[KaBlooey]

Why Kerry is Right on Iraq

"The more intelligent question is, given what we knew at the time, was toppling Saddam's regime a worthwhile objective? Bush's answer is yes, Howard Dean's is no. Kerry's answer is that it was a worthwhile objective but was disastrously executed. For this "nuance" Kerry has been attacked from both the right and the left. But it happens to be the most defensible position on the subject."

[Y3a]

Perhaps if Kerry had actually been at more Intel briefings he might KNOW what he's talking about???

[mo]

Originally posted by Y3a:
Perhaps if Kerry had actually been at more Intel briefings he might KNOW what he's talking about???

Do tell. I'm curious what you've learned from attending them yourself.

[brachiator]

Perhaps if Kerry had thumbed through the copy of the Constitution they issue senators at orientation, it would have occurred to him that it's the job of the Congress to either declare or not declare war, not to "authorize the use of force" even for a President who is not and incompetent, meretricious pissant...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Y3a:
Perhaps if Kerry had actually been at more Intel briefings he might KNOW what he's talking about???

[zigzag]

Zakaria is absolutely right: it's a question of competence as much as policy, and liberal Democrats aren't the only ones saying so. I don't condemn Bush for thinking boldly but you don't go invading Iraq without sound intelligence and a sound plan.

From a campaign standpoint, Bush's question to Kerry is a clever one: it deflects attention away from the fact that the whole affair has been badly managed, and from the WMD hyperbole. The irony is not only that Bush would not have been able to invade had we known then what we know now, but that he's effectively been forced to adopt Kerry's more multilateral approach. Unfortunately, it might have been too little too late. Hopefully this won't prove to be true in the long run.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I was hoping for a forward-looking analysis of the policy toward Iraq and the rest of the War on Terror. Endless counterfactual assertions about what a candidate speaking with the benefit of hindsight now say he would have done aren't helpful. Or especially interesting.

All I have heard from Kerry is some vague promise based on a "secret plan" that if he is elected foreign countries will suddenly decide to deploy their non-deployable, largely non-existent forces to Iraq to take part in a policy they have opposed since day one. Call me skeptical on that. It's an easy promise to make. But its based on wishful thinking and little else.

[RAILhead]

Hindsight, eh? Who CAN'T look back on ANY situation and make such comments?

Maury

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I was hoping for a forward-looking analysis of the policy toward Iraq and the rest of the War on Terror.

The *REST* of the war on terror?? What did Iraq have to do with the War on Terror?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I was hoping for a forward-looking analysis of the policy toward Iraq and the rest of the War on Terror. Endless counterfactual assertions about what a candidate speaking with the benefit of hindsight now say he would have done aren't helpful. Or especially interesting.

All I have heard from Kerry is some vague promise based on a "secret plan" that if he is elected foreign countries will suddenly decide to deploy their non-deployable, largely non-existent forces to Iraq to take part in a policy they have opposed since day one. Call me skeptical on that. It's an easy promise to make. But its based on wishful thinking and little else.

I understand that he also has a secret decoder ring.

I don't blame you for being skeptical about Kerry's plan - I am as well. The problem is that Bush is the sitting President and I'm unclear as to whether he has a viable plan either; my impression is that he's mostly keeping his fingers crossed. I'm simplifying but the fact is that no one is in a position to know how things will pan out. I think the best they can do is advance general ideas, and the best we can do is decide who's more likely to succeed.

Hindsight is 50-50, but I think one legitimate purpose of it is to determine whether the people in charge are capable of executing well in the future. I expect mistakes but I'm not sure that mistakes of this number and magnitude reflect good judgment. There's also the issue of confidence and credibility - it can be difficult to get things done if people don't take you seriously. Bush's resolve might be an asset but there's also reason to believe that he'll have difficulty moving forward. It's like an NBA basketball coach - he wants to win as badly as ever, but after a few years the players have heard all of his speeches and he loses the ability to motivate them. This applies not just to Americans but to people whose cooperation we still need.

I don't claim to know the answer - Kerry could turn out to be a complete flop. One can only play the odds.

[Troll]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Who CAN'T look back on ANY situation and make such comments?

Is there any decision that you think is just unforgivable? When do wrong decisions amount to incompetence that deserves to be punished by being denied a second term?

