghdad could be transited quickly.

We know these affiliates are connected to Zakawi because they remain, even today, in regular contact with his direct subordinates, include the poison cell plotters. And they are involved in moving more than money and materiel. Last year, two suspected al-Qaida operatives were arrested crossing from Iraq into Saudi Arabia. They were linked to associates of the Baghdad cell and one of them received training in Afghanistan on how to use cyanide.

From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zakawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond. We in the United States, all of us, the State Department and the Agency for International Development, we all lost a dear friend with the cold-blooded murder of Mr. Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan, last October. A despicable act was committed that day, the assassination of an individual whose sole mission was to assist the people of Jordan. The captured assassin says his cell received money and weapons from Zakawi for that murder. After the attack, an associate of the assassin left Jordan to go to Iraq to obtain weapons and explosives for further operations. Iraqi officials protest that they are not aware of the whereabouts of Zakawi or of any of his associates. Again, these protests are not credible. We know of Zakawi's activities in Baghdad. I described them earlier.

Now let me add one other fact. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zakawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zakawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zakawi still remains at large, to come and go.

As my colleagues around this table and as the citizens they represent in Europe know, Zakawi's terrorism is not confined to the Middle East. Zakawi and his network have plotted terrorist actions against countries including France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia. According to detainees Abu Atia, who graduated from Zakawi's terrorist camp in Afghanistan, tasked at least nine North African extremists in 2001 to travel to Europe to conduct poison and explosive attacks.

Since last year, members of this network have been apprehended in France, Britain, Spain and Italy. By our last count, 116 operatives connected to this global web have been arrested. The chart you are seeing shows the network in Europe.

We know about this European network and we know about its links to Zakawi because the detainees who provided the information about the targets also provided the names of members of the network. Three of those he identified by name were arrested in France last December. In the apartments of the terrorists, authorities found circuits for explosive devices and a list of ingredients to make toxins.

The detainee who helped piece this together says the plot also targeted Britain. Later evidence again proved him right. When the British unearthed the cell there just last month, one British police officer was murdered during the destruction of the cell.

We also know that Zakawi's colleagues have been active in the Pankisi Gorge, Georgia, and in Chechnya, Russia. The plotting to which they are linked is not mere chatter. Members of Zakawi's network say their goal was to kill Russians with toxins.

We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zakawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al-Qaida. Going back to the early and mid-1990s when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an al-Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that al-Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early al-Qaida ties were forged by secret high-level intelligence service contacts with al-Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with al-Qaida.

We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service.

Saddam became more interested as he saw al-Qaida's appalling attacks. A detained al-Qaida members tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist al-Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by al-Qaida's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.

Iraqis continue to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to al-Qaida members on document forgery.

From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the al-Qaida organization.

Some believe, some claim, these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and al-Qaida's religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and al-Qaida together, enough so al-Qaida could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that al-Qaida could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction.

And the record of Saddam Hussein's cooperation with other Islamist terrorist organizations is clear. Hamas, for example, opened an office in Baghdad in 1999 and Iraq has hosted conferences attended by Palestine Islamic Jihad. These groups are at the forefront of sponsoring suicide attacks against Israel.

Al-Qaida continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zakawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al-Qaida. Fortunately, this operative is now detained and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now as he, himself, described it.

This senior al-Qaida terrorist was responsible for one of al-Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan. His information comes firsthand from his personal involvement at senior levels of al-Qaida. He says bin Laden and his top deputy in Afghanistan, deceased al-Qaida leader Mohammed Atef, did not believe that al-Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable enough to manufacture these chemical or biological agents. They needed to go somewhere else. They had to look outside of Afghanistan for help.

Where did they go? Where did they look? They went to Iraq. The support that the describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two al-Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abdullah al-Araqi had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gasses. Abdullah al-Araqi characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.

As I said at the outset, none of this should come as a surprise to any of us. Terrorism has been a tool used by Saddam for decades. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism long before these terrorist networks had a name, and this support continues. The nexus of poisons and terror is new. The nexus of Iraq and terror is old. The combination is lethal.

With this track record, Iraqi denials of supporting terrorism take their place alongside the other Iraqi denials of weapons of mass destruction. It is all a web of lies.

When we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional domination, hides weapons of mass destruction, and provides haven and active support for terrorists, we are not confronting the past; we are confronting the present. And unless we act, we are confronting an even more frightening future. (emphasis added)

What more do you want?

[The Wicked Wop]

I really think it was imprtant that Powell was the one bringing out the fact about IRAQ.......why?.....mainly because he seems to be the one in the presidents court that has seemed to be reluctant about going after Sadam and I don't see him being influcend lightly. Other than that, we all know that IRAQ is hiding weapons and It may be time for the US to start fleixing its mucsle...I have been in alot of ways apposed to this course of action....but the one point that compels me is that if a terriorist attack does occur in the US and the US did not do all it could do to stop it, who would be the first you criticized...the president. I really think alot of people forgot about 9/11, atleast those away from the penagon and the world trade centers. If the US is to defend it self, it must do so before the actual threat is made known, ti must do so on the reliance of inteligence and analytical review that points to specific threats that must be dealt with. Iraq may not seem like a viable threat today, but if they did wouldn't u have to do everything possible to stop them, and if you didn't wouldn't u not being serving your county in the manner that they require of you.

[Art]

Originally posted by TheKurp

Art,

The comparison was meant to illustrate Sadaam's culpability, or lack of, in holding him responsible for al Qaeda's presence in Iraq. As far as I can tell, there's still no damning evidence that Sadaam directly supports or supported their terrorist activities. However on this point I think we agree, so there's no need to further belabor the issue.

Kurp,

Saddam's culpability is there if he knows members of Al Qaeda are in his nation. That's all that's necessary to show he directly supports their terrorist activities because that group operates as a terrorist group, openly, and knowledge of their presense without removal of them is complicit support. Surely you see that?

Again, it's not necessarily all that meaningful to me as this is the least impressive piece of evidence against Iraq at the moment.

[Art]

Code.....

"Art, When I started one this thread, I had not seen Powells comments for my self. From day one, my opinion has been, I'm not 100% behind war unless they show some evidence or the UN is behind us. Look back at any old thread, that has been where I have stood. "

Fair enough Code. I'll take you at your word in terms of the timing. I will just say this though if it is at all meaningful. The time stamp on the message you wrote that contained, "To say that we are going to war with Iraq to protect ourselves... you've got to be kidding," was 3:22 my time. The time stamp on the message you wrote that contained, "Just to clarify, I am NOT saying that we should not go to war with Iraq," was at 3:36. Seven minutes later you made you mentioned listening to what Powell had to say. I certainly was not looking at a two-hour window here that would demonstrate you were thinking one thing early on and then later on you thought another after having better evidence. You were speaking right on through, so if I have made a mistake as to the timing of your remarks, I apologize.

"When I had the chance to see Powell's speech for myself, I changed my opinion. Military action will probably be needed.

It is still my opinion that if the US takes action, it will be mostly because of our MidEast allies that could be attacked by Iraq. We all know that terrorist attacks can occur at anytime and as others have pointed out, there still is not proof that Iraq is supporting Bin Laden. Terrorism is the ONLY way that Iraq is a threat to the US. And in that case, we may not ever know if it's Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or the mormons in Utah. Say what you want, but thats a fact."

I've never made any contention that we may never know the people or group or nation responsible for another terrorist attack against us. However, I can rule out one group of people. Saddam and anyone he's giving assistance to. It won't be those people. I know this because once we take him out, he'll no longer pose this threat to us, and the threat is to us, not to our "allies" in the Middle East. Even if he launched gas-tipped Scuds (which he can't, but you get the point) at Israel we wouldn't make a pre-emptive move for them as we would for our own self-defense.

But, since this is the first time you've bothered to express your view in this fashion I can only say it wouldn't have brought quite the concern over your standing on the issue had you bothered to articulate yourself earlier. This thought does rise to the level of opinion and is fairly expressed as your view as it displays an awareness of what we're saying and yet a thought that there may be more, or perhaps a lot more, to the words we speak. It's just too bad you had to do the drive by leftist nut propoganda machine posts before getting to a point where you expressed an actual position that seems to actually demonstrate a moment of thought behind it.

