Hope you voted.

[luke warm]

well richard, as you know al-quaida isn't the only voice celebrating the dem's wins... from iran:

 

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran.

both iran and al-quaida seem pleased the dems are in power... why is that, do you think?

[hrothgar]

well richard, as you know al-quaida isn't the only voice celebrating the dem's wins... from iran:

 

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran.

both iran and al-quaida seem pleased the dems are in power... why is that, do you think?

I'm not a mind a reader. I don't read Arabic. I don't read Farsi.

I don't know what the announcements actually said in their original language.

 

I don't know if the announcements actually reflect the true belief of the individuals who released. Alternatively, I don't know if they were part of some disinformation campaign.

 

For all I know, this was just the type of polite/eaningless congratulations that heads of state send when there has been an election.

 

So, I don't put a lot of weight on these sorts of announcements...

 

I will note the following:

 

1. Iran and Al Qaeda are very separate and distinct groups. Indeed, back when the Talliban was running Afghanistan the Iranians and Al Qaeda had a running series of military clashes. While the US is in conflict with both groups, its a mistake to consider them as some kind of monolithic block and assume that both organizations share the same motives. The most obvious example of the significant split between the two groups is that Al Qaeda is a Sunni group while Iran is a Shi'a state.

 

2. The Iranian made a number of peaceful overtures to the United States, all of which were rejected by the Bush administration. I don't think that the Iranians are going to abandon their nuclear weapons program. At the same time, i don't think that they are particularly interested in a full fledged war with the United States. I suspect that they believe the electoral defeat of hardline Republicans signals that a diplomatic solution may be possible.

[helene_t]

well richard, as you know al-quaida isn't the only voice celebrating the dem's wins... from iran:

 

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran.

both iran and al-quaida seem pleased the dems are in power... why is that, do you think?

First of all, the terrorist's audience, as well the audience of the Iranian president, hate the republicans even more than they hate the democrats, so they pretty much say what they have to say.

 

As for Iran, the Democrats' victory decreases the chance of a war with the U.S. I'm rather cynical but not cynical enough to think that the Iranian president wants a war with the U.S. So he might actually be honest in this particular case.

 

As for the terrorists, one might expect that they would prefer as much support for Bush's line as possible since they feed on war. Then again, if the U.S. leaves Iraq as a consequence of the elections, many will see it as if the terrorists defeated the U.S. which will encourage terrorism elsewhere. So I really don't know what the terrorists feel about the elections. Maybe each terrorist feels differently.

[Winstonm]

well richard, as you know al-qaeda isn't the only voice celebrating the dem's wins... from iran:

 

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran.

both iran and al-quaida seem pleased the dems are in power... why is that, do you think?

Seems to me this statement only discloses the low regard for which many outside the U.S. hold for Bush - including Iran.

 

Here is puportedly part of the quote from al-qaeda:

"The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of their predicament... they voted for a level of reason," the voice said. Muhajir, also known as Ayyub al-Masri, has been identified by US forces as the successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed in a raid in June 2006.

 

Voted for a level of reason...that doesn't sound doomsdayish to me - if fact, it sounds well.....reasonable. From the quote I read, the attack was directly against Rumsfeld and Bush independent of the American people - very personal.

 

As for the election, it does indeed seem a victory as it reinforces insurgency as a viable means to affect interntional politics - and it would seem al qaeda recognizes this in the statement. But the victory could never have occurred without the Bush led invasion of Iraq. So to infer that a victory for the Dems is a victory for the terrorists, which is what you seem to imply, is hogwash - the victory had already been won with the deterioration of Iraq into civil war - the elections only emphasized that fact.

 

I am already disappointed that the Dems have announced that impeachment is off the table - not that it should be a goal - but to me it shows there will be no meaningful investigation into the screw-ups and/or deceptions that led to the war.

If it was monumental screw-up, there should be no impeachment - but if the information was known to be false or unreliable and the President plowed ahead with lies and decption of his own, not only should impeachment be on the table but should head the list.

[luke warm]

Here is puportedly part of the quote from al-qaeda:

"The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of their predicament... they voted for a level of reason," the voice said. Muhajir, also known as Ayyub al-Masri, has been identified by US forces as the successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed in a raid in June 2006.

