Iraq and al Qaeda not linked (Pentagon)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/index.html

I think this is something most of us have known for a while, but others will still dispute wholeheartedly...

 

Everyone has known for years, that Bush lied...errr... Cheney lied to Bush, who in turn lied to the American Public.

There has to be something more to it than multi-billion $ Military Contracts and Oil in this adventure-war. Some agenda that is still not clear, and known only to the top neocon brass, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others.

Check out http://www.pnac.info/

Here is a list of these people

Here, you can read a detailed analysis, of how neocons conquered Washington, and launched a war...

The U.S. military report has cleared all these allegations and lies. Today, only GTech still believes Iraq had WMDs. Even George Bush agrees none were found...

 

As if anyone bought that crap

 

Of course the Bush administration debates this issue. For five years Bush has never altered his claim about fighting al-queda in Iraq; about fighting terrorism in Iraq.

There was no connection between alqueda and Iraq prior to 9-11 and probably none subsequent to 9/11 and the time period before the attack on Iraq.

While the Bush administration has continuously made this case there are 2 reports from insiders within the administration that specifically point to Bush's pre 9/11 focus on Iraq.

1. In the Price of Loyalty, the book written about Paul O'Neill's 2 years as Treasury Secretary at the start of the Bush administration, O'Neill describes how at the very first meeting of the National Security Council, of which he was a member, the Administration started focusing on Iraq.

This was a totally new and different focus from the prior administration. The ultimate focus was for some way to effect regime change. O'Neill further commented upon how Powell was caught off guard by this focus. It obviously came from the neo-con group.

2. the second single source of evidence on this perspective comes from Richard Clarke who was "counterterrorism czar" at the time of 9/11 (before and after).

Clarke reports that on 9/12 Bush grabbed Clarke and required that Clarke find if there was evidence of Iraq/Saddam being responsable for the attacks.

At the earliest moments when White House staff recognized that the events of 9/11 were attacks...Cheney is reported to have told Clarke that this was an action from Al-Queda, and that Al-Queda liked to strike more than once. By the end of that day the administration was sure the attacks were from Al Queda.,

Regardless, as of 9/12 Clarke reports the following....

Bush, with little knowledge about any global events at that time, bought into the theories of the neo-cons and had his target on Iraq, long before 9/11.

Even as it occurred, even as the hard intelligence and facts totally focused on 9/11 bush, the person with the least experience and knowledge of any of these events, any of these groups, and any of the potential consequences, but the one with ultimate power wanted the focus on Iraq.

So the history of neo-con publishings, the evidence from 600,000 documents form Iraq, and the testimony from 2 insiders all point to the same conclusions; Bush wanted to go after Iraq, despite the evidence of any connections to Al queda, as his administration often referenced.

 

Personally, I suspect that George W and his associates have long wanted a foothold in Iraq. They may have regretted not getting one in 1991.

The war on terror was a "convenient excuse" to push both Cheney and Bushs' separate agendas. Iraq benefited many aspects of their constituent's desires. Haliburton, Cheney's 30 year desire to increase the power of the Presidency, Bush's desire to increase access to oil, take out Sadam, and whatever else.

 

Earl's summary is pretty good, but there is one thing that is a little ambiguous. The national policy of Iraqi regime change was implemented under Clinton.

Bush actually ran against this ideology in the 2000 elections. He was anti-nation building, and basically endorsed a Ron Paul-esque foreign policy of "mind your own business" rather than playing global policeman.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter who gets in. One side likes welfare, the other warfare, and in the Senate and House, they will compromise and do both.

There is no true "opposition" party. Both of them compromise, and both of them cater to the military industrial complex (amongst others).

The Republicans worry me, because they are destroying us, the Democrats because they want to sell us out.

 

Guerilla:

While I disagree with you on a host of things, I do believe you read a lot. My interpretation of the focus on iraq by US administrations is quite different.

While the US govt. passed laws in the latter years of the Clinton administration to target Iraq more aggressively, it appears to me that in fact, Clinton did little to implement changes with actual US policy.

Subsequent to Desert Storm, with Saddam retreating to Iraq, the US ultimately set up no fly zones over the South and North of Iraq. It appears that while Bush 1 made certain promises to Shiites in the South, US did not follow up and Saddam was relatively free to terrorize them. On the other hand the no fly zone in the North, essentially created a Saddam free zone in the North for Kurds.