I guess a well done is in order .

Code,

[Talent Wasted at a Desk]

I see this as much about the UN as about Iraq. Basically, will the UN enforce its own resolutions?

Is the UN security council -- the countries that are the fundamental repositories of nuclear weapons technology -- willing to enforce their own cartel...for the sake of world peace or, perfectly understandably, for the sake of their own influence? (I assume they felt India and Pakistan have nukes for bilateral purposes only, although Pak's relations with North Korea cloud that.)

Iraq is a sad footnote in world history, unless they contibute to WMD proliferation. If that happens, after all this sound and fury, the UN is truly impotent, and itself will be the sad footnote in world history.

[codeorama]

Art,

Just so you understand the timing issue:

I was at work and was not able to watch Powell's speech completely.

I do not take what people say on these boards as fact, just because "Art" says that Powell says this, I not usually going to believe that. Later, I had the opportunity to watch the speech.

Finally, Even if we get Saddam, that does NOT remove the possibility of terrorist attacks from Saddam or his close followers. Some might say that it makes the possibility greater that there could be a terrorist attack.

I also want to touch on a point The Kurp made.... He brought up the fact that "terrorist" have been right here in our own back yard... that is very true. Something to think about is this... Ruby Ridge, Waco, they were nuts for sure, but there are many people, (not myself) that feel the government overstepped their bounds and went to far etc... What I'm getting at is for anyone on this board to assume that their opinion reflects everyone's opinion or that they are "right" is absurd. To MANY Americans, a war with Iraq will be another Vietnam. I don't mean literally as in for the same reasons, but because it would be a war were there was no clear "shots fired". It took Pearl Harbor to get the US to enter WWII, that was a great tragedy, but the president knew that he would not have the nations support until then. There are those conspiriacy folks that say the pres new an attack was imminant but let it go on so he would have support.

I am not one of those who think we should wait for a disaster to occure, but there are those people out there who do and will protest and so on.

[Art]

Code,

Well enough alone comes to mind.

"Art,

Just so you understand the timing issue:

I was at work and was not able to watch Powell's speech completely.

I do not take what people say on these boards as fact, just because "Art" says that Powell says this, I not usually going to believe that. Later, I had the opportunity to watch the speech."

First, if "Art" says that Powell says something, you ought to believe it as it'll be precisely accurate. But, fortunately for you, this was never a discussion about what Powell said or didn't say. Fortunately I never said a single word Powell said so you didn't have to believe or disbelieve me on attribution. As I said to you, Powell could have done nothing yesterday and gone off fishing and NOTHING you said early in this thread reflected reality before or after Powell's speech. Powell's speech presented what some believe was evidence of continued failure by Iraq to live by the terms of the surrender it signed and all that. But, it didn't speak for even a moment to the dangers America faces. It was a speech to the U.N. If anything, it spoke to the dangers the world faces and the insult given the U.N. -- which deserves insulting -- by Iraq continuing to do what it does.

"Finally, Even if we get Saddam, that does NOT remove the possibility of terrorist attacks from Saddam or his close followers. Some might say that it makes the possibility greater that there could be a terrorist attack."

Yes and no. If we get Saddam, that does remove the possibility of terrorist attacks from Saddam. You know this to be true, right? Dead men don't wear plaid. Dead men don't tell tales. Dead men don't sanction terrorist attacks with weapons of mass destruction. And, you continue to not express the worry we have when you bring up terrorist attacks with government sponsorship from Iraq. That's not our true concern. Our true concern is a man who surrendered to us and promised not to do certain things because of his willingness to attack another country and occupy it, has continued to develop weapons far more hideous than any conventional weapon we can come up with and that man, if allowed to fulfill his desires, could launch terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction at us. We're not talking terrorism. We're talking biological terrorism. We're talking chemical terrorism. We're talking nuclear terrorism.