 

Voted for a level of reason...that doesn't sound doomsdayish to me - if fact, it sounds well.....reasonable.

thank God, eh? i've rarely heard or read anyone use the word "reasonable" to describe anyting Ali Khamenei and/or the terrorists do or say... but i guess the enemy of our enemy is our friend, eh?

[akhare]

thank God, eh? i've rarely heard or read anyone use the word "reasonable" to describe anyting Ali Khamenei and/or the terrorists do or say... but i guess the enemy of our enemy is our friend, eh?

This must be a joke -- indeed, if there's so much hatred between the two political factions in our democracy, the country faces a far more serious danger than the one posed by terrorism.

 

Also, I don't think that clubbing Ali Khamenei and the terrorists (presumably al-Qaeda) in one single sentence makes sense. The Persians have a vastly different cultural background and I suspect that their strategic objectives will be ill served by launching a terrorist attack on the United States. It might work for a stateless organization, but has to be suicidal for Iran...

[Winstonm]

Here is puportedly part of the quote from al-qaeda:

"The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of their predicament... they voted for a level of reason," the voice said. Muhajir, also known as Ayyub al-Masri, has been identified by US forces as the successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed in a raid in June 2006.

 

Voted for a level of reason...that doesn't sound doomsdayish to me - if fact, it sounds well.....reasonable.

thank God, eh? i've rarely heard or read anyone use the word "reasonable" to describe anyting Ali Khamenei and/or the terrorists do or say... but i guess the enemy of our enemy is our friend, eh?

Perhaps the difference lies in the listener - is it not better to listen to both side without bias?

 

I made no mention of enemies or friends - that is how you charecterized them.

I only quoted what was claimed to be part of the al-Qaeda message and the statement toward the American people was not hate filled - however, the statements toward Bush, Rumsfeld, and the American troops were bitter and harsh.

 

There have been many terrorist groups that have arisen over the past 50-60 years - the Zionists pre-Israel, the IRA, and many more - heck, the Boston Tea Party could be considered a terrorist action. In the case of the Zionists bombing the King David Hotel I don't see the same level castigation as is offered for the offensive al-Quada. Terrorism is a political action of last resort - when the political landscape changes the terrror ceases. The fact that "terrorists" can be reasonable and make reasonable statements should shock no one. Even our own press reported this Democratic victory was more a vote against Bush and the war than for the Democrats - is that an unreasonable statement? Then how can it be unreasonable for an al-quada leader to echo those sentiments when the election matched his own goals and targets. Al-Quada is a political/religious organization with goals for America to stay out of middle east affairs - if I had been born in that milieu I might feel the same way.

 

However, I know it is not that simple - there are legitimate concerns for America in letting the middle east decide its own affairs - and great temptation to intervene in order to make certain American interests are protected. But to a degree we have caused our own problems by globalization and a resistance to alternative fuel development. There is no doubt that without an uninterrupted supply of oil the U.S. economy would wither. But to use force to impose our will instead of negotiation is imperialism verses interntional cooperation.

 

There is a reaon why the rest of the world views Bush as more of a danger to world peace than N. Korea - it is the unilateral contempt for another's viewpoint and insistence on acquiescience to American will. Back anyone far enough into a corner and they will either yield or fight - is it then any surprise to anyone but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other neo-cons to find that the Iraq war has strengthened rather than diminished terrorism?

 

The claims of the Bush White House that al-Quada attacked because they "hate our freedom" is grossly disinginuous. As with all terror, the attacks were an attempt to change the politico - and to some extent that goal succeeded with the dismantling of the Republican legislature, the approval rating for Bush of 31%, and a drastic change in the support of the Iraq war.

 

Governments tend to spend years castigizing terrorists and belittling their political strength and base until finally they must capitulate and admit to the power of that group and allow them a voice in government - the IRA is a classic example. Perhaps it is in our best interests instead of demonizing al-Quada to understand their political motivations and diffuse them by negotiiation and compromise. In the past, the U.S. has first supported Saddam Hussein and then vilified him, vilified Yasser Arafat and then later stood by as he spoke to the U.N. Whether a group or person is demonized seems directly related to the whims of the U.S. and the political strength of the vilified.

