Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.
Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.
The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.
The papers will be seized on by Washington as the first proof of what the United States has long alleged - that, despite denials by both sides, Saddam's regime had a close relationship with al-Qa'eda.
The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia and lettering of the Mukhabarat.
They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan, where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.
Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents.
One paper is marked "Top Secret and Urgent". It is signed "MDA", a codename believed to be the director of one of the intelligence sections within the Mukhabarat, and dated February 19, 1998. It refers to the planned trip from Sudan by bin Laden's unnamed envoy and refers to the arrangements for his visit.
A letter with this document says the envoy is a trusted confidant of bin Laden. It adds: "According to the above, we suggest permission to call the Khartoum station [Iraq's intelligence office in Sudan] to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. And that our body carry all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden."
The letter refers to al-Qa'eda's leader as an opponent of the Saudi Arabian regime and says that the message to convey to him through the envoy "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him."
According to handwritten notes at the bottom of the page, the letter was passed on through another director in the Mukhabarat and on to the deputy director general of the intelligence service.
It recommends that "the deputy director general bring the envoy to Iraq because we may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden". The deputy director general has signed the document. All of the signatories use codenames.
The other documents then confirm that the envoy travelled from Khartoum to Baghdad in March 1998, staying at al-Mansour Melia, a first-class hotel. It mentions that his visit was extended by a week. In the notes in a margin, a name "Mohammed F. Mohammed Ahmed" is mentioned, but it is not clear whether this is the the envoy or an agent.
Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted. However, the documents do not mention if any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials.
The file contradicts the claims of Baghdad, bin Laden and many critics of the coalition that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda. One Western intelligence official contacted last night described the file as "sensational", adding: "Baghdad clearly sought out the meeting. The regime would have wanted it to happen in the capital as it's only there they would feel safe from surveillance by Western intelligence."
Over the past three weeks, The Telegraph has discovered various other intelligence files in the wrecked Mukhabarat building, including documents revealing how Russia passed on to Iraq details of private conversations between Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, and how Germany held clandestine meetings with the regime.
A Downing Street spokesman said last night: "Since Saddam's fall a series of documents have come to light which will have to be fully assessed by the proper authorities over a period of time. We will certainly want to study these documents as part of that process to see if they shed new light on the relationship between Saddam's regime and al-Qa'eda.
I don't think that he has any power, I guess I am trusting the U.N. weapons inspectors, but I don't know who else to trust. And again, let's do a hypothetical. If the U.S. were to attack Iraq, lose American lives, and almost definetely kill innocent Iraqi people, and by chance Sadam DOESN'T slip away, and we kill him, then who will control Iraq? The Kurds? Who has a good solution? Everyone hates America, for numerous reasons, some of which I agree with...
So anyone that considers themselves pro-war: can you please explain a solution to who would run the country, and tell us if they love Americans, and tell us if they will have MORE power than Sadam especially if they start getting oil .money straight from America when the embargo is lifted...
So now that the war seems to be largely over, am I free again to call Bush an idiot without having to worry that I've endangered an American soldier by doing so?
Well now that the war is over, Bush can't hide behind his "support the troops" emotional blackmail anymore. Things are going to start going badly and it can't be unpatriotic to say so forever. Iraq is a mess now and either the U.S. will have to continue it's occupation for quite some time, set up an unpopular puppet regime, let the different factions plunge into war with each other, or let Iraq turn to a fundamentalist Islamic regime. Meanwhile the U.S. is losing allies and sympathy all over the world. The animosity of the Arabs is being pushed to new heights as they see this as simply being all about the U.S. trying to grab oil. That will likely mean increased terrorism as the U.S. has also proven that they have no hope of fighting us any other way. Their military is worthless and we won't listen to the U.N. if it doesn't suit our agenda.
All the while the economy continues to stagger. Bush is running up record deficits at the same time he's trying to cut taxes. That money has to come from somewhere, so you can expect interest rates to rise soon which will likely have more of an adverse effect on the economy than a tax cut will help it. And at the same time, more and more people are getting sick of having their civil rights trampled on in the name of all things American. I wouldn't be all that surprised if Bush tried to argue for cancelling the 2004 election because a change in administration would be helping the terrorists.
Meanwhile the U.S. is losing allies and sympathy all over the world.
