Reply With QuoteAgain, it wasn't a choice between removing Hussein or the status quo. The sanctions scheme was breaking down and the Oil for Food program was simply putting billion$ in Hussein's pocket.
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2...82,00.html
Wow, looks like they've done a lot of work and gotten to the point where they have run out of access to do ents, but still...
Now, buried in some of the United Nation's own confidential do ents, clues can be seen that underscore the possibility of just such a Saddam-Al Qaeda link — clues leading to a locked door in this Swiss lakeside resort. (To review a series of do ents, audits and other stories related to oil-for-food, click here.)
Again, it wasn't a choice between removing Hussein or the status quo. The sanctions scheme was breaking down and the Oil for Food program was simply putting billion$ in Hussein's pocket.
My thinking is if the US has access to more data on this, and is justified, then it slams the door shut on why we went to Iraq.
The next question would probably be when do we invade the UN?
Which he may have been funneling to al Qaeda."Again, it wasn't a choice between removing Hussein or the status quo. The sanctions scheme was breaking down and the Oil for Food program was simply putting billion$ in Hussein's pocket."
Because all we need is hindsight justification?My thinking is if the US has access to more data on this, and is justified, then it slams the door shut on why we went to Iraq.
I was and still am all for the removal of Saddam... I'm just extremely disappointed by the current administrations "reason of the week" approach to justifying this war. A new take of "Well, this isn't why we attacked them but I'm sure glad we did!" wouldn't do much to settle that disappointment.
The initial reason hasn't changed...the reasons just keep piling up. It's called vindication.
It's called a vendetta and every soldier that dies in Iraq between now and the election is more blood on the administrations hands. Impeach George Bush now for getting us into this quagmire.
So, if the initial reason is wrong, but we come up with a bunch of other reasons later, it makes it all good?The initial reason hasn't changed
Thanks for the echo.
WMD's weren't the only justification and you're too smart a man to pull that kind of crap scott.
WMD's got the most play in the media because it was the most sensational. Iraq had violated the '91 cease-fire agreement over and over and over. Iraq had committed hostile acts agains U.S. and British jets in the no-fly zone continuously...and, just because Clinton ignored it doesn't mean it wasn't a violation of the cease-fire agreement. Iraq had committed genocidal acts agains Shi'ites and Kurds since the end hostilities. Iraq was thumbing its nose at the U.N., ignoring all resolutions and starving its own populace by diverting oil-for-food monies to Hussein and back to France, Germany, and the U.N. in kickbacks -- now we learn possibly to al Qaeda as well. Iraq was a loose cannon in the middle east and a threat to stability in the region. Iraq had tried to assassinate a U.S. President. Iraq was harboring terrorists. Iraq was paying terrorists.
And, while the latest reports there were no stockpiles, it also says there were programs in place to immediately produce WMD's if the sanctions had been lifted. Dual use factories and manufacturers and goods.
By the way, what, exactly, did happen to the tons of WMD's the inspectors catalogued in the mid '90's but Iraq never accounted for?
You're much more reasonable than your flippant statement belies scott.
A significant part of the problem was definitely the White House not having a consistent message on the issue. Leaving Hussein in power was not an option. Perhaps they should have made that more clear.
With regards to this possible link between Hussein and al Qaida it does answer the various critics' screeds that the war had nothing to do with the war on terrorism.
His message was carried by the media Tommy...who decided to focus on WMD's because they were sensational.
Don't you mean the "filter"?
Listening to the report now. Not sounding good for Annan, to say the least.
my problem is with the timing of the whole thing...i dont mind an operation to remove sadaam out of power, but i didnt think it was something we absolutely had to do at that very moment in time...greater progress in afganistan should have been completed first, to me it seemed like we never solidified what we wanted to do there before jumping over to iraqA significant part of the problem was definitely the White House not having a consistent message on the issue. Leaving Hussein in power was not an option. Perhaps they should have made that more clear.
So invading and occupying Iraq is justifying by a possible link from oil-to-food to AQ? The article says "possible" right? This is insane. At least we knew that North Vietnam was Communist and trying to conquer South Vietnam.