I mean, let's for a moment ignore the fact that as a result of Bush's decisions tens of thousands of innocent people have died, that millions of people's lives have been disrupted and that resources have been drained from battling terrorism to deal with Iraq. The best case scenario for this Administration is the case they themselves put forward, namely that they made a mistake but that the net effect was a bonus for the Iraqi people (there was no civil war in Iraq, and there wasn't any international peace threatening genocide taking place. Iraqis were as oppressed and dangerous as 50% of the rest of the people on the planet.)

I find that Republican argument bizarre. Bush is not the President of Iraq, Iraqis didn't elect him and he isn't there to serve their interests. Why would US citizens be thrilled that he served the Iraqi people? When I decide whether my leaders get a second term, I ask, "What have done for me lately," (to quote Eddie Murphy from Raw). The Neocons made a colossal mistake in incorrectly identifying the national interest. They wasted citizens' money and lives by engaging in an action which did not benefit the USA but had questionable benefits for another nation, Iraq. If the Neocons want to reflect positively on the last 4 years, they have to show how the invasion of Iraq served AMERICAN INTERESTS. I don't think they've done that. Removing Hussein was extremely peripheral to the US national interest. As peripheral as removing Mugabe or any other two-bit dictator. The price has been extraordinarily high not only in lives and dollars but in international relations. I can't see how Iraq can be anything but a huge F on the President's report card.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I understand that he also has a secret decoder ring.

I don't blame you for being skeptical about Kerry's plan - I am as well. The problem is that Bush is the sitting President and I'm unclear as to whether he has a viable plan either; my impression is that he's mostly keeping his fingers crossed. I'm simplifying but the fact is that no one is in a position to know how things will pan out. I think the best they can do is advance general ideas, and the best we can do is decide who's more likely to succeed.

Hindsight is 50-50, but I think one legitimate purpose of it is to determine whether the people in charge are capable of executing well in the future. I expect mistakes but I'm not sure that mistakes of this number and magnitude reflect good judgment. There's also the issue of confidence and credibility - it can be difficult to get things done if people don't take you seriously. Bush's resolve might be an asset but there's also reason to believe that he'll have difficulty moving forward. It's like an NBA basketball coach - he wants to win as badly as ever, but after a few years the players have heard all of his speeches and he loses the ability to motivate them. This applies not just to Americans but to people whose cooperation we still need.

I don't claim to know the answer - Kerry could turn out to be a complete flop. One can only play the odds.

My problem is that he is making a promise that I think he realizes he can't deliver upon. I don't think there is any interest among our "allies" (outside of those already there) in sending significant combat troops to Iraq. Just changing Administratins isn't going to change that. More importantly, those countrues don't have the capability to deploy such significant forces even if they wanted to do so. So when he says he will get allies to deploy troops so US troops can come home, he is making an empty promise. Perhaps even a cynically empty promise.

Now, i know there is a long tradition of presidential candidates making promises they know they can't deliver upon. But I don't think it is ever something to give a candidate much credit for.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Hindsight, eh? Who CAN'T look back on ANY situation and make such comments?

Maury

Of course! "I coulda done better!" I always hear that from sore losers.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
The *REST* of the war on terror?? What did Iraq have to do with the War on Terror?

You are kidding right? There is NO DOUBT that Iraq helped out terrorists Troll. This isn't even questioned anymore.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Now, i know there is a long tradition of presidential candidates making promises they know they can't deliver upon. But I don't think it is ever something to give a candidate much credit for.

True. Sometimes people will say anything to get elected. This is why I dont see why people say Bush lied when he was elected, yet believe everything Kerry says...

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You are kidding right? There is NO DOUBT that Iraq helped out terrorists Troll. This isn't even questioned anymore.

Agreed, there are even papers that show that Saddam helped fund the terrorists. Oh and there were these things called terrorist camps we raided in Iraq that were for Al-Queda...

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
There is NO DOUBT that Iraq helped out terrorists Troll. This isn't even questioned anymore.

LOL! If there's no doubt, then why don't you show us some credible evidence? Not that Neocon propaganda you posted last time. I've already dismissed all that crud.

There is still no credible evidence of Iraq "helping out" Al Qaeda. None at all. If there were, Fox and Bush would be screaming it from the rooftops.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
LOL! If there's no doubt, then why don't you show us some credible evidence? Not that Neocon propaganda you posted last time. I've already dismissed all that crud.

There is still no credible evidence of Iraq "helping out" Al Qaeda. None at all. If there were, Fox and Bush would be screaming it from the rooftops.

Troll no one is screaming because now it's a known fact. Look at the 9/11 commission. They have came to the conclusion that without a doubt, Iraq was helping terrorists. They said but that doesn't mean Saddam was part of the 9/11 attacks.

The Bush administration never said that though.

Go look at the commissions findings tough guy.

HARDLY a "neocon" conspiracy. Get a grip.

[zigzag]

I thought it was interesting that among the thousand or so documents discovered on the computer discussed in the other thread, describing intimate details of al Qaeda's operations, there was only one mention of Saddam Hussein, and it was contemptuous.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I thought it was interesting that among the thousand or so documents discovered on the computer discussed in the other thread, describing intimate details of al Qaeda's operations, there was only one mention of Saddam Hussein, and it was contemptuous.

What if that hard drive did not contain all of their key information?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Troll no one is screaming because now it's a known fact. Look at the 9/11 commission. They have came to the conclusion that without a doubt, Iraq was helping terrorists. They said but that doesn't mean Saddam was part of the 9/11 attacks.

The Bush administration never said that though.

Go look at the commissions findings tough guy.

HARDLY a "neocon" conspiracy. Get a grip.

Here's the thread where we discussed Iraq helping Al Qaeda commit terrorism. (http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...mission+neocon). You provided ONE link to prove your claim. I never said this was a neocon conspiracy. I just noted that the link you provided was to a neocon propaganda website (hudson.org). The document was very outdated still claiming that Zarqawi's leg had been amputated for example and is on a site that owes its sole existence to punting neocon policies. Hardly neutral and if this is such a known fact, you can surely do better!

As for your statement about the 9/11 Commission, I think you are confusing Iran and Iraq. The 9/11 Commission specifically said that Iraq DID NOT HELP AL QAEDA: "“We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.” What they said was that when Osama was in Sudan, there had been contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq but that they never lead to anything. Many countries in the region had contact with Osama at that time. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had contact with him right up until 9/11 and possibly beyond. Thomas Kean of the Commission also said, "We believe....that there were a lot more active contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq." I think you should just reply to the other thread rather than posting complete and utter rubbish like saying that it is a fact that Iraq helped Al Qaeda.

[Zimphire]

Not to mention not everything that went on in Iraq had to do with Saddam.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by djohnson:
What if that hard drive did not contain all of their key information?

Of course. But there's a point at which you have to stop speculating and chasing windmills. If there was a meaningful collaboration, you'd expect to find some reference to it. You also have to consider the totality of the evidence: after a year and a half, no one has produced any proof of a meaningful relationship, and there's considerable evidence to the contrary.

It's the same with WMDs - there are people who in 2025 will still be saying, "But we haven't checked everywhere." I can't dispute that but it doesn't serve as a very sound basis for decision-making.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Of course. But there's a point at which you have to stop speculating and chasing windmills. If there was a meaningful collaboration, you'd expect to find some reference to it. You also have to consider the totality of the evidence: after a year and a half, no one has produced any proof of a meaningful relationship, and there's considerable evidence to the contrary.

The 9/11 commission has came to the conclusion that there is no question Iraq had ties with terrorists. What they were questioning was if Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Something Bush never claimed.

It's the same with WMDs - there are people who in 2025 will still be saying, "But we haven't checked everywhere." I can't dispute that but it doesn't serve as a very sound basis for decision-making.

Just like the peacenicks were saying "Give the UN inspectors more time" When it had been a decade.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
The 9/11 Commission specifically said that Iraq DID NOT HELP AL QAEDA: "“We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.”

Heh.

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States." is a much narrower statement than "The 9/11 Commission specifically said that Iraq DID NOT HELP AL QAEDA."

You deleted two rather important qualifiers:

1. "We have no credible evidence" leads open the possibility that there is evidence that the Commission hasn't seen, or which the U.S. simply doesn't possess, or which we have but can't be verified (see below).

2. ". . . cooperated on attacks against the United States." leaves open the possibility of other cooperation.

On #2, the Commission didn't look into the broader question of Iraq/al-Queda cooperation because that was beyond its mandate. The Commission was only looking into the September 11 attacks. Therefore, it was only looking into cooperation that contributed to those specific attacks.