Wishful thinking from a demo partisan.
The animosity of the Arabs is being pushed to new heights as they see this as simply being all about the U.S. trying to grab oil. The respect for the US is growing in the Arab world. They understand force and they understand why it was applied. Now the radical element of the arab world will still be there waiting for another do nothing democrat to get into office.That will likely mean increased terrorism as the U.S. has also proven that they have no hope of fighting us any other way. Terrorism was going to occur anyway. It is less likely now.
All the while the economy continues to stagger. It isn't as bad as you are hoping it will be.
France, Germany, Russia, Turkey, just to start. If we were so popular, why were so few countries part of this coalition?
The respect for the US is growing in the Arab world.
If by respect, you mean fear, then perhaps so. But nothing I've read indicates that this war has made us more popular with Arabs. Many believe this was about oil. Others see it as a war against Islam. We took out Iraq. We threaten Syria and Iran. But we support Israel and only give North Korea a stern look. The Arabs see how we allowed (some even say encouraged?) the looting in Iraq. They see how we protect the Oil Ministry but do nothing to defend the hospitals or museums. And one can only hope the U.S. actually does manage to scrape up a weapon of mass destruction somewhere in the country.
Now the radical element of the arab world will still be there waiting for another do nothing democrat to get into office.
It's times like these that spur a boom in the creation of such radicals.
Terrorism was going to occur anyway. It is less likely now.
The means have been decreased. The will has been increased. Hard to say which one will win out, but they do say where there's a will there's a way. And if terrorism is less likely now, why is the terror alert still where it was before the war?
It isn't as bad as you are hoping it will be.
There's still a lot of uncertainty out there, and I think Bush is making things worse.
No I mean respect. A lot of people understand that at this time the United States is not going to be cowardly. That the U.S. will follow through when it says it will.But nothing I've read indicates that this war has made us more popular with Arabs. Yes I am sure you are reading the left wing rags.Many believe this was about oil. Others see it as a war against Islam. It well may be.We took out Iraq. We threaten Syria and Iran. Yes and they don't deserve it?But we support Israel and only give North Korea a stern look. North Korea is not a problem. If China doesn't resolve it we will.The Arabs see how we allowed (some even say encouraged?) the looting in Iraq. Keep buying the anti-American propaganda.They see how we protect the Oil Ministry but do nothing to defend the hospitals or museums. The oil is Iraq's ticket to recovery.
So we have 28 countries out of how many in the world? I lost count but I think it's between 150 and 200. So yes, I'd say it's not a very popular war.
No I mean respect. A lot of people understand that at this time the United States is not going to be cowardly. That the U.S. will follow through when it says it will.
So then you do mean fear. I rather doubt Arabs are sitting around lauding the nobility of the Americans for taking action. More likely they're trying to guess at the real motivations of the U.S. and worrying if they might be next.
Yes I am sure you are reading the left wing rags.
Mostly I'm reading stuff on Yahoo and in the paper. Though I do tend to avoid articles whose point seems to be merely to say "Look at how great the U.S. is!"
Keep buying the anti-American propaganda.
You don't think the Arabs are? Most of them hated us even before this all started.
No it times like these that reduce their numbers. A lot of them are being taken out.
A lot of the existing ones, but it also helps to encourage new recruits.
My guess is you are drawn to articles that say how bad the U.S. is.
I don't need emotional coddling and reassurance about the superiority of the place I live. I already know what our good points are and I'm happy to be a part of it. But I do want to know if and when we're doing something wrong because I see it as my responsibility as a citizen to then try and do something about it. So yes, I am more inclined to read the articles that talk about what we're doing wrong as opposed to the ones that are merely acting as cheerleaders.
You seem to think the Arab world is monolithic.
I'm referring to what is likely the prevailing belief.
If true, then we had little or nothing to lose by going in.
There's a difference between someone who simply doesn't like you and someone who wants to seek revenge on you. We can not have liberty if we don't have peace, and wars such as this do not foster a peaceful environment.
Being cowardly in the face of attack encourages them more.