Now I'm more and willing to wait for more evidence, but hardly anything is confirmed at this point.
It was justified for a number of reasons which have been stated ad naseum in this forum. The 9/11 Commission report also do ented a number of contacts between Hussein's regime and al Qaida over the years.
But I suppose I should defer judgement until CBS News and its fake but accurate journalism looks into this matter.
The Iraq war justified to the American People with the primary reason being 'the immediate and growing danger' that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, had acquire unmanned aerial devices that could reach the East Coast, had active Al-Queda training camps in his area of control, and provided strategic help to the perpetrators of 911 - all of which turned out to be a unequivocal lie.It was justified for a number of reasons...
Which every major intel service and the Clinton administration believed. Of course it was not known with 100% accuracy because, again, Hussein had been rather uncooperative with the weapons inspections since the end of Gulf War I.
Probably every intel agency believed Saddam had some WMDs, at least some left over since the first Gulf War. But only the US and Great Britian widely exaggerated the little evidence around (claiming huge stockpiles and "we know where they are"). Any decent university chemistry lab can be used to make noxious materials, but Saddam hardly had this much. In the end, I think our intel were heavily encouraged to make the conclusions that BushCo wanted them to make.
As far as AQ talking with Saddam, there is nothing that indicates that it was more than that. Yes, it's su ious, but the US also talks with bad characters, with the Taliban before that war, and with Iran and North Korea now (sort of). If we wanted to go after AQ's support, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, which is where a lot of the ideology, money and people came from.
Saddam was certainly not a good guy, but our Saddam-in-a-box was suffiicient to contain the threat, as opposed to North Korea and Iran, who pretty much have a free hand to develop WMDs. And we are having a hard enough time trying to convert Afghanistan into a reasonable country, much less trying to do two messed up countries.
How so? He had already been enriching himself through the UN oil sales sham and other members of the security council were starting to do business with him. He was becoming much more of a supporter of Islamist terrorism publicly and there were known contacts between his regime and al Qaida. We know he still had an interest in acquiring WMDs and he had certainly shown a willingness in the past to use them.Saddam was certainly not a good guy, but our Saddam-in-a-box was suffiicient to contain the threat
At least when some of our elected officials were not running for the presidency they agreed with this assessment.
I think someone should put Rather and Mapes on this, Pronto!
But I suppose I should defer judgement until CBS News and its fake but accurate journalism looks into this matter.
I would agree with this assessment, but "more of a terrorist supporter" is not something I'm aware of. BTW, all these arab states (including our great friend Saudi Arabia) have supported the Palestinians to a greater or lesser extent for a long while.How so? He had already been enriching himself through the UN oil sales sham and other members of the security council were starting to do business with him. He was becoming much more of a supporter of Islamist terrorism publicly and there were known contacts between his regime and al Qaida. We know he still had an interest in acquiring WMDs and he had certainly shown a willingness in the past to use them.
At least when some of our elected officials were not running for the presidency they agreed with this assessment.
None of what you say really separates Iraq from the rest of that region. Are we going to invade and semi-permanently occupy them all?
Spurster, I believe the Fox News story addresses the connections between Iraq, the oil-for-food scandal, and al Qaeda...
Something about front organizations in Switzerland or something.
I'd read the allegations again.
Hussein was beginning to embrace the Islamist cause more openly. This goes to the heart of the original claim against making Iraq a part of the war on terror since the secularist Hussein who had no problem oppressing the Iraqi Shiites was an enemy of bin Ladin. Bin Ladin had in the past shown a willingness to work with 'the enemies of his enemies' when the US was supporting the mujahdeen fight against the USSR. Given Hussein's long hatred for Israel and the US it's not too implausible to see him and bin Ladin eventually reach some kind of operational relationship.
Again, it's the totality of the matter. Hussein had WMDs in the past and he used them. It was assumed by the world that he still had them, was bent on acquiring them, and perhaps would use them again. He was positioning himself more with the Islamist cause, had contacts with al Qaida, and certainly had the resources to finance terrorism.
Lest we forget that bin Ladin's fortune has been vastly overstated per the 9/11 Commission findings.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions