Iraq by the Numbers

noneof yourbusiness · #31 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Iraq was NO THREAT to the United States.....anyone who believes that is probably scared of their own shadow.
__________________

]

ahh finnaly.. Satisfaction............

TakuanSoho · #32 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

As it turns out, the Saddam/Al Qaeda connection was primarily a bunch of fear mongering on the part of the Bush Administration who used this alleged connection to drive fear into an already scared nation.....

Except of course, it was the reason Clinton used to bomb both the Sudan and Iraq after the embassy bombings.... So it was hardly Bush making it up (if it were made up).

In the end I think the issue was that US intelligence (and it was US intelligence in that they said the same things under Clinton) assumed that Saddam was much more on top of things than it was later shown to be the case. Some iraqi intelligence assets were in touch with al qaeda assets, but it doesn't appear that they were being coordinated by Saddam. In this it is similar to the WMD program. It was clear that Saddam was trying to get around the sanctions, the issue was that he was more inept than we thought.

noneof yourbusiness · #33 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Except of course, it was the reason Clinton used to bomb both the Sudan and Iraq after the embassy bombings.... So it was hardly Bush making it up (if it were made up).

In the end I think the issue was that US intelligence (and it was US intelligence in that they said the same things under Clinton) assumed that Saddam was much more on top of things than it was later shown to be the case. Some iraqi intelligence assets were in touch with al qaeda assets, but it doesn't appear that they were being coordinated by Saddam. In this it is similar to the WMD program. It was clear that Saddam was trying to get around the sanctions, the issue was that he was more inept than we thought.

CLiontn was oooooo soo wrong when he did it. Now he was right? HArdly. Asprin Factory......

NBC weapons mean fuck all when all you got to launch em is a Rubber band. There was no contact. between them thats all beeen proven false years ago.

Back Atcha · #34 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius Infinitum

First, let's note that HE was wholly unable to post ANY DOCUMENT(s) which provided ANY Evidence which could lead ANYONE to conclude that every intelligence service in the world believes that Iraq was innocent of ANY support of ANY element of international Islamic terrorism that attacked the US on 9-11...

Doesn't matter, the evidence I provided trumps the evidence that you... oh... hold on, you haven't provided one shred on any of the claims you make. At any rate, I'll find the documents, it's just a matter of time.

Secondly and on the whole, what you see here is a leftist that has concluded that since the Iraqi intelligence agent deiend talking to Mohammad Atta, that, well, it didn't happen. This despite he Czech intelligence service maintianing to this day that it did happen...

Really?

Quote:

Until late 2004, many believed that Atta traveled to Prague for one day on May 30, 2000. Nobody claimed he had met al-Ani at that time, but conservative columnist Andrew McCarthy wrote in the National Review that his trip was considered suspicious. Atta was apparently detained because he did not have a travel visa but was not picked up on airport surveillance. [2] However, the Chicago Tribune reported in August 2004 that it was a different Atta who traveled to Prague in May 2000 — Pakistani businessman Mohammed Atta, (who spells his name differently from the hijacker) — and was turned away because he lacked a visa. [3] The hijacker Mohamed Atta - whose travel papers were in order - went to the Prague airport a couple days later on his way to Newark, creating confusion for some: "On June 2, the hijacker Mohamed Atta, who had a visa, arrived in Prague by bus from Cologne, Germany, and flew to Newark the next day. Video surveillance cameras at a Prague bus terminal showed him playing slot machines at the station's Happy Days Casino before disappearing." [4] The confusion over the two different Attas "had serious consequences," according to Czech reporter Brian Kenety, "as it laid the groundwork for spurious claims by Czech authorities of a secret meeting in Prague between Atta the hijacker and an Iraqi intelligence agent." [5]

The claim Atta met with al-Ani in Prague in April, 2001 is now considered false by analysts and investigators. The source for the claim came from a contact the Czech intelligence had within the Iraqi embassy [6], described in the Boston Globe as "a single informant from Prague's Arab community who saw Atta's picture in the news after the 11 September attacks, and who later told his handlers that he had seen him meeting with Ani. Some officials have called the source unreliable." [4]

On 15 March 2002 David Ignatius wrote in the Washington Post: "Even the Czechs, who initially put out the reports about Atta's meeting with al-Ani, have gradually backed away.

In August 2002, Czech foreign intelligence chief František Bublan publicly backed away from the claim that Atta met al-Ani, saying that rumors of such meetings "have not been verified or proven." The Prague Post reported that "Bublan said that promoting a so-called 'Prague connection' between Atta and al-Ani might have been a ploy by U.S. policymakers seeking justifications for a new military action against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein."

According to an article in the Washington Post more recently, the Czechs backed away from the claim: "After months of further investigation, Czech officials determined last year that they could no longer confirm that a meeting took place

Opposition leaders in the Czech Republic have publicly called this a failure on the part of Czech intelligence, and it is not clear that any Czech officials still stand by the story.[7] In hopes of resolving the issue, Czech officials hoped to be given access to information from the U.S. investigation but that cooperation was not forthcoming.[8] In May 2004, the Czech newspaper Právo speculated that the source of the information behind the rumored meeting was actually the discredited INC chief Ahmed Chalabi.[12]

Mohamed Atta's alleged Prague connection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know how it can be made any more clear. Can you come up with even one sourced SENTENCE to refute this?