And of course, the U.S. government has always maintained that it has no evidence of direct participation in the attacks. That does not rule out other cooperation where the evidence isn't in our hands. And don't forget that the Czechs still stand by their story about Atta in Prague. That's why the word "credible" is in the Commission's statement. The U.S. government has always maintained that it hasn't verified that information, so it isn't "credible." They might be right, or they might be wrong. It's hard to know. If intelligence can be wrong about one thing, it can be wrong about another. You can't say that our intelligence was faulty on (say) wmd, but there is absolutely no possibility of it being wrong on this.

And by the way, how do you explain the Iraqi involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing? Link Why would they cooperate with that, but nothing else?

[Zimphire]

And that folks is what is known as a true Smackdown™

Take note.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And that folks is what is known as a true Smackdown™

Take note.

I second that Smackdown™.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I second that Smackdown™.

I agree

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Heh.

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States." is a much narrower statement than "The 9/11 Commission specifically said that Iraq DID NOT HELP AL QAEDA."

If you follow the argument a bit more closely, you'll see that Zimphire cites as evidence of the FACT that Iraq helped Al Qaeda, the statements of the 9/11 Commission. What I am arguing is that the Commission said no such thing. It never said that Iraq "helped" Al Qaeda. That is the way in which Zimphire phrased the argument not me. I agree that his wording is broader than the Commissions. Your point reinforces mine that the Commission did not say the things he alleges. In fact to the extent that they offer any evidence at all, they are evidence of the opposite.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You deleted two rather important qualifiers:

1. "We have no credible evidence" leads open the possibility that there is evidence that the Commission hasn't seen, or which the U.S. simply doesn't possess.

Of course. The point is that there isn't any credible evidence in the public domain to suggest that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated. That doesn't exclude the possibility that they did. Just as the Easter Bunny may exist despite the lack of credible evidence in the public domain that it does. Again, we still have no credible evidence of the "FACT" that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated. The only reason we're looking at the Commission is because Zimphire says that the Commission says "Iraq helped Al Qaeda."

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
2. ". . . cooperated on attacks against the United States." What about other cooperation?

Well sure, they may have made chocolate chip cookies together but now that isn't a reason to wage the WOT against Iraq is it? The WOT is about waging war against supporters of terrorism against the United States. It's not a war against countries that support Palestinian terrorists, for example, who pose no threat to the US,, otherwise the WOT would have started in Palestine. Besides, I don't think the Commission restricted themselves the way you say they should. They looked into the Embassy attacks, the Cole, the first WTC bombing and when they made their report they could have said that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. They went beyond that.

In any event, the point here is that there is no credible evidence of Al Qaeda and Iraq cooperating in any way that posed a danger to the US. Therefore, invading Iraq was not part of the WOT.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Well sure, they may have made chocolate chip cookies together but now that isn't a reason to wage the WOT against Iraq is it?

***

In any event, the point here is that there is no credible evidence of Al Qaeda and Iraq cooperating in any way that posed a danger to the US. Therefore, invading Iraq was not part of the WOT.

If the war in Iraq had been presented as retaliating for Iraq's participation in the 9/11 attacks, you would have a good case. But that was neither the claim, nor one of the overlapping rationales.

Oh, and I take it you are ignoring Ramsey Yousef and his ties to Iraqi intelligence, then?

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If the war in Iraq had been presented as retaliating for Iraq's participation in the 9/11 attacks, you would have a good case. But that was neither the claim, nor one of the overlapping rationales.

My case is not that the 9/11 Commission proved that Iraq did not cooperate with Al Qaeda. That's the mistake you made. My case is that there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE of Iraq helping Al Qaeda whatsoever whether from the 9/11 Commission (as Zim suggests) or anywhere else. And I am not ignoring anything.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
My case is not that the 9/11 Commission proved that Iraq did not cooperate with Al Qaeda. That's the mistake you made. My case is that there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE of Iraq helping Al Qaeda whatsoever whether from the 9/11 Commission (as Zim suggests) or anywhere else. And I am not ignoring anything.

I haven't read the Commission's report, so I can't say what they said affirmatively. But the statement you quoted from them doesn't support what you said they said. They did not say there was no cooperation. They were far more careful not to overstate the evidence. I jumped on you because you misstated them.

I think also you need to look a little deeper on Iraq-Al-Queda ties. There were links, and there was assistance. Yousef's connections to Iraqi intelligence being one. There were also deep ties to other terrorists such as Abu Abbas and Carlos the Jackal, who most certainly did attack Americans.