The removal of Saddam makes that type of terrorism attack vastly diminished as much of this weaponry will be destroyed in the attack and much more will be confiscated by an occupying army during a transistion to new leadership. While we still won't be safe from these types of terrorist attacks, we'll be fully and completely and unquestionably safe from them by Saddam, and he's the biggest worry we have at present in this regard. This is why I do not support the option of letting him go into exile as we'll not have removed this threat and it amuses me to watch us use exile as an option knowing Saddam will never go for it, but being able to say, "See, we wanted peace here too." .

"I also want to touch on a point The Kurp made.... He brought up the fact that "terrorist" have been right here in our own back yard... that is very true."

Yes it is. And it's completely irrelevant. Terrorists are still in our own back yard. Weapons of mass destruction that could easily find their way to terrorists are in Saddam's back yard. We need to clean up that back yard as much as we can. But, as is typical, and somewhat disgusting with the left is the continued flaunting of their white terrorist hero from Oklahoma City. I call him this because the left uses the actions of McVeigh as a counterweight to balance the decades of Islamic global terrorism, as if there's any real comparison between the occasional nut we have to put to sleep and the fairly routine efforts of a region to target and kill innocent people as their form of protest.

"Something to think about is this... Ruby Ridge, Waco, they were nuts for sure, but there are many people, (not myself) that feel the government overstepped their bounds and went to far etc..."

Many people did think this. Of course, Ruby Ridge and Waco were more cults than organizations that were organizing domestic or global terrorism. No matter what they were, our government was willing to capture and punish, or kill these people when it got to a point it felt they could no longer be safely contained. Whether the government indeed went too far is not a question I can answer as I don't follow those stories. What I can answer is after acts of terrorism conducted by our people in this country our government agencies attempt to capture those people and bring them to justice. Similar events in another region see celebrations and paychecks offered for the actions. You understand there is no moral or actual counterbalancing point here right? It is observably true that there are people who've conducted terrorist actions that have been in our nation. If that moves you, good. To the rest it will be seen as a continued skirting of the question before us and the history of a people that don't attempt to bring their bad people to justice, but, rather, drive food to the camps to make it easier.

"What I'm getting at is for anyone on this board to assume that their opinion reflects everyone's opinion or that they are "right" is absurd."

Depends on the statements in question.

"To MANY Americans, a war with Iraq will be another Vietnam. I don't mean literally as in for the same reasons, but because it would be a war were there was no clear "shots fired". It took Pearl Harbor to get the US to enter WWII, that was a great tragedy, but the president knew that he would not have the nations support until then. There are those conspiriacy folks that say the pres new an attack was imminant but let it go on so he would have support. I am not one of those who think we should wait for a disaster to occure, but there are those people out there who do and will protest and so on."

You didn't say, Code, that to many Americans, a war with Iraq will be another Vietnam on the grounds that there may not be any clear shots fired. You said, repeatedly, it will be like Vietnam because we would be fighting someone elses battles. So, again, that you've ferreted out a comparision issue with Vietnam that works is great. Had you said that would have been great. That it's taken you two days and a dramatic lessening of our estimation of your intelligence on the matter to come up with it is sad.

Could a war with Iraq be similar to a war with Vietnam on the grounds Kurp pointed out as to public opinion? Sure. Could a war with Iraq be similar to a war with Vietnam on the grounds that there may not be any clear provocation on the part of the enemy? Sure. Could a war with Iraq be similar to a war with Vietnam on the grounds that we shouldn't be fighting a war for someone else. No.

And herein lies the distinction in how an opinion can be right, and true and proper and trump another's thoughts. I don't agree with the first two, but, they are in the realm of possibility and reality and can be considered. The third is just abject ignorance. It's the sort of ignorance shown by Jay's Jaywalkers who don't know the two countries south and north of the U.S. They can be of the mind that Texas is the country to the south of the U.S., but the simple and unvarnished point is, that opinion isn't an opinion that is valid, no matter how earnestly it may be held. Ignorance has no shield of protection against being wrong just because someone says, "Well, that's just my opinion." It can still be wrong and baseless and ignorantly phrased and untrue and meaningless and that you think it doesn't make it anything greater and does make contrary words that express some sense of the world we live in right and yours wrong.