 

The cowboy claim that we do not negotiate with terroists is so hollow as our history is filled with such actions once the terrorists political might became a force too large to be ignored. Whether al-Qaeda reaches this level of strength is unknown - and I'm sure until it does we will continue to demonize and vilify their every action. But if they ever reach that strength, we will be making nice with them just as we have done throughout our history.

 

At some point in their lives, I would venture to say that Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin made reasonable statememts. To vilify a reasonable statement due to the source of that statement to me sounds similar to "you are with us or with the terrorists".

An insane man can state the sky is blue; the fact he is insane does not alter the fact that his statement is accurate.

 

Now, having said all this I also want to point out that I abhor terrorism as a viable means of political change and if captured those who plan and execute terror events should be harshly punished - but I am not so naive as to ignore the historical significance of terrorism as an effective means of political change, and because that of effectiveness our own view in twenty or thirty years of al-Qaeda may be radically altered.

 

So to me, to insinuate that an al-Qaeda leader cannot be reasonable or make a reasonable statement seems misguided loyalty to the characterization of al-Qaeda provided by leaders whose claims on other critical matters has proven to have been false.

 

Maybe they are all madmen and religious zealots; but perhaps they consider themselves reasonable men pushed to their limits and fighting back in the only way viable to them in the confines of their religious beliefs.

 

I don't claim to know - but I am certain in my own mind that nothing in this world is black and white, no matter how much simpler that would make things.

[mike777]

thank God, eh? i've rarely heard or read anyone use the word "reasonable" to describe anyting Ali Khamenei and/or the terrorists do or say... but i guess the enemy of our enemy is our friend, eh?

This must be a joke -- indeed, if there's so much hatred between the two political factions in our democracy, the country faces a far more serious danger than the one posed by terrorism.

 

Also, I don't think that clubbing Ali Khamenei and the terrorists (presumably al-Qaeda) in one single sentence makes sense. The Persians have a vastly different cultural background and I suspect that their strategic objectives will be ill served by launching a terrorist attack on the United States. It might work for a stateless organization, but has to be suicidal for Iran...

But not against Israel?

 

In any event does anyone really believe Iran does not murder Americans in Iraq?

[pbleighton]

"In any event does anyone really believe Iran does not murder Americans in Iraq?"

 

No, but..

 

In any event does anyone really believe the U.S. does not murder Iraqis in Iraq?

 

We have even less right than Iran to intervene in Iraqi affairs. Iraq is their neighbor, and (with U.S. aid and encouragement) Iraq invaded Iran.

 

We have absolutely no room to talk when it comes to mass murder.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

An aside:

 

In my lifetime of 55 years, I cannot remember a single time when this nation (U.S) was so polarized. To me polarization of this magnitude can only occur when one side takes the stance that anything but total acquiescience to their viewpoint is treasonous. It is the viewpoint of a ruling party. It is the viewpoint that you are either with us or against us and has no middle ground for honest dissent and questioning of purposes.

 

There is only a faith in its own moral infallibility that produces intollerance as great as any on earth.

 

I happen to believe this is based on misguided fundamental Christian beliefs from people trying to do what they believe to be morally right - the problem comes from their judgement of themselves and then this judgment must extend to others.

 

Scripture says, "Judge not lest ye be judged." It is my belief that fundamentalist are misguided in their understanding of this passage to mean do not judge others -but included in that passage is the admonition as well to not judge yourself.

 

If you set up artificial boundaries of moral behavior and then cross those bounds and find yourself a sinner, you have judged your actions and yourself. The problem occurs because that belief system must be - if it is valid - universalized as a common moral demoninator - at that point one must judge others against this standard - it cannot be helped. This leads inevitably to intolerance. If your theological moral system believes homosexuality to be sinful and you judge yourself against this standard, how is it possible to be tolerant of another person whose belief is that homosexuality is natural and moral?

 

It is my belief that this passage, "Judge not lest ye be judged" is actually a liberating concept in that it calls upon man not to judge himself for his foibles and infallibilities. Once personal humanness and fallibility is accepted, there is no longer need to judge anyone else's actions. This is not an open invitation to immorality - one should certainly strive to live as morally as possible; but what it means is that infallibility is impossible so don't castigate oneself for failure - accept it as part of human frailty and move on. Once you accept this in yourself, it become a simple matter to accept it in others.