In any case as i said above, the Iraq invasion was not retaliation, so this is irrelevant. We weren't so much worried about what they did, but what they were likely to do.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I haven't read the Commission's report, so I can't say what they said affirmatively. But the statement you quoted from them doesn't support what you said they said. They did not say there was no cooperation. They were far more careful not to overstate the evidence. I jumped on you because you misstated them.

I think also you need to look a little deeper on Iraq-Al-Queda ties. There were links, and there was assistance. Yousef's connections to Iraqi intelligence being one. There were also deep ties to other terrorists such as Abu Abbas and Carlos the Jackal, who most certainly did attack Americans.

In any case as i said above, the Iraq invasion was not retaliation, so this is irrelevant.

Is my understanding that half of the report is being withheld until after the election correct? Oh well, you can get the report free from iTunes if you prefer not to read it directly.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Is my understanding that half of the report is being withheld until after the election correct? Oh well, you can get the report free from iTunes if you prefer not to read it directly.

BlackGriffen

I have seen it. I glanced at it. No, I haven't read it. I'm not that much of a wonk. I have enough boring things to read without wading through a 600+ page after action report. I'm also more interested in where our policy should go forward than in looking back.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Troll:
LOL! If there's no doubt, then why don't you show us some credible evidence? Not that Neocon propaganda you posted last time. I've already dismissed all that crud.

There is still no credible evidence of Iraq "helping out" Al Qaeda. None at all. If there were, Fox and Bush would be screaming it from the rooftops.

Some people equate "War on Terror" with "War on ALL Terrorists", while others equate it with "War on the al Qaeda Terrorists". Unfortunately, the definition of the "War on Terror" isn't very clear on this matter and therefore it can pretty much be used against anyone who might have any ties to any terrorist organization. I wonder when North Ireland will be invaded?

Of course Iraq had known terrorist connections ... though none of them were to those responsible for september 11.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Hindsight, eh? Who CAN'T look back on ANY situation and make such comments?

Then, can we expect to hear the President say "oops, I was wrong ... my bad"?

Unfortunately, much of what we are just now learning was known to the Administration before the war. What is hindsight for us should have been foresight for the Bush Administration.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I haven't read the Commission's report, so I can't say what they said affirmatively. But the statement you quoted from them doesn't support what you said they said. They did not say there was no cooperation. They were far more careful not to overstate the evidence. I jumped on you because you misstated them.

I think also you need to look a little deeper on Iraq-Al-Queda ties. There were links, and there was assistance. Yousef's connections to Iraqi intelligence being one. There were also deep ties to other terrorists such as Abu Abbas and Carlos the Jackal, who most certainly did attack Americans.

In any case as i said above, the Iraq invasion was not retaliation, so this is irrelevant. We weren't so much worried about what they did, but what they were likely to do.

I think you still aren't following the debate here. Zim says that the Commission said that "Iraq helped Al Qaeda." I say that the Commission said no such thing. I agree with you as to what they said, namely that they have no credible evidence of cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda in attacks on the US. That says quite a lot doesn't it.

If you have evidence of assistance from Iraq to Al Qaeda, then post it in the other thread. You'll see that I have looked quite deeply into this question and haven't found anything. The Commission, amongst others, noted that there had been contact between Iraq and Al Qaeda just as there had between most countries in the region and Al Qaeda. They specifically said, and this has been backed up by other sources that nothing came of that cooperation. After consideration, neither Al Qaeda nor Iraq wanted to get involved with the other.

As you say, the point is irrelevant since the War in Iraq was never about terrorism. Which is why I found your statement so strange to begin with. It seems you meant that Kerry doesn't have a forward-looking analysis of the policy toward Iraq OR the War on Terror rather than what you said. Not sure I agree with either of those statements but let's assume you're right on Iraq for a while. If he can't persuade the rest of the world to get involved then he'll be where Bush is now and the US won't be any worse off. I think that if a few concessions are made to the UN and the US's traditional allies, that they will indeed get involved personally. I think that there is indeed a bit of a personality clash that could be solved by Bush vacating office. As for the WOT, I would have thought that Kerry's proposal to increase military spending and to finish the job in Afghanistan would have appealed to you. Why are those not forward thinking?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Troll:
... Zim says that the Commission said that "Iraq helped Al Qaeda."