But, if you think Texas is a valid opinion as to the country to the south of us, gosh and golly, I shouldn't think anything ill of you because you have a right to your opinion. Yeah. You have an equal right to keep it to yourself sometimes too .

[fansince62]

to the gainsayers......a few tacit assumptions/charges lie behind much of what you and critics of current adminstration policy state:

1) The government will lie to me so I cannot trust them when they tell me they have concrete evidence about Iraqi complicity irt WMDs and terrorist associations. You and many like you have come one step short of making all manner of ad hominem arguments about "supporting daddy", or "lack of smarts", "pan-American hegemonistic ambitions", and on and on. This, all the while, is done while never having been part of the process, not knowing any of the players, not understanding the culture or internal control processes. Much of what I have seen written is insulting in the extreme - if you want to know the truth. I refer you to Mary McGrory's inane, sanctimonious prattling in this morning's issue of the Post if you need an example.

2) While I agree that as a citizen you have the right to want to make informed decisions, it is not so clear how far that right goes and what tradeoffs should be made. There are lives directly at stake. There are highly sensitive systems and information sources at stake. Someone has to weigh the immediate gains vs future intelligence tradeoffs. There also seems to be a predisposition on the part of many, I'm not asserting you, to be spoonfed: "the government hasn't given me enough hard evidence." these folks need to develop their own, alternative information sources if they do not trust available sources. let's see some proof that supports the contrapositve!!!!

3) Quite frankly.........the "I'm thinking of the troops"...doesn't cut it.....at least not for me. I personally don't care whether some well-intentioned advocate for peace cares about me or not. I do care about the consequences of the actions they advocate. My decision to shoulder risk is a voluntary one and has nothing to do with you or anyone else. I do trust that the leadership will make the proper risk assumptions in all of this such that my life or the lives of my friends aren't wasted. Has anyone stopped to think that delaying an attack might well result in greater loss of life? American lives to be more specific? All in the name of a blatantly bogus inspection process?

4) The reasoning behind the judgments levied on the positions adopted by our government always seems to be based on discrete, near-real time considerations. Intentionally or not, there never appears to be any attempt to connect the dots as they weave through our lives over, say, 10 to 20 years. There is a pronounced and documented pattern since at least the early 70s (when analysts began observing actions by terrorist groups such as the IRA) of Middle Eastern countries covertly supporting terrorist organizations. The assessments of this larger panorama never seem to figure into the Iraqi decision process. Iraq is just one bad actor in this larger drama that is being played out on the world stage.

5) You're right about the lack of concrete, "smoking gun" evidence on terrorist connections. But isn't that the whole point of terrorism? small groups, decentralized command, covertness, lengthy planning/execution times? the very evidence you want to find is very different from the traditional large massed armies and bulky weapons systems. What's the criteria? A picture of Saddam in bed with Osama? An after the fact analysis of sarin gas in new jersey that leads back to Iraq? Actual, detailed terrorist plans? Why hasn't much of the evidence uncovered thus far been good enough? You raise some important questions...but you've never laid down what the standard ought to be; thus, leaving a convenient open-ended back door. It is inherent in the process that we are dealing with circumstantial evidence. When does it cumulatively move into the realm of probable cause?

6) I also worry about the consequences of an attack. But I read all sorts of speculation on terrible things that might ensue, but never, ever a shread of hard analysis to back it up. Why should anyone take these accusations and treat them any more seriously?

7) There is a complete abscence of any thought on where this is all heading. Lotta angry epistles about get Osama now, but rather less on what the true terrorist threat is, what it's true intentions are, what the probablities are for further terrorist strikes, who all the actors are, what nation states are involved directly or on the periphery, what kinds of weapons and tactics are evolving for future attacks: the terroists are not a collection of idiots. they have demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt and to use sophisticated as well as commodity technologies. who's looking at what we should ANTICIPATE? Of course, it's hard to anticipate if you don't believe there is a self-organizing and flexible threat in the first place. What are the core beliefs of the folks who do not support fighting the terrorist threat at all levels? By beliefs I mean expectations for what is happening and is going to happen.