My reading of laws targeting Iraq lead me to believe the impetus might have been from either both parties or primarily the Majority Republican party in the House.

Clinton certainly signed the bills. It doesn't appear that he took these actions seriously and didn't escalate in any way toward Iraq. In fact he was criticised by neo-con's for not doing so.

In any case, there are huge differences between war and higher levels of "antagonism", fly overs, occaisional missiles, etc.

My posting of comments from Bush insiders was done to differentiate that which comes out of the "official" mouth of the administration, and those that were there and articulate a vastly different perspective.

Of interest, Bush definitely ran on a "non-intervention" non nation building platform in 2000.

In that light it is amazing to read the book about O'Neill. IIRC, at the very first national security meeting O'Neill attended, which would have been January or February 2001, the immediate focus was Iraq and a way to get involved in or with Iraq and how to effect regime change. O'Neill's account suggests that Colin Powell, as Secretary of State, was completely surprised by this focus.

Per the account by O'Neill it would suggest that the portion of Bush's campaign in 2000 that suggested Bush was against "nation building and intervention" was totally BS.

 

Fair and fair enough.

Without a doubt it was BS. Which, while you may think it is all conspiratorial hyperbole, I and many other people in this country (left libs like Naomi Wolf for example) believe this country is in the midst of a fascist shift. A true corporatacracy.

So when you read that I am railing against government, more times than not, it's not so that one or many groups of people get hurt/neglected, but rather to protect them from the injustice of all-pervasive state power.

Clinton presided over a devastating and prolonged bombing campaign over Iraq. He managed Food for Oil.

I'm sorry, and you may not agree, but we aren't allowed to elect "good guys". Clinton was not a "good guy". He was a mass murderer, just like Bush. In fact, he's probably killed more people under Food for Oil than Bush has with his fake War on Terror. And that doesn't count Desert Fox, the bombing campaigns in Serbia, Waco (which was a farce) etc.

I'm much more concerned with liberty, law and free markets, but it's hard to ignore the fact these things are under assault because our government is totally derelict of any accountability or morality.

 

"The devastating and prolonged bombing attack was 3 days.

guerilla: your characterisation of this effort is simply absurd.

Once again you attack every American action, distort reality, and tend to absolve anyone of any responsability other than an American govt official, (alternatively you blame and attack Israeli's.)

I still don't see why you don't move to Kuwait, Oman, or Dubai. They all have low income taxes and you would be at home amongst your beleoved ones.

 

EarlPearl, if your mentioning Kuwait, Oman, or Dubai, your mentioning our puppet regimes in the middle east. When i say our im talking about the elite and not the american people. The american people till this day have gotten no benefit from having these puppets as allies while they reap gains after gains from oil and their citizens. The only good thing i can say is that they really do take good care of their own citizens and dubai is one of the best places in the middle east as far as them allowing other people to live the way they want whether they are muslim or not.

 

In that Guerilla hates every element of the US, including the common voter, businesses, politicians, govt, etc. and since they take such good care of people, muslim or not, and most importantly since there is virtually no income tax, I thought it would be nice for Guerilla to move there. These nations meet his needs.

Of course since the price of oil is so high relative to a few years ago, I doubt they would consider themselves puppet govts. It appears they are pulling the strings.

 

Do you have any idea how much devastation was leveled in 4 days of continuous bombing and shelling?

They fired more Tomahawk missiles in the first 2 days than were used in the entire 1991 war. They had eliminated 75 targets in the first two days, destroying a ton of Iraqi infrastructure.

This is one of the largest bombing campaigns in history, and you are mocking it?

Distort reality? I post reality, and you run or make baseless accusations.

Let me explain something to you. I don't endorse bombing people. I don't endorse murder. And when the government does it, I don't yell, "Hoo-rah!" and parade around my living room waving a mini-flag.

What's really telling about you Earl, that until I told you, you didn't even know that the start of the Vietnam war was fabricated. If I hadn't told you, you might have gone through the rest of your life thinking it was started by the Vietnamese, and in some way that justified the million plus people who died.

When our government officials F*** Up, they are responsible. Not the silliness you posted the other day, about only holding them accountable if the polls dictate it.

What beloved ones? Is that some personal cheap shot? Resorting to GTech tactics, trying to imply that I am a "islamist sympathizer"?