Zim is chosing his words very carefully. He's saying that the Commission said that Iraq helped terrorists, not Al Qaeda. For him, since Iraq was helping terrorists, any terrorists, it can therefore be included as part of the War on Terror. The other problem is that the definition of "terror" is very unclear and could be used against almost anyone that the Administration doesn't like.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I have seen it. I glanced at it. No, I haven't read it. I'm not that much of a wonk. I have enough boring things to read without wading through a 600+ page after action report. I'm also more interested in where our policy should go forward than in looking back.

Without a good historical analysis, how can one say which way policy should go? I'm not disagreeing with you not reading the report, I have no plan on doing so either, but the sentiment you express seems to me to be counterproductive.

The only way we have any idea of what the future holds is by looking at what the future held before.

Also, the report makes specific policy recommendations, IIRC, that are shaping the public debate.

I'm really starting to question my decision not to read it....

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I think you still aren't following the debate here. Zim says that the Commission said that "Iraq helped Al Qaeda." I say that the Commission said no such thing. I agree with you as to what they said, namely that they have no credible evidence of cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda in attacks on the US. That says quite a lot doesn't it.

If you have evidence of assistance from Iraq to Al Qaeda, then post it in the other thread. You'll see that I have looked quite deeply into this question and haven't found anything. The Commission, amongst others, noted that there had been contact between Iraq and Al Qaeda just as there had between most countries in the region and Al Qaeda. They specifically said, and this has been backed up by other sources that nothing came of that cooperation. After consideration, neither Al Qaeda nor Iraq wanted to get involved with the other.

As you say, the point is irrelevant since the War in Iraq was never about terrorism. Which is why I found your statement so strange to begin with. It seems you meant that Kerry doesn't have a forward-looking analysis of the policy toward Iraq OR the War on Terror rather than what you said. Not sure I agree with either of those statements but let's assume you're right on Iraq for a while. If he can't persuade the rest of the world to get involved then he'll be where Bush is now and the US won't be any worse off. I think that if a few concessions are made to the UN and the US's traditional allies, that they will indeed get involved personally. I think that there is indeed a bit of a personality clash that could be solved by Bush vacating office. As for the WOT, I would have thought that Kerry's proposal to increase military spending and to finish the job in Afghanistan would have appealed to you. Why are those not forward thinking?

The war in Iraq is about the war on terror. But not in a simplistic retaliatory way.

As for Zim's statements and yours, I hold you to a higher standard of accuracy. I know you know better than to take a carefully qualified statement and them to remove all the qualifiers and present a non-committal statement as a firm denial. You tried to mislead, and that deserved a fisking.

Zim may or may not be right about what the Commission said. I don't know because I haven't read the report. But I think he is broadly right on contacts between Saddam and terrorism. They were definately playing on the same team. How closely they worked is open to speculation -- at least given what is in the public realm. But the idea that the combination wasn't (to say the least) a worry is naive, imho. Post 9/11 my tolerance for that kind of growing threat is very low.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If the war in Iraq had been presented as retaliating for Iraq's participation in the 9/11 attacks, you would have a good case. But that was neither the claim, nor one of the overlapping rationales.

That is what I have been trying to tell the guy.

Bush never made such claims.

[Zimphire]

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Ne...sST061804.html

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That is what I have been trying to tell the guy.

Bush never made such claims.

Did Iraq Have Contact With Al Qaeda?
Having contact with and "helping" (or cooperating) are not the same thing. Simey rephrased your argument and I think you did too to say that Iraq and Al Qaeda had contacts. That is something that has been proved. We have credible evidence of meetings between Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda before Saddam left Sudan and went to Afghanistan. However, we also know that many countries had far more contact with Al Qaeda than Iraq.

Did Iraq Cooperate with Al Qaeda?
You said that the 9/11 Comm affirmed the fact that Iraq had "helped Al Qaeda." You still haven't showed us where they said this. I provided a broad statement by the Comm saying that there was no cooperation. The only qualifier I left out of my response was the one that is obviously implicit, namely that Iraq did not "help" Al Qaeda *to attack America*. The other qualifier that Simey raised (that the Commission was only mandated to look into 9/11) is not a qualifier at all since the Commission itself looked further and made a much broader statement than that. If Simey and you have a problem with the missing qualifier then your problem is with the Commission. Both of you might want to listen to or read what they said before you go any further on this point.