8) Finally...and this is a distractor that is bound to get me in trouble.....a lot of the current dissatisfaction is being raised by folks who stood on the sidelines and did nothing for decades. They either ignored what was unfolding, or tended to their diurnal stresses and never thought about what was occurring. Now, all of a sudden, because someone else has made decisions and forced the issue, there is belated concern, demands for proof, intransigence. Well........sorry........you can have a seat at the table, but the chair is not going to be as large or as comfortable as many of the others: and we all know what that symbolism suggests in most contexts.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Art

Kurp,

Saddam's culpability is there if he knows members of Al Qaeda are in his nation. That's all that's necessary to show he directly supports their terrorist activities because that group operates as a terrorist group, openly, and knowledge of their presense without removal of them is complicit support. Surely you see that?

Again, it's not necessarily all that meaningful to me as this is the least impressive piece of evidence against Iraq at the moment.

If that is true Art, then there IS a double standard being applied by the U.S.

U.S. intelligence has known for years about al Qaeda's terrorist activities. Yet cells actively existed here in the U.S. and the 9-11 terrorists lived and trained in South Florida.

As far back as 1990 when El Sayyid Nosair shot and killed Rabbi Meier Kahane, the FBI knew about al Qaeda. They also knew al Qaeda members were responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing.

In fact, both the FBI and the CIA had information about the al Qaeda terrorists who were responsible for the USS Cole bombing, but refused to share that information between agencies.

My point? Shouldn't both the senior Bush and Clinton be held criminally accountable for allowing al Qaeda to operate within U.S. borders and from there, carry out terrorist attacks here and abroad? Aren't our leaders ultimately responsible for the FBI and the CIA?

There isn't a shred of evidence that Sadaam has given direct orders to al Qaeda. There is no smoking gun paper trail on Sadaam's financing of al Qaeda's activities. Yet the U.S. is holding Sadaam at a higher level of accoutability than we have historically held ourselves to.

Don't think this bit of hypocrisy is lost on other countries. It isn't. Political correctness and detente will keep everyone's mouth shut, at least in public, at least for now. But behind closed doors it's this weak link espoused by Powell that is likely to further distance France, Germany, China, or Russia from hopping on board with our plans for Iraq.

[fansince62]

...you have it all wrong.......Saddam is not abiding by terms of UN resolutions or the agreements he signed following Desert Storm. It's a distractor if the issue is whether or not there is sufficient pretext to attack.

as for the rest....more mindless moral equivocation. here's my advice...which most will promtly ignore.....we are going to find these guys and we are going to kill them. it may take a while, but we are going to execute this mission with "extreme prejuidice". carp all you want. just don't get in the way. do something elevating, join a peace movement or start an anti-war placard business (make some bucks and be superior at the same time!), go back to sniffing co-ed bicycle seats at the local junior college....I really don't care. the train has left the station.

the subject is growing weary. we can trade invectives all you want...........there will be plenty of time for recriminations and pontificating later on.....

[codeorama]

To jump on to what The Kurp said about The Old Bush and Clinton.... I agree.

How did Saddam get many of his weapons?? From the US of course. That's a fact. At one time, Saddam was useful to our government, now he isn't, funny, shouldn't they have thought about that back then?

Art...

Here you go taking every word to the letter.... I put your name in "quotes"... I was not saying YOU literally, I could have said "john" or "jay"...

And just because you say something, I should NOT automatically take it as truth. I have never met you, I have never so much as talked to you on the phone....(please NOTE: the following is not to be taken literally...) for all I know, you could be a woman.

So to say that I SHOULD take everything you say as the truth is a little preachy and arrogant.

You make the point about Saddam being dead... again, When I say Saddam, I am referring to him as well as those around him that would carry on his nutbagness if he died.... So NO, even if he is killed, you cannot guarentee that the threat is no longer there. Saddam is not a one man show, he has to have a very large inner circle in order to create the fear in the Iraqi people that everyone speaks of.

There are MANY ( I didn't say majority) people who think that going into Iraq is fighting someone else's war. I am still totally 100% convinced that we are going in MORE (not solely) for fear of attacks on other MiddleEast countries or Saddam's own people. Sure, if they have WMD, they can sneak something the US, but so can any other nutcase, but Saddam has the ability to attack neighboring countries, or to light up the oilfields. You can say what you want, but I won't change my opinion on that.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by TheKurp

If that is true Art, then there IS a double standard being applied by the U.S.

U.S. intelligence has known for years about al Qaeda's terrorist activities. Yet cells actively existed here in the U.S. and the 9-11 terrorists lived and trained in South Florida.

As far back as 1990 when El Sayyid Nosair shot and killed Rabbi Meier Kahane, the FBI knew about al Qaeda. They also knew al Qaeda members were responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing.

In fact, both the FBI and the CIA had information about the al Qaeda terrorists who were responsible for the USS Cole bombing, but refused to share that information between agencies.

My point? Shouldn't both the senior Bush and Clinton be held criminally accountable for allowing al Qaeda to operate within U.S. borders and from there, carry out terrorist attacks here and abroad? Aren't our leaders ultimately responsible for the FBI and the CIA?

There isn't a shred of evidence that Sadaam has given direct orders to al Qaeda. There is no smoking gun paper trail on Sadaam's financing of al Qaeda's activities. Yet the U.S. is holding Sadaam at a higher level of accoutability than we have historically held ourselves to.

Don't think this bit of hypocrisy is lost on other countries. It isn't. Political correctness and detente will keep everyone's mouth shut, at least in public, at least for now. But behind closed doors it's this weak link espoused by Powell that is likely to further distance France, Germany, China, or Russia from hopping on board with our plans for Iraq.

Please name one instance since 9/11 that any suspected terrorist we can lay our hands on is left free to roam the US. Your argument is total Bullsh!t! The Al Qaeda in Iraq have been identified to the Iraqi government and attempts have been made to extradite them. Sadam has ignored the request and by such action is intentionaly harboring terrorists. Any attempt to compare this to the US is bullsh!t.

As far as the Clinton administration is concerned I feel that he *is* responsible for his inaction. We were attacked some 6-8 times by Al Qaeda during the Clinton administration before 9/11 and Hillary had the nerve to ask what Bush knew and when? That B!tch!

[fansince62]

code....you're absolutely right...and you know what?...when the emissions threshholds were first set in the 70s for air pollution based on questionable Chess studies, the threshholds were inadequate (both conceptually and epidemiologically) and did not capture all exposed parties. I believe the parties to this legislation knew this and that they should be held criminally culpable.....same for everyone who participated in risk decisions for car safety, childrens' toys...and on and on........

[Art]

Let's take this slowly.

"If that is true Art, then there IS a double standard being applied by the U.S. "

Again, Kurp, there would be no double standard in the slightest. Again, Kurp, the only way to validate a double standard would be to demonstrate that the U.S. government, as the Iraqi government, knows about a global terrorist group operating in its borders. You can't show that link and it's the link that is crucial to making what you are saying even mildly conversational.

Do you, or do you not, understand there is a difference between knowing an Al Qaeda cell is in operation and where and how and it is going on without your intervention though you have full knowledge of all the activities, and knowing and not doing anything about our redneck militia that operates all over the place?

You have to prove in order to support your contention of a double standard that we, like they, KNOW exactly where Al Qaeda is and that we, like they, are operating openly and without intervention. Until you do that, you're just tilting at imaginary windmills.

"U.S. intelligence has known for years about al Qaeda's terrorist activities. Yet cells actively existed here in the U.S. and the 9-11 terrorists lived and trained in South Florida."