Yea, whatever. If you're going to do a suicide attack, what do you care if they fire back or not? Terrorism is a form of warfare for those who don't have the military might to fight any other way. So have you never asked yourself why they are at war with us? Or do you just buy the convenient excuse that their religion has made them insane and there's nothing we can do to make peace? You can't win a war on terrorism because someone who is pissed off enough will find a way to blow something up somewhere, and if we keep doing stuff like this, there will be plenty of people who are pissed off enough.
Well you need be a little more critical of those articles that slam the U.S.. They are often written by people with their own agenda or simply pass on the agenda of those that they are reporting on without a critical eye. Maybe they expect the reader or viewer to provide that but unfortunately that talent isn't being taught by our schools.
Well you need be a little more critical of those articles that slam the U.S..
And shouldn't one also be critical of those that praise what a good job the U.S. is doing?
Suicide bombers are the least of our concerns. They don't accomplish much other than to give fodder to those that want the U.S. to bend over and take more up the ass.
Oh are they now? Perhaps you've forgotten that 9/11 was executed by people doing a suicide attack? If that sort of thing isn't a concern, just what were you concerned about? That Iraq was going to land ground forces in Virginia?
I don't care why. Every "reason" that has been given will not be resolved by appeasement.
Well I'm not surprised that you don't care why. Or that you wouldn't have "heard" any reasons that can be solved (were you listening for any?) I don't believe the Arabs were actively seeking the destruction of the West until after WWII. In fact, I think we actually got along with them reasonably well. And hatred of the west isn't actually a tenet of Islam. Many Muslims actually live happily in the U.S. So could it just maybe be that we actually have done something to piss them off? Is it really so imposible to think that if we sat down and talked about what the problems really were and worked to solve them, that the hate would be undermined and peace could actually happen? But of course for that to happen, we'd have to admit that we've done some things wrong and how likely is that when so many people here won't even acknowledge it to themselves?
Just because a few things get blown up doesn't mean you are not winning or cannot win the war. Ask the Israelis. If you need to, kill as many as it takes.
Ask the Israelis? Ask them what? How they've put an end to terrorism? Ask them how they managed to achieve a peaceful existence? Ask them how wonderful life is for them since they never have to worry about being killed at any moment by an attack of some sort? You're right that we should learn from them, but we should be learning from their mistakes, not trying to emulate them. They've accomplished nothing in trying to solve this problem.
That is really a thoughtful response. That is the usual response from liberal nitwits that haven't been told how to respond.
Well it is hard to respond when you're so shocked that someone would even espouse such views.
Oh are they now? Perhaps you've forgotten that 9/11 was executed by people doing a suicide attack? If that sort of thing isn't a concern, just what were you concerned about? That Iraq was going to land ground forces in Virginia? 9/11 was a little more than your typical sucide bombing.
In fact, I think we actually got along with them reasonably well. And hatred of the west isn't actually a tenet of Islam. I think we get along well with most of them now.
Many Muslims actually live happily in the U.S. So could it just maybe be that we actually have done something to piss them off? Is it really so imposible to think that if we sat down and talked about what the problems really were and worked to solve them, that the hate would be undermined and peace could actually happen? But of course for that to happen, we'd have to admit that we've done some things wrong and how likely is that when so many people here won't even acknowledge it to themselves? There are enough people like you admitting that we have done plenty wrong. Furthermore, we get along well with most of the Islamic countries. It is the Islamic malcontents that are the problem.
If by respect, you mean fear, then perhaps so. But nothing I've read indicates that this war has made us more popular with Arabs.
More popular ? With some living in Iraq it has. Others ? No, as you yourself stated, they hated us before the war anyway.
Many believe this was about oil. Others see it as a war against Islam.
They also believed from reports in the arab media that Iraq was winning the war as well. We've also donethings IE the Balkans and Somolia which are mainly Muslim nations to help as well. Coincidentally there were some who were sure the Balkans were about oil too because there's oil there too. Apparently if there's a can of Valvoline in the country we ought not do anything.
We took out Iraq. We threaten Syria and Iran. But we support Israel and only give North Korea a stern look.
So are you saying we should have appeased a guy like Saddamn. Should we not threaten Syria who is harboring god knows what and allowed troops to come over when we were at war with Iraq ? Ever hear of aiding and abeitting ? Should we not have supported Israel ? Are you for scrapping talks and invading North Korea ? Where is the U.N on that ? I guess it's o.k to be unilateral and unpopular if other nations and the UN wan't nothing to do with North Korea. So we meddled in Iraq and are somehow imperialist yet we aren't being harsh enough with North Korea. Hmmm. Can't win I guess when someone's driven by some idealogical beliefs that no matter what a country does it's bad. Well it's politically expediant so why not. And it's a vote getter to bash the U.S. Ask Gerhard Schroeder.
