Meanwhile, France Continues War on the Real Terrorists, Lands Mortal Blow To ETA

[Nbadan]

MADRID, Oct 4 (AFP) - The Spanish and French governments on Monday hailed a "historic" victory against armed Basque separatist group ETA following the weekend arrest in France of ETA's political leader and 16 associates.

"This is a major step towards ending the violence of the terrorist group ETA. ETA's destiny can only be its demise," Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told reporters.
Zapatero and French President Jacques Chirac lauded the joint efforts of both countries' police forces in dealing ETA its heaviest blow in more than a decade.

In a telephone call to Chirac, Zapatero passed on "the thanks of the Spanish government and the people" to France for tracking the ETA members down.
Chirac replied that "this was the result of exemplary Franco-Spanish cooperation which we must pursue resolutely."

Zapatero stressed earlier that ETA had "to understand that, in a democracy, political objectives can only be laid down through words and ideas, never through violence."

Florencio Dominguez, an expert on Basque affairs, told AFP that whereas ETA had managed to bounce back from previous "decapitations of its leadership," "this time it will do so with much less force."

The Spanish political establishment's optimism came the day after French authorities reported the arrest of 17 people including Mikel "Antza" Albizu Iriarte, ETA's political leader and chief theoretician, and his partner, Soledad "Anboto" Iparragirre Genetxea, a suspected former military chief of the group, in the Pyrenees-Atlantiques region near the Spanish border.
Spain's public prosecutor has called for Iparraguirre, suspected of more than a dozen killings, to be extradited to Spain, judicial sources said Monday.

The sources added that Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon would seek to question "Antza" in France, having four years ago opened an investigation into the same suspect for "belonging to an armed group."

The French caught terrorists? Real terrorists? This is a slap in the face to the Bush admin who has been trying to catch terrorists for years and have failed.

[Nbadan]

A new book reports that France was ready to add 15,000 troops to the coalition of the now less-willing, but W got his feelers hurt, bugged Chirac's phone, and started to publicly call Chirac out...


France Was Ready to Send Troops to Iraq, Book Says

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 6, 2004; Page A18

"French officials were prepared to provide as many as 15,000 troops for an invasion of Iraq before relations soured between the Bush administration and the French government over the timing of an attack, according to a new book published in France this week.

"The book, "Chirac Contre Bush: L'Autre Guerre" ("Chirac vs. Bush: The Other War"), reports that a French general, Jean Patrick Gaviard, visited the Pentagon to meet with Central Command staff on Dec. 16, 2002 -- three months before the war began -- to discuss a French contribution of 10,000 to 15,000 troops and to negotiate landing and docking rights for French jets and ships.

"Chirac knew Bush's father, former president George H.W. Bush, well, but that relationship actually proved to be a distraction for the current president, according to the book, which says that Bush was annoyed that Chirac kept mentioning his father at every occasion. For months, French diplomats asked Chirac not to refer to Bush's father when he met the president, but he kept doing it. ..."

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/advertisers/popunders/dnc_wp_july2.html)

[1369]

Your claim that the French/Spanish capture of ETA terrorists (Who, by the way, operate in Spain and France) is a slap in the face of the US is like saying that the capture of prominent KKK members is a slap in the face of Australia.

[whottt]

Fuck, I was hoping the ETA would win over there...

[whottt]

Methinks Chirac pulling out had more to do with the postwar reparations and reconstruction contracts than it did with hurt feelings. I mean he was gonna lose billions once the Oil for Food program was shut down.

And 15000 French troops is 15000 additional hostages/civillians our boys would have to die trying to save...see WWI, WWII.

1 Aussie, Dane, Brit or Pollack Soldier > 15000 French Troops. Again, see WWI and WWII.

I'll warn you Dan, don't start defending the French...you will wind up betrayed.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Damn, we had to go it without French support. That's a real shame, seeing how much help they were with things like WWII, Korea, Bosnia, etc.

[spurster]

Old news

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3825

But it does seem that France and Spain know something about fighting terrorism. And it also seems that no one from the Bush side will admit it or any other inconvenient fact.

[Marcus Bryant]

So there were no connections between the Hussein regime and al Qaeda?

[spurster]

So there were no connections between the Hussein regime and al Qaeda?
My understanding is that there is evidence that they talked to each other, but no evidence that Iraq worked with them. Did the 9/11 commission say something different?

[MsMcGillyCutty]

Why are some of you so hard headed?

[Marcus Bryant]

The 9/11 Commission did not find a "collaborative operational relationship" between Hussein and al Qaeda. However that certainly did not mean the contacts which were made were not significant nor necessarily benign.

The following is a good narrative of that.


http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200410070845.asp

October 07, 2004, 8:45 a.m.

Can Bush say, “Boogie to Baghdad”?
What the president should say about Iraq and al Qaeda.

Byron York
National Review

EDITOR'S NOTE: This column also appears today in The Hill newspaper.

Before this debating season is over, would someone please, please utter the words "boogie to Baghdad?"

