Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says

[twa]

That's interesting, but it's not the same as giving money to Al Qaeda. I suppose you might have a case if you prove that those members took the money from Egyptian Islamic Jihad and used it to fund Al Qaeda.

It is not the same,but understanding what Al Queda is and came from is important.

It's not a particularly "bullet-proof" case for war.

Is this the evidence they used to justify going to war?

There were many reasons given,just as there will be many in the event of a attack on Iran.

There are few bullet proof reasons for war,in the aftermath of 9/11 someone besides Afghanistan was gonna pay...Saddam was a good target.it is simply reality.[/QUOTE]

[Mister Happy]

There were many reasons given,just as there will be many in the event of a attack on Iran.

There are few bullet proof reasons for war,in the aftermath of 9/11 someone besides Afghanistan was gonna pay...Saddam was a good target.it is simply reality.

I worded that poorly.

I meant was that the bullet-proof link between Iraq and Al Qaeda that Colin Powell said we had?

As for reasons, only one was given before the war - removing the threat of Iraq attacking us with weapons of mass destruction.

The Al Qaeda reason was only brought up later when the WMD reason was not looking so good.

[twa]

I worded that poorly.

I meant was that the bullet-proof link between Iraq and Al Qaeda that Colin Powell said we had?

As for reasons, only one was given before the war - removing the threat of Iraq attacking us with weapons of mass destruction.

The Al Qaeda reason was only brought up later when the WMD reason was not looking so good.

Really?...Why did they bother including it in the AUMF then?

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[citation needed]

* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

* Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."

* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.

* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

[Mister Happy]

Really?...Why did they bother including it in the AUMF then?

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[citation needed]

* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

* Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."

* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.

* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

I stand corrected.

Unfortunately, #1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 are unproven.

Your previous evidence does not address the "known to be in Iraq" assertion at all. It addresses the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Nor does it address the "aided and harbored" them unless the terrorists were also members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

[twa]

I stand corrected.

Unfortunately, #1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 are unproven.

Your previous evidence does not address the "known to be in Iraq" assertion at all. It addresses the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Nor does it address the "aided and harbored" them unless the terrorists were also members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

You seem to be looking at/defining reasons as facts(when in reality perception is fact at the time of choice)

#1 Iraq had the responsibility to PROVE WMD were destroyed which he failed(even Blix said the outstanding matters could easily have been settled IF Saddam had wished to cooperate) by his choice in the mistaken belief the US would not invade.

#2 &4 The "perception" of WMD and his previous use of them was fact(at the time )

#6&8 I already gave you proof he was issuing visa's to known terrorists and it is common knowledge he provided funds,training ect for other terrorists.

IS Egyptian Islamic Jihad part of Al Queda?...it depends on your perception.

Is Iran pursuing nuclear weapons?...it depends on your perception.

[Mister Happy]

You seem to be looking at/defining reasons as facts(when in reality perception is fact at the time of choice)

You can't just invade a country based on a perceived threat. You need hard evidence. You don't attack first and ask questions later. Now is not the time to be questioning our justifications. It should happen before the war.

For most wars, you have a clear cut justification (i.e. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor), and you have a clear cut mission (defeat Japan.)

To be honest, I don't think anybody even perceived Saddam as an immediate threat. At the worst, he was someone we needed to keep an eye on.

Hypothetically, what would you think if we nuked a country that we thought had nuclear weapons only to find they did not?

[twa]

You can't just invade a country based on a perceived threat. You need hard evidence. You don't attack first and ask questions later. Now is not the time to be questioning our justifications. It should happen before the war.

Under the Pre-emptive doctrine you obviously can,and obviously those that voted to authorize it believed they could do so.

For most wars, you have a clear cut justification (i.e. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor), and you have a clear cut mission (defeat Japan.)

To be honest, I don't think anybody even perceived Saddam as an immediate threat. At the worst, he was someone we needed to keep an eye on.

Why was the AUMF issued then?

You cannot take present perceptions and change the perceptions that were present at the time of choice.