And the lived and trained here covertly. Do you contend we knew of their operations and membership? Yes or no? If yes, please show that as I don't know that to be true. If no, then you are proving your point about a double standard to be a false one. If we knew there was an Al Qaeda cell in Florida and did nothing, then we are employing a double standard. If we didn't know with any definition about who or what was going on, then you have failed to prove any correlation. Cells operate in dozens of countries and they can't be said to be in support because they don't know about those cells. It's the knowledge Iraq has of top Al Qaeda leaders in the capital city that invalidates your statement.

Further, put it this way, we know a top Al Qaeda leader is in Baghdad. If we knew he was in Washington D.C. you'd prove your double standard. But, since the government of Iraq knows and does nothing you have fallen well short.

"As far back as 1990 when El Sayyid Nosair shot and killed Rabbi Meier Kahane, the FBI knew about al Qaeda. They also knew al Qaeda members were responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing."

Yes. And, again, until you can prove definitively that the FBI or CIA or whoever knew of any particular Al Qaeda cell in operation within our borders you aren't saying anything other than to invalidate what you are saying. Yes, we knew all about Al Qaeda as an organization. If we knew their locations in this country and did nothing then we'd be employing a double standard. If you are saying that's the case, prove it. If you aren't, and you acknowledge the cells were operating secretly, then you have proven just how different it is from what the charge is with Iraq.

"In fact, both the FBI and the CIA had information about the al Qaeda terrorists who were responsible for the USS Cole bombing, but refused to share that information between agencies."

Again, so what. Were those men knowingly floating around here or not? Yes or no? Did we know where they were or where any of them were? If Bin Laden happened to be hiding out in the U.S. right now, do you really not see the difference as if we knew about it we'd act and Iraq does know about it and won't act?

"My point? Shouldn't both the senior Bush and Clinton be held criminally accountable for allowing al Qaeda to operate within U.S. borders and from there, carry out terrorist attacks here and abroad? Aren't our leaders ultimately responsible for the FBI and the CIA? "

Uh, no. Unless you can verify we knew the whereabouts and group affiliations of any of these men prior to 9-11 then nothing you are saying is even interesting, no matter how repetitive .

"There isn't a shred of evidence that Sadaam has given direct orders to al Qaeda. There is no smoking gun paper trail on Sadaam's financing of al Qaeda's activities. Yet the U.S. is holding Sadaam at a higher level of accoutability than we have historically held ourselves to. "

There is more than a shred of evidence that Saddam knows the exact location of a top Al Qaeda operative and that the man operates without interference from the Iraqis. This is being done within his borders and he does nothing. Until you can prove the same man was in operation in the U.S. with out knowledge and nothing being done to stop it, then, again, your point is absent any correlation or meaning and, seriously, I'm surprised you keep hammering away at an imaginary nail. I don't believe you're even serious about this and you're just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

The fact is the U.S., like Iraq, knows what Al Qaeda is. Iraq, like the U.S., isn't going to be held responsible for the covert actions of people within their country that officials do not know exist -- or they do not know the whereabouts. If, as the U.S. charges, Iraq knows about Al Qaeda, as the world does, and they know exactly where a cell or operatives are then we are holding them to a level that is utterly and completely the same as we would hold anyone else in the world at present.

"Don't think this bit of hypocrisy is lost on other countries. It isn't. Political correctness and detente will keep everyone's mouth shut, at least in public, at least for now. But behind closed doors it's this weak link espoused by Powell that is likely to further distance France, Germany, China, or Russia from hopping on board with our plans for Iraq."

I do think this bit of hypocrisy is lost on other countries because you've not made a single slight showing that any hypocrisy exists. Until you can demonstrate that we know the exact whereabouts and activities of top Al Qaeda reps or cells you have not shown a single shred of hypocrisy. This is one of those ludicrous leaps of comparison that is far too common from people on the left. It's utterly false. It's utterly meaningless. You haven't even displayed the SAME relationship between what is happening there and what happened here and yet you trumpet it as if it's identical. What happened here was entirely different than what we are seeing there. Cells were in operation secretly without our knowledge. There, an Al Qaeda leader and Saddam have actually had dinner. The distinction is glaring and that is the type of glaring distinction that is likely to bring public opinion and many nations of the world over to the designs of our nation's leadership.