You remember the phrase. It was written by Richard Clarke, the White House counterterrorism chief who in 1999 was so worried about the chumminess of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein that he believed bin Laden, if attacked by the United States at his lair in Afghanistan, would "boogie" on over to the Iraqi capital for protection.

We learned of Clarke's concerns in perhaps the most-ignored passages of the September 11 Commission report — those dealing with the very Saddam/al Qaeda connection that is being so vigorously denied by John Kerry and John Edwards.

"In fact, Saddam Hussein has little or no connection with al Qaeda," Edwards said Tuesday night during his debate with Vice President Dick Cheney. "What the vice president is telling people is inconsistent with everything that we see every single day. It's a continuation of 'Well, there's a strong connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.' It's not true."

In the first presidential debate, Kerry said flatly there was "no connection" between al Qaeda and Hussein.

But if that is true, please explain the friendly relationship between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein outlined in the September 11 Commission report.

The report says bin Laden, who had arrived in Afghanistan after leaving Sudan in 1996, worried that he might not get along with his new Taliban hosts.

And indeed, by 1997, the report says, the two were at odds.

The tension became so great that bin Laden began looking for a place to go in case he had to leave Afghanistan.

And the place to go was...Iraq.

"There is...evidence that around this time bin Laden sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation," the report says.

But Saddam wasn't interested. He was trying to get along better with the Saudis and thus chose to stay away from bin Laden.

By the next year, however, things had changed.

In 1998, Saddam was under mounting pressure from the United States. He forgot about the Saudis and opened up to bin Laden.

According to the report, "In March, 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden."

The report cited intelligence that "one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, [Ayman al] Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis."

As a result of those meetings, and more in 1999, the report says Saddam "offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq."

But Bin Laden decided to stay in Afghanistan, where he was getting along better with the Taliban.

And that's where "boogie to Baghdad" came in.

In February 1999, according to the report, the CIA wanted to conduct U-2 surveillance missions over bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.

But Clarke worried that doing so might scare bin Laden into leaving the country — and going to Iraq.

If that happened, the report says, Clarke feared that bin Laden's "entire network would be at Saddam Hussein's service," and the U.S. would never be able to find him.

So Clarke wrote an e-mail to then-national-security adviser Sandy Berger, saying that if bin Laden learned about the U-2 missions, then, "armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad."

The report says another Clinton National Security Council aide also warned that "Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad."

Now, do you still believe there was "no connection" between Saddam and bin Laden?

It should be said that the report says September 11 Commission investigators found no evidence that the contacts "ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship" — emphasis on the word operational — and no evidence "indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

Saddam was not responsible for September 11.

But where do Kerry and Edwards get the idea that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda?

Perhaps from the press, which months ago, based on early, incomplete drafts of portions of the September 11 Commission report, confidently proclaimed that "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link is Dismissed" (Washington Post) and "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie" (New York Times).

Most accounts specifically attacked Cheney's statements on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection.

The anti-Cheney slant puzzled even some Democrats on the commission. "The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government," Democratic vice-chairman Lee Hamilton told reporters. "We don't disagree with that."

That's because it is true.

So in the next debate, when John Kerry starts his "no connection" riff, just remember: Boogie to Baghdad.

[Marcus Bryant]

Here are a few sections of the 9/11 Commission report which discuss Iraq:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch10.htm

It would seem as though Hussein was quite willing to work with bin Laden and that senior US government officials in the late 1990s believed that bin Laden going to Iraq was a distinct possibility. Couple that with a failing sanctions scheme in which member nations of the UN Security Council had a vested interest in keeping the Hussein regime in power as well Hussein's demonstrated lack of restraint in using WMDs and prior pursuit of WMDs and you have something that may not be a "collaborative operational relationship" prior to 9/11 but something certainly worthy of major concern.

Of course, at the time every major and respected intel agency in the world believe that Hussein had WMDs and had the desire to develop/procure more.

Even after 20/20 political hindsight is applied, the following is still clear:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/NotedNow/Noted_Now.html


DAVID KAY ON TODAY: "Denial is not just a river in Egypt. No, that's not what the report says. The report is scary enough without misrepresenting what it says," former chief UN weapons inspector David Kay says about Jim Wilkinson, Deputy National Security Advisor for Communications, saying recently "there is no doubt (Saddam Hussein) had weapons of mass destruction capability."

So Hussein had the capability, the track record, and the willingness to work with, support, and harbor al Qaeda, as well as the contacts with bin Laden. The world believed that Hussein had WMDs and certainly had the desire to procure more. The UN sanctions scheme was falling apart and Hussein had an express desire to bribe member nations of the UN Security Council in order to allow that to continue.

I think it is clear why politicians and appointed federal officials of both political parties overwhlemingly believed that Hussein needed to be dealt with post-9/11, at least until some started campaigning for the presidency.

-MB

[spurster]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm


There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

Yeah, what I said.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yes, that is what you said and what I acknowledged a couple of posts back. So I take it that those connections were not a cause for any serious concern?