Now then, before you trash the wiki, go to the page and note the exhaustive citations for this information. If you have proof otherwise, I suggest you get busy and rewrite the wiki entry and contact the sources cited to let them know how wrong they are.

Leftists HAVE ALWAYS GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THAT DOUBT TO OUR ENEMIES.

Your perception is a bit off here. Not that I'm speaking for the leftists, only myself. But it is my first duty and responsibility to remain vigilant of my government and to question each and everything they do. This is a task charged by the FOUNDERS of this great country. You know, the guys who were infinitely smarter and more wise than you, who wrote the constitution you claim to be so bound to defending. Given that tyranny ALWAYS seeks power, and there is no more power than at the time of war, it is THEN that the hardest questions must be asked.

The Czech intelligence service says it did happen, the Iraqi intelligence agent says it didn't... There's a doubt there... so who do we believe? We can believe the Czechs who are basing their belief on the memo in the Iraqi embassy which speaks to a meeting by a former Hamburg student and eye witness accounts which physically identified Atta as being there...

Conveniently leaving out a few FACTS aren't ya? Was the Hamburg student the agent in question? Were the eyewitnesses at the meeting? No, they were either at the bus terminal or the airport. It has already been established that Atta was in transit between Germany and the USA. NOT meeting an Iraqi agent. Ya see, as of today, after Czech investigations into the matter and assessment by US analysts, THEY say there was no meeting. So, having filled in the alleged holes, who would you believe? Some self important poster who has provided ZERO documentation to support his dated allegations, or an article that has over 20 citations, the Czech government, and our OWN intelligence?

It's all lies and those of the damnable variety. Lies which are said to be truth and this on the basis of segments of 'real documents,' documents which are founded in reports designed to project the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO OUR ENEMIES; reports that intentionally force the inference which leaves the proponents of international Islamic terrorism to be misunderstood victims of an evil cabal which forced the world to war....

I see... when the facts stack up against you, and you can't offer even the slightest sliver of linked, cited or verifiable evidence, you invoke the conspiracy card. NICE! ROFLMMFAO.... You're a joke of the worst kind... funny though.

Of course these reports side step 9-11 and the insternational Islamics that attacked us on that day; they simply accept that as fact and seek to go about casting the pale of innocents on those complicit in that attack.

Here's the thing though... Al qaeda is nothing more than a management group which exploits pre-existing Islamic terrorist groups.

A CIA created and funded management group...

Al Qaeda is who ever is being plied by that management group at the time... Individuals from Hezbollah and Hamas and any of dozens of other lessor known groups from around the world are used at any time and any place to do what ever the job requires... They come from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iran and Iraq, the fillipines, Malaysia, England, Spain, France and yes, even the United States...

Just leave out the bit about binLaden demanding an oath of allegiance be taken in his name...

Tim McViegh and Terry Nichols worked with Al qaeda

BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... oh my.... heh... heh... BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Are you kidding me? Got anything to back that up that isn't on a fringe site? OH myGod, my sides are splitting... If this was true, don'tcha think that maybe it would have been a centerpiece in the trial? Or is that another conspiracy?

and Nichols numerous trips to the Fillipines coincided with the same time in which the Bomber that made the bomb that exploded in the basement of the WTC in 1993 was there... Of course it's said that Nichols went to the Fillipines to visit his in-laws, who were citizens there; I mean how many of you jump on the plane, leaving your spouse at home, so you can go visit your in-laws? I'm sure it happens all the time...

Actually, it happens. It's not easy to get visa's, papers and approval to bring a wife back from that part of the world. If there was a chance she wouldn't be allowed back into the country on her return, she would have stayed home.

Again, there's a doubt and the benefit of that doubt is given to the terrorists.

The beauty of proxy warriors such as al Qaeda is that inherent in their design is discretion; the means to conceal alliances, agreements, deals, contracts and most of all... CONTACTS!

Leaving you without a shred of credible evidence to support your conspiracy claims... Awwwwww

Ok, now then, it's time for you to rise to your own standards. SHOW ME PROOF of anything in dispute here. Don't prattle on about holes in intel. Your verbal masturbation doesn't fly here. BACK IT UP! Something... ANYTHING!!!

StormanNorman · #35 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Except of course, it was the reason Clinton used to bomb both the Sudan and Iraq after the embassy bombings.... So it was hardly Bush making it up (if it were made up).

Hi TakuanSoho,

It was the part of the publically stated reason for the Sudan attack, I'm not sure it played a real role.

Quote:

In the end I think the issue was that US intelligence (and it was US intelligence in that they said the same things under Clinton) assumed that Saddam was much more on top of things than it was later shown to be the case. Some iraqi intelligence assets were in touch with al qaeda assets, but it doesn't appear that they were being coordinated by Saddam. In this it is similar to the WMD program. It was clear that Saddam was trying to get around the sanctions, the issue was that he was more inept than we thought.