I thought (incorrectly it seems) that you were better than that.

If you can't come up with counter-points to the things I post, rational thought-out responses to my positions, then maybe you should just not post at all, rather than suggesting the answer for your crisis of ignorance is my absence.

 

I have spoken to people who personally came from iraq after the allied bombing. I dont usually go to the church my mom goes to because the mass is in aramiac but i did go a few times and i saw an iraqi woman who was rescued from that devestation and believe me it was every bit as devestating as guerilla mentioned it was and even more. He eyes were blasted out of her head. She is blind and disfigured for life. You actually need to be there to know this. Why do you believe that guerilla hates america? I think its the complete opposite, i think its because of his love for america that he dares to speak the truth about this war. Was it fashionable to speak out against the vietnam war? I bet alot of peiople thought it was during that conflict, but ask most of the vietnam war vets
how they feel about it now, ask the soldiers who were at the gulf of tonkin when that staged event happened to get us fully into the conflict.


Since when does speaking out against government policies mean you hate america? A true defender of freedom isnt afraid to speak out against any injustice , whether it is by our enemies or by our own government. If we dont have the freedom to speak out then everything the founding fathers stood for is gone. I bet the common people in england thought they were crazy huh?

 

Both great, logical posts...

I just wanted to bold that part of pingpong's quote to emphasize it. Too many people confuse a negative position on a politician, a policy, or the war with being unpatriotic; that's a misconception that American's need to shed quick, fast, and in a hurry...

 

Facts are not important to guerilla. To this day, I've still never seen him say a good word about America or a bad word about terrorists. I believe more and more people that frequent P&R are starting to see who he really is and what he *really* stands behind.

He's nothing more than an anti-American propaganda machine, spending virtually every hour of every day (while his spouse goes off to earn a living) doing his best to portray America and Israel as the evils of the world.

On the actual report...I find it rather difficult to accept, given that just a few years ago, ABC News unearthed numerous documents showing a connection to al qaida from a massive archive that the Pentagon made available for viewing on it's website. It raises the question of what happened to those documents and were they considered in their report, or perhaps, there were so few, that it didn't really matter.

Having followed the link from the OP, I'm left puzzled as to why he chose to start a thread of such great importance, and omit such powerful observations the report mentioned:

I'm left wondering if saddam was a hero and could never do anything wrong (after all, he routinely made payments of $25k to families of suicide bombers for successfully killing Jews), or if a man responsible for a million people in mass graves was just doing is honest part for the greater good of the innocent Iraqi people he starved to death (some try to blame that on the US too) while he built lavish palaces, bought gold plated weapons, luxury cars and lived like a king while willfully ignoring the welfare of the people of his country.

I guess it depends on whether you hate the US or not

 

Thanks. The personal attacks and attempts to discredit the poster with pejorative rhetoric really don't do anything for logic, reason or fact.

One day, I hope my critics can meet a minimum burden of proof for their assertions.

 

Speaking of logic (or rather any semblance of...) and ceaseless personal attacks on America, it appears the media may not be accurately reporting (gasp!!!) what some are so willing to latch onto, without further investigation.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/the_new_report_on_iraq_and_ter.asp

Apparently the media didn't really take much time to read the actual report. It appears, in fact, the Pentagon report does in fact confirm ties between saddam and al qaida.

Should be interesting to see how "opinions" change in light of this new revelation.

 

Did you read the actual report? If so, you saw the part where it says:

If you haven't read the whole report, I'd suggest everyone atleast read the excerpts: http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/14/saddam.terrorism.pentagon.pdf (PDF FILE)


P.S., the argument "Saddam supported groups that associated with al qaeda" sounds funny after thinking how much money we pumped into Iraq years and years ago, just to later lead invasions against them...

 

I did. I was wondering the same of you. I ask that in all sincerity, because your thread titles suggests one thing, and a passage (with convenient words inserted to illustrate an opinion) say another. If you actually read it, then you would have seen some of the following excerpts:

Can you confirm that those excerpts do not exist in the report? If not, can you confirm they actually do exist in the report?

al qaida wasn't formed until 1994. Allies do not agree to be allies forever. Poor saddam...he worked so hard to be a brutal evil dictator, put over a million in mass graves, put people in acid baths feet first so the person could watch their own death, chopped of hands, feet, tongues, threw people off roofs and other things most can't imagine. And he just can't get any credit for it.