[whottt]

If Saddam were still in power what do you guys think he'd be doing right about now....with Iran going nuclear? He probably wouldn't be under sanctions any longer...and if he was our terrorist problem would be bigger than ever seeing as how Usama cites the Iraqi sanctions and what they did to the Iraqi people, when calling on people to attack the US. So what exaxctly would it look like over there right now?

You think Saddam is going to let Iran go nuclear without tagging along?(I have a feeling Saddam had a lot to do with Iran going nuclear once he knew it was over for him)

Can you say...two countries with Nucleaer Weapons? No way to ever take Iraq or Iran out with both countries being nuclear powers...and Israel is fast on the endangered speices list. Not to mention the increased probability of any nuclear materials finding their way into the hands of a suicide bomber.

No matter how you look at it, we have Iran isolated. We are in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have our Navy in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. Israel is there...Jordan and Turkey are more or less willing to work with the US.

Our millitary can easily get to Iran on several different sides. Iran is surrounded by the US and pro US nations on all sides. The only way those nukes are going to do Iran any good is if they nuke themselves.

I don't think we could have gone into Iran anyway prior to Iraq, I'm still not sure we could pull off going into Iran, I'm not sure we should, but if we have too...we are in a hell of a lot better position because of Iraq than we were before...and we can put some major ass political pressure on them and make it very difficult for them to move anything in or out of Iran.

If you look at the map of the middle east we have more or less turned Iran into a landlocked country surrounded by enemies on all sides, and their sea ports are just another part of their country they would have to defend from a potential millitary strike.

And BTW, I wouldn't expect the US Govt to go around mentioning that...but just take a look at the map and then look at where we have our millitary located.

[spurster]

So I take it that those connections were not a cause for any serious concern?Yes, it's a very serious concern. It's enough to have kept him in his box. But to go to war because he talked to them? No, it's not that critical.

I've never made the claim that Saddam was a nice guy or that his friends were nice guys. I don't think anyone else is either. I suppose the counter is that I would just wait until the situation became critical. No, I think what you do is deal with threats proportionally. What Bush did right up to the invasion and bombing of Baghdad was quite good. Iraq was backing down quite a bit at that point. We wouldn't have gotten everything we wanted, but then, we aren't getting that now either, and we have spent magnitudes more on it now.

[Marcus Bryant]

Hussein backed down after the US started rolling to Baghdad. That was for show more than anything else.

The "box" was falling apart. Hussein had bought the votes of nations with a veto on the UN Security Council. The US did not face a choice between the status quo or war. It was a choice between a Hussein increasingly free to do as he pleased and who had ample resources and connections at his disposal or armed removal. He also had the heretofore discussed contacts with al Qaeda and apparently had offered to take bin Laden and his brood in a couple years back.

The Clinton administration first advanced the notion of regime change. The Bush administration put it into action.

[Nbadan]

Hussein backed down after the US started rolling to Baghdad. That was for show more than anything else

Actually, Saddam started backing down well before the 'U.S. started rolling into Baghdad'. In fact, immediately before the invasion, weapons inspectors had unfeathered access in Iraq, but that wasn't good enough for the administration since they had already had layed down the plan to invade to topple Saddam. The U.S ordered U.N. Weapons Inspectors out of Iraq, not Saddam Hussein.

[Nbadan]

The "box" was falling apart. Hussein had bought the votes of nations with a veto on the UN Security Council. The US did not face a choice between the status quo or war. It was a choice between a Hussein increasingly free to do as he pleased and who had ample resources and connections at his disposal or armed removal. He also had the heretofore discussed contacts with al Qaeda and apparently had offered to take bin Laden and his brood in a couple years back.

So you agree that toppling Saddam was a war of choice and not a war based on neccessity? What does that say about the Pre-emptive war doctrine?

Under your reasoning, any country can attack any other country even if there has not been a case made of a 'clear or immediate threat' to the national interests of that country. We have lowered the standard to 'wanting to possess WMD's', and 'could have someday become a threat, but wasn't yet'?

[Marcus Bryant]

It was not a war of "choice." There was no choice between the current situation or removal by force. That is because the current situation was untenable to the national security interests of the United States, especially post-9/11.

You do realize it was the Clinton administration that first came up with the regime change policy with respect to Iraq, don't you?

[Marcus Bryant]

Actually, Saddam started backing down well before the 'U.S. started rolling into Baghdad'. In fact, immediately before the invasion, weapons inspectors had unfeathered access in Iraq, but that wasn't good enough for the administration since they had already had layed down the plan to invade to topple Saddam. The U.S ordered U.N. Weapons Inspectors out of Iraq, not Saddam Hussein.


Again, for show. Was the US supposed to pack up and go home just because he let in some inspectors? What happens once the US forces leave?

Then we are back to Hussein's efforts at the UN to buy influence to undermine the sanctions.

Pretty good stalling tactic. Now could the United States afford to play this game in a post-9/11 context, one in which every major intel agency believed Hussein had WMDs and ties to terrorists?