I do agree "Now is not the time to be questioning our justifications. It should happen before the war."...now it is not much more than a academic exercise.

Or fodder for football boards

Hypothetically, what would you think if we nuked a country that we thought had nuclear weapons only to find they did not?

I would think they should have made a better effort to persuade us they did not have nukes...but I freely admit to a warmonger streak

Just curious...Do you think we should only use force after being attacked?...Where do you personally draw the line?[/QUOTE]

[Mister Happy]

Why was the AUMF issued then?

You cannot take present perceptions and change the perceptions that were present at the time of choice.

I do agree "Now is not the time to be questioning our justifications. It should happen before the war."...now it is not much more than a academic exercise.

Or fodder for football boards

Like most things, it's all about hearing what you want to hear. If you're looking to convince yourself it's ok to go to war with Saddam, you'll find more than enough "reasons." He's Saddam Hussein.

However, if Bush was blocked from attacking Iraq, I highly doubt he would be out buying duct tape and canned food because he was afraid Saddam was going to attack us in the next year.

Just curious...Do you think we should only use force after being attacked?...Where do you personally draw the line?

I think we're more than capable of defending ourselves. We don't need to start a war every time we think a country MIGHT attack us. If they really are going to do it, there should be no problem getting enough real evidence to justify a war. In the meantime, watch them like a hawk and keep your guard up.

[JMS]

I've read quite a few books by Bush administration insiders both critical of Bush and supportive of Bush.. I've come away with an explaination which makes sense to me on why Bush went into Iraq which rings true to me...

I think Bush early in his first administration deffered to Dick Cheney's, Rice, and Wolfowitz's veiw. Remember Cheney was not just the VP, he had also been the key guy who put together Bush's foreign policy advisors, and he assembled a group of folks who agreed with his world view and who were beholding to him.

Thus Cheney was the most important foreign advisor and he came into office sold on the value of going to war with Iraq. Cheney as former secretary of Defense under Bush's father was aghast to find out in 1991 after operation dessert storm that Saddam has been very close to getting nuclear weapons. After we won the first Gulf war and were able to get a comprehensive accounting of his weapons programs, we discovered Saddam was within a year of his goal to obtain nukes back early in 1991. The CIA was totally oblivious.

I think after that Cheney basically discounted all evidence coming out of the intelligence agencies, he had no faith in them. They were caught flat footed before the first gulf war, how could they be trusted. When Bush Jr. took office Cheney had convinced himself based on where Iraq was in 1991, that they were even closer in 2001. Had the bomb, or were on the cusp of the bomb. He didn't need intelligence or facts to hang his opinion on because, the facts had all been proven inaccurate before. So he set about to manufacture his case for war, which he did. 911 helped him, the rest he accomplished through planted stories and FUD.

After the war and WMD were not found, Cheney slowly went to the background and ceased to have as much swey with the President. Bush was left with manufacturing a series of rationals for justifying the war, rather than obmitting it was a collosal mistake.

][/b]

Just curious...Do you think we should only use force after being attacked?...Where do you personally draw the line?

I think it's not a cooincidence that 70% of the people in the US at the time of the second invasion of Iraq in 2003 believed Iraq had something to do with 9/11. That's how the war was sold to the US people.

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

It's amaizing to me this thread has gone so long as many smart folks still believe Saddam had ties to Al Quad and 911; refusing to acknowledge any of the non partisan studies done which refute it.

I lived in Saudi Arabia in 2003 and was there for the build up of the war and until Bush proclaimed the majer hostilities over.... I believed Saddam had 9-11 links at the time, cause I believed Bush, Cheney, and Powell; and that's what they were telling us.

To directly answer your question though, When wars cost 1-2 trillion dollars a pop and severly weaken your economy, your military, and your global reputation; to say nothing of the thousands of lives of your own soldiers and the tens of thousands of lives or more of innocent Iraqi's; you better be dammed sure if you preemptively attack another country.

There is no bigger mistake you can make as President.