 

And that is the entire basis for tolerance.

[mike777]

I do not know how you can say this. Vietnam was much more so......

 

All I here about Iraq is people either want victory or they avoid the question.....

 

btw do you guys really believe Americans are mass murderers?

[pbleighton]

"I do not know how you can say this. Vietnam was much more so......"

 

Yes, and your point is?

 

"All I here about Iraq is people either want victory or they avoid the question....."

 

I haven't heard you answer your own question. Do you think victory is possible, and if so how? In another thread, you didn't answer another question of mone, which is how do you define victory?

 

"btw do you guys really believe Americans are mass murderers?"

 

Sometimes yes, along with most other countries at some point in their histories. Vietnam and Iraq are recent examples of war crimes, more recent than those of many countries.

 

Peter

[mike777]

IF you want the USA to win then you can define victory, if you need other people to define it for you ...they are avoiding the question.

[pbleighton]

"IF you want the USA to win then you can define victory, if you need other people to define it for you ...they are avoiding the question."

 

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck :rolleyes:

 

The reason I ask is that Bush's definition of victory changed over time, there is obviously more than one definition.

 

There is now a civil war going on. Which side are we rooting for? Apparently, the side which likes Iran.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

btw do you guys really believe Americans are mass murderers?

 

No. I am totally convinced that My Lai was only a fantasy created by those conspiratorial Liberal Dumbercrats - or were those guys Repukeicans? The entire world knows that Americans are the ones in the white hats so mass murder of this sort must have been a lie.

 

I also believe that Lancet, instead of being a world-renowned scientific magazine, is the British edition of The National Inquirer and 600,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians have not lost their lives since the U.S. led invasion - the real number was published in the respectable Stars and Stripes Magazine and is actually 27, one of whom died of natural causes while the other 26 commited suicide by self-injected shrapnel.

 

Donald Rumsfeld being charged in Germany with War Crimes is only sour grapes by a bunch of soft-on-terror pansies.

 

The Military Commission Act providing for restroactive absolvement for War Crimes has nothing to do with the concept that anyone might actually be guilty of such - after all, everybody's Military Commission Act has that clause.

 

I have looked at this question from all sides and as far as I can tell America has never done anything remotely wrong - ever - and never will.

[hrothgar]

IF you want the USA to win then you can define victory, if you need other people to define it for you ...they are avoiding the question.

Mike, there is a fundamental point here that you don't seem capable of understanding:

 

The United States already lost this war.

 

1. The US wasted enormous amounts of resources. The dollar cost of the war has been staggering. The US Army is broken. Our troop losses, while regretable at a personal level, are inconsequential. However, its going to take a decade to replace/repair equipment and build up inventories.

 

The opportunity cost of these expenditures is mind boggling.

 

2. The US pissed away our position in the International community. Its hard to believe, but we once had some moral standing in the world. After 9/11, the world was unified behind the United States. We had the opportunity to do something great. Instead, we invaded the wrong country and created a civil war that killed hundred's of thousands of innocent people.

 

We betrayed everyone out there who actually believed in the US as a beacon of light and hope.

 

3. The US abandoned our most cherished traditions and freedoms. When I grew up, the US condemned countries for torture. We didn't need press conferences trying to ascertain whether we were engaging in waterboarding or "just" dunking people in freezing water.

 

What did we get in exchange? The right to referee a civil war, with our Army held hostage to the Iranians. We should certainly be looking for the best way out of this mess, however, hold no illusions that we've won anything.

 

Before you go and reguritate Bush's stupid little talking points about "Victory", I suggest that you go back and ready some history. Pyrrhus of Epirus would be an appropriate starting point. You might also want to look at the Athenian war versus Syracuse.

[mike777]

I know the athenian war well and no I did not miss any points.

 

To say we have lost the war is a logical answer to my question.

 

 

I see us as having 2 choices....victory or cut and run while trying to do the least amount of damage, which may not be possible.

 

If the war is lost that should simplify our options.

[hrothgar]

btw do you guys really believe Americans are mass murderers?