Nevertheless, I concede that the Commission is not the best source. I don't think it makes a difference because there is no other evidence out there of cooperation. I've said all that needs to be said about the actual evidence in the other thread and you haven't replied. One person gave third hand hearsay evidence about Salman Pak and no one ever backed it up. That is not credible. Zarqawi, who you say Iraq helped, decide to set up his terrorist training camp OUTSIDE of Iraq-controlled territory, plus, the intelligence community recently refuted the sole allegation of cooperation between the two claiming that Zarqawi's leg had never actually been amputated.

Did Iraq "Help" other Terrorists?
Quite probably. We know that he sent money to Palestinian terrorists and he may possibly have helped other groups. Now the Neocons are so up Israel's crack that they probably see this as an attack on the United States itself but the truth is far from it. Palestinian terrorist organisations do not represented a threat to the United States. Every country in the world supports groups that other countries consider terrorists. The United States, for example, protects Irish terrorists who collect money which goes towards bombs and guns used to kill Irish civilians and English soldiers.

What is the War on Terror About?
The War on Terror is apparently a war against terrorists and countries that support terrorists. Speaking to terrorists doesn't amount to support. To justify the invasion of a sovereign country, the cooperation with terrorists has to be at a level that the represents a threat to national security. If you want to talk about threats to US national security, let's talk about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan giving financial and logistical support to Al Qaeda. Let's talk about why the US didn't sort out Zarqawi's training camp earlier since it was based in Kurdish-controlled territory that their aircraft had full access to.

Not only wasn't there a threat but no demands were ever made of Iraq in relation to terrorism. Unlike Afghanistan, the US never gave a terrorism-related ultimatum. In fact, the US TWICE rejected Iraq's offer to extradite one of the Al Qaeda terrorists accused of the '93 WTC bombing.

Now, Simey raises another point which I do agree with. That is that there is now a terrorist problem in Iraq. It would be foolhardy to believe that that the Iraqi terrorist problem is going to evaporate any time soon so you need a strategy that deals with terrorism in Iraq long term. I don't think the Neocons have the solution and as long as Bush implements their ideas, he doesn't have the solution either. What the Neocons discounted was the fact that US military action to consolidate its power in the region BREEDS terrorism. History teaches us that when you create an Empire, you get resistance and some of this history is quite recent. The invasion of Iraq created a terrorist problem there. The Neocons probably understood that, but they didn't care since terrorism wasn't a major issue when they were formulating their strategy. The Bush Administration never updated the strategy to take into account the changed reality post 9/11 either.

Does Kerry have a Plan for Iraq and the WOT?
I'm not that interested in this question to be honest but I have read enough about Kerry to know that he has detailed plans for both. I also know that the Neocon strategy that the Bush Admin has implemented is bound to fail because history tells us what the response to the ideas they propound is.

Bush has completely dropped the ball on the Palestinian question and he is still too stuck on Neocon ideas of grandeur to solve either Iraq or the terrorism problem effectively. You're probably all aware that the Pentagon will, this week, award a tender to a thinktank to investigate how long the Insurgency in Iraq might last and how many troops are required when to deal with it. They're only doing this NOW! Does that sound to you like a government that has a handle on Iraq?

The only way you can effectively deal with the problems that your country is facing (this is just my opinion of course) is to get rid of the people that believe in consolidating hegemony through military conquest. That means at least everyone who is either a PNAC or AEI member and that unfortunately means most of the Bush Administration. If the Bush Administration doesn't signal a major purge of Neocons from its ranks, then Americans need to realise that the next 4 years are going to involve more Empire building, more military building and an ever growing terrorist threat in response. If no such purge happens, then the only way you can vote against that is to vote Kerry. Which is why I have little interest in the actual policies of Kerry. Until the Bush policies change, the only solution I see is to support someone else.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Troll:
What did Iraq have to do with the War on Terror?

Therein lies the fundamental difference between those in favor of the war and those against it. Those in favor would make a case that Saddam had ties to terrorists and supported terrorism (such as paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel.) They would therefore say that Iraq has EVERYTHING to do with the War on Terror.

Those against the war would make the case that it was a politically and financially motivated war created by the Bush Administration.

Or maybe each side wouldn't say those things and I'm full of sh*t. But at least that's where I see things.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Those against the war would make the case that it was a politically and financially motivated war created by the Bush Administration ...

... using Saddam's connections to Palestinian terrorists as an excuse.

The fundamental difference is that those who support Bush see the War on Terror as a war on ALL terrorists. Those who oppose Bush feel the War on Terror should be limited to those who use terrorism against the US.