If you look at the history of US intelligence operations...especially when trying to determine others' intentions, we haven't done very well a) because it is hard and b) because we Americans have a very egocentric view of the world, e.g., everything is about us. In the end, nothing was very definitive in terms of the Saddam/Al Qaeda question and the WMD question. That's the nature of intelligence when you are on the outside looking in. All I can tell you was that in 2003....
- Iraq was militarily very weak and getting weaker
- It reminded me of Yugoslavia and Tito
- The idea of putting a large, visible US force in the heart of the Middle East didn't seem very wise to me....independent of the Saddam/Al Qaeda and WMD questions.

noneof yourbusiness · #36 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 02:27 PM

The fact that even if the claims of Bush were true the conclusion that it constituted a threat to anybody is complete bunk. That is continually avded in the numerous threads along this subject.

StormanNorman · #37 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noneof yourbusiness

The fact that even if the claims of Bush were true the conclusion that it constituted a threat to anybody is complete bunk. That is continually avded in the numerous threads along this subject.

That's the second part, NOYB....the WMD boogey was way, way overblown.....ohhh WMDs...WMDs

The vast majority of people know very little about them, how they are employed, etc.

TakuanSoho · #38 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

If you look at the history of US intelligence operations...especially when trying to determine others' intentions, we haven't done very well a) because it is hard and b) because we Americans have a very egocentric view of the world, e.g., everything is about us. In the end, nothing was very definitive in terms of the Saddam/Al Qaeda question and the WMD question. That's the nature of intelligence when you are on the outside looking in. All I can tell you was that in 2003....
- Iraq was militarily very weak and getting weaker
- It reminded me of Yugoslavia and Tito
- The idea of putting a large, visible US force in the heart of the Middle East didn't seem very wise to me....independent of the Saddam/Al Qaeda and WMD questions.

I agree that US Intelligence has traditionally sucked, but I would put it more down to it being the "good old boy network". We need LESS people from Ivy League schools.

Iraq wasn't only about the military threat. Iraq was a cancer in the Middle East. If you look at the entire region as a whole, it was clear that the Middle East was going down hill throughout the 90's. Iraq was a boil that needed to be lanced, and we did it. And about the wisdom of putting a large US force in the heart of the middle east. Why is it unwise?

Oh, I should add, there are a couple of people here who have disagreed with me on this since BEFORE the war on Iraq. They can confirm that this is the same argument I have been making since 2002. I was never a big "terrorist" or "threat" guy. I have always argued for long term strategic interest for the invasion.

noneof yourbusiness · #39 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

That's the second part, NOYB....the WMD boogey was way, way overblown.....ohhh WMDs...WMDs

The vast majority of people know very little about them, how they are employed, etc.

Thats IT the boring technical part needs to be understood in order to get a clear picture about this stuff. Anybody that knows this stuff instantly scouffed at the mobil weapons lab and the BS about mixing BIO weapons in a kitchen sink. Even true chemical weapons cant be made in a home grown lab. Sure you can mix up some half assed home brew maybe but your more then likely just going to killed yourself. ITs like drunk rednecks screwing with dynomite and Sedeline bombs for fun.

This talk was always about battlefield weapons and thats just silly. Concidering the desperation of IRaq regime in the invasion. I.E. Baghdad Bob. If they had SS missiles they woud be flying like Buzz bombs towards London.

And as I have noted several times. Artilery was non existant. IN 91 MLRS and Apches made 122mm batteries go bye bye faster then you can say "Fire For Effect"...

StormanNorman · #40 (**permalink**) 06-13-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

I agree that US Intelligence has traditionally sucked, but I would put it more down to it being the "good old boy network". We need LESS people from Ivy League schools.

Iraq wasn't only about the military threat. Iraq was a cancer in the Middle East. If you look at the entire region as a whole, it was clear that the Middle East was going down hill throughout the 90's.

In what ways? And how was Iraq responsible for it? I was in the Middle East in 1999 and 2000.....and Iraq was not the center of their concerns.... actually, Iran was a far bigger concern.

Quote:

Iraq was a boil that needed to be lanced, and we did it. And about the wisdom of putting a large US force in the heart of the middle east.

Saddam was not an ideal situation....no doubt. And, if by a snap of the fingers, we could rid the world of him and replace him with a far more amenable leader/government, then by all means. Of course, it doesn't work that way....and the key question comes down to this...are the benefits worth the costs. And I'm still not sure exactly how much benefit, if any, we are going to get out of this thing. But, I do know that it has cost us a lot.

Quote:

Why is it unwise?

Animosity. There are many people there who are very distrustful of the West and its intentions. And I always felt that a major American presence in the heart of the Middle East would only exacerbate those feelings....which in itself can lead to big problems down the road.

Quote:

Oh, I should add, there are a couple of people here who have disagreed with me on this since BEFORE the war on Iraq. They can confirm that this is the same argument I have been making since 2002. I was never a big "terrorist" or "threat" guy. I have always argued for long term strategic interest for the invasion.

Sure....you always need to look at the strategic picture first. And I can tell you, TakuanSoho, even the Bush Administration is getting away from the idea of a visible American presence in many countries of concern. It's just not in our best interests.