Simply put: Yes

 

American's aren't raging psychopaths out of a Quentin Tarantino film. All too often, we're a lovely example of what Hannah Arendt described as “The Banality of Evil”. Each day, we carry on with our lives, ignoring the fact that we're inflicting enormous amounts of pain and suffering around the world.

 

There are any number of examples of this, however, three of the most obvious are

 

1. Resource consumption / pollution

 

2. Tobacco exports (we've finally taken action to force the tobacco company's to fund

consumer education programs here in the US, but we're happy to poison the rest of the world as long as we can make an honest buck)

 

3. The war in Iraq

 

By the way, when I was looking over a summary of Eichmann in Jerusalem, I was highly amused to recall Arendt's focus on the use of “stock phrases and self-invented clichés” as a defense mechanism to avoid any requirement for critical thought.

[pbleighton]

"I see we as having 2 choices....victory or cut and run while trying to do the least amount of damage, which may not be possible."

 

What is your strategy for victory?

 

Come on, Mike, you ask a lot of questions, state your own position.

 

Peter

[mike777]

I believe we are in a 40-60 year long war on terrorism. A real full blown war with death and bombs.

 

A war that our children and grandchildren will fight and die in. I believe there will be many ups and downs over the years.

 

I think our post Bagdad plans were nonexistant and almost not one of our leaders has been called out for this disgrace.

 

I do not think America is a mass murderer. I would hate America if I thought that is what our country does and stands for. To say such a thing and truly believe it and to do nothing about it leaves me cold.

 

I believe many prefer to blame America as being at fault for 9/11 among most other things and would not mind to see America lose, however you want to define it.

 

I do believe we are at war with "radical Islamics" who love Death not "fundamental Islamics".

[pbleighton]

"I believe we are in a 40-60 year long war on terrorism. A real full blown war with death and bombs.

 

A war that our children and grandchildren will fight and die in. I believe there will be many ups and downs over the years.

 

I think our post Bagdad plans were nonexistant and almost not one of our leaders has been called out for this disgrace."

 

I mostly agree with this. The war, however, won't (shouldn't) be with countries. Al Quaeda and its allies aren't governments, and in fact they hate Arab governments. We need to do two things: pursue and kill these people, and change our policies so that on the long run they attract fewer converts. Both are important, but in the long run the second is more important.

 

"I do not think America is a mass murderer. I would hate America if I thought that is what our country does and stands for. To say such a thing and truly believe it and to do nothing about it leaves me cold."

 

I don't see how you can ignore or mischaracterize some of our actions like this, but then there are lots of things I don't understand. BTW, I am NOT saying that on an individual basis we are more or less murderous than citizens of other countries, nor am I saying that we are the only (or the worst) country in that regard. It is futile to deny reality, however.

 

"I believe many prefer to blame America as being at fault for 9/11 among most other things and would not mind to see America lose, however you want to define it."

 

I don't know anyone who believes the U.S. is primarily responsible for or deserving of 9/11. It is, however, obvious to me (and others) that the reckless, violent, racist Mideast foreign policy we have pursued over the last 50-60 years has left us open to radical Islamic attacks, and that the same policy is partially responsible for the strength of the radical Islamic movement. Our main priority should be to change this misguided (and bipartisan) policy. This wouldn't make things better overnight, but it would make the coming decades less bad than they otherwise will be.

 

To deny that the flaws in our Mideast policy has played a significant role in the development of radical Islam isn't patriotism - it is IMO a very self-destructive form of insanity.

 

"I do believe we are at war with "radical Islamics" who love Death not "fundamental Islamics". "

 

I don't think it's quite that simple (history, geography, and economics play big roles, and there are many Arabs who are somewhat Anti-American, but who are susceptible to having their minds changed), but I agree that the people we have to woory about mostly fit your description.

 

Peter

[mike777]

I should add that our intelligence was poor and always seem to be so...see Cold War Russia, etc.....

 

I was with Bob Novak, per my other posts, on this one.

 

You would think after 40 years of Bond, James Bond, that the Brits have we could do a halfass better job here in the USA with human intuit.

[pbleighton]

"You would think after 40 years of Bond, James Bond, that the Brits have we could do a halfass better job here in the USA with human intuit."

 

Nah, the countries which have imperial (or post-imperial) ambitions are so arrogant with respect to other countries that the lens is always twisted. There may be some countries which could do unbiased, accurate intelligence analysis, but if there are, their culture would prevent them from making effective use of it.

 

Peter

[keylime]

War is meant to be fought with absoluteness. Unfortunately since Vietnam (and some say back to WWII), this has not happened.

 

If we do a "phased redeployment" while we have "oversight" and "inquiries" about the conduct of elected officials, it sends two very loud and clear messages:

 

1. To our brave troops: Your great work in spreading freedom is no longer wanted or needed. The deaths of your comrades, meaningless, an exercise of excess, a number. Come home, and let us abandon you AGAIN like we did in 'Nam with PTSD and in Desert Storm with the potential chemical weapons fallout with the syndrome.

 

2. To our enemies: America doesn't have the guts to stand toe-to-toe with us. Let's attack them; they're SOFT. Our view of the world is right. We have LEGITIMACY.

[Winstonm]

War is meant to be fought with absoluteness. Unfortunately since Vietnam (and some say back to WWII), this has not happened

 

I agree that war has to be fought with absoluteness - but to do that there must be some goal - as in unconditional surrender.

 

In Vietnam, how could the U.S. have expected unconditional surrender by simply defending South Vietnam and not invading North Vietnam? The problem was not a military problem but a political one. Since WWII, there has been no war fought that has had a justifiable reason for all-out warfare.

 

What was the goal of invading Iraq? Seems the issue was to depose Saddam Hussein and his regime - mission accomplished. That was the victory as that was the goal. If the goal has been reached, what is the point in staying unless that really wasn't the object in the first place? If that wasn't the object what was?

 

Oh, yes, now I remember why....

 

January 10, 2003. Vice President Discusses Growth and Jobs Package

As the President has said, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group, or individual terrorists" -- which is why the war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction"

 

February 8, 2003, President's Radio Address

One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

 

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...2/20030208.html

 

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - November 2002:

"Within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qaeda."

 

February 8, 2003, President's Radio Address

One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

 

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad.

 

And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: "We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses--three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. Inspectors--have said--and now there are aerial photographs to show it--a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives."

 

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/9-11_saddam_quotes.html

 

Aug. 26, 2002Dick Cheney, Vice President

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

 

Jan. 28, 2003George W. Bush

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" and "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents... "

 

Sep. 18, 2002Donald Rumsfeld

His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons—including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox.

 

His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons—including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.

 

His regime has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons

 

OK. Now I get it. Iraq had WMD and directly supported Al-qaeda - that's why we went to war....or is it......

 

 

Rumsfeld backtracks on al-Qaida, Iraq links

Oct. 5, 2004,  by AP, MSN, NBC

Rumsfeld said that he knew of no clear link between the al-Qaida terror network and Saddam Hussein. He said, “To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.”

 

Blix: Iraq Probably Free of WMD Before War

"As far as I know the Iraqi authorities who are in custody have so far not revealed that the country still had arms," said Dr. Blix, adding that much of the intelligence which Washington and London used to justify the war on Iraq was shaky, including information which was provided to the United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq to help them in their search for weapons..."We were told of locations where we may find banned weapons. We went there and only in three of them did we find anything of interest, and even then they were not weapons of mass destruction," he said..."We concluded that the information provided by the intelligence services of the United States and other nations was not solid." June 5, 2003.

 

1. To our brave troops: Your great work in spreading freedom is no longer wanted or needed.

 

 

Spreading freedom? This kind.....

 

Brig. General Looney: We Own Their Country

Jun. 24, 1996US Brig. General William Looney, Washington Post

"We dictate the way they live and talk... It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need."

 

May 3, 2003Helen Thomas, Miami Herald

"I asked Pentagon officials: 'How many Iraqis have been killed in this war?'

 

The reply to my first Pentagon call was: 'We don't track them (Iraqi dead).'

 

Weeks later I pursued the question and was told by a Defense Department official: 'They don't count. They are not important,' meaning the casualty figures."

 

2. To our enemies: America doesn't have the guts to stand toe-to-toe with us.

 

Sure we do, if there is enough money involved....

 

Dick Cheney to Senate Armed Services Committe, 1990:

"We obviously also have a significant interest because of the energy that is at stake in the gulf.