The Arabs see how we allowed (some even say encouraged?) the looting in Iraq. They see how we protect the Oil Ministry but do nothing to defend the hospitals or museums.
I've got news for you. We protected the hospitals we could. There are 900 hospitals in Iraq. Which ones and how many people are you going to send troops to while you're still engaged in combat ? Not so easy when you have to be the one to do it and still fight a war but criticism is easy. As far as Oil. I know it's a dirty word but without it they have nothing. If the fields go so does their economy, it's a simple fact. They have no other items of export or means of econonmical survival. Had all the oil fields been blown up it would have taken 3-4 years for them to get going again. Would their be any complaints then of the plight of the Iraqi's. ? You bet and it would take billions more to rebuild their economy and slowed recovery immensely.
As for the museum it's sad, what I think is even more sad but telling is that some who are up in arms about that are the same ones who thought 12 years wasn't enough time. I men AI only put a conservative estimate of 10,000 deaths a year carried out by Saddamn's death squads, but get a few vases stolen and the outrage is enormous. It says alot about priorities.
Don't take this personally AIW because it's not meant this way.
I agree we haven't always done everything right, find a nation that has. You say that
It's times like these that spur a boom in the creation of such radicals.
Over 1,200 Americans died prior to 9-11 in terrorist attacks. What made those people radicals ? Can you explain ?
What are YOUR solutions to the problems ? Seems there's plenty of criticsm, what's your solution ?
IMO we've tried many different things over the years. We've tried diplomacy, to foster interior change which are hard to accomplish with brutal leaders as those, we've tried sanctions, We've had 12 years of finger pointing and resolutions, we've had many years of simply and quite frankly ignoring terrorist acts. Oh we'd get mad on TV and say some harsh words and maybe launch a few cruise missles. But we've never taken real and decisive action before. I think it's an opportunity to try and jumpstart the M.E. It hasn't been tried and I think is bold and yes courageous. IT's a challenge no doubt and we can't allow another autocracy to start. It needs to represent all their people. It's not easy, it's easy to point fingers and criticize. What's not is to actually try to help a nation and a people flourish. It's a chance not for other Muslim nations to live in fear of the U.S but to look at Iarq and say, You know , they are doing pretty well for themselves. Then they can look around their country and find it stuck somewhere in the 19th century. If they want a better life they might just take action and change. You know what country is on the verge of change right now ? Iran of all places. Their young people are making noise and pushing for freedom and democracy.
Well now that the war is over, Bush cant hide behind his support the troops emotional blackmail anymore.
Please show us where he said anything similar to this.
Iraq is a mess now and either the U.S. will have to continue its occupation for quite some time, set up an unpopular puppet regime, let the different factions plunge into war with each other, or let Iraq turn to a fundamentalist Islamic regime.
Have we not had to be there for some 12 years already? We should have finished the job back when we had Saddam on the run.
Actually, delegates from inside and outside Iraq agreed today to hold a nation-building meeting next month and fashion a temporary, post-Saddam Hussein government that the United States predicted could be in place within days after that link. The U.N. was invited to todays meeting, but declined to send a representative link.
So, they will setup their own form of government that they can all vote on and we will be there to help but not to make decisions for them.
we won't listen to the U.N. if it doesn't suit our agenda.
What the heck have we been doing for the last 12 years? The U.N. has not done it's job and left us to do the work for them. Now they claim they want in on the action, but refuse to send a representative to the meetings. They are making a laughingstock out of the U.N. and rendering it useless.
Bush is running up record deficits at the same time he's trying to cut taxes.
How has Bush ran up deficits? Have you seen the crap that the Dems have added to the spending bills? Not a peep on that though.
Tax cuts have historically created more jobs and added more money to the governments budgets. It is the thing to do.
I wouldn't be all that surprised if Bush tried to argue for cancelling the 2004 election because a change in administration would be helping the terrorists.
Wow, you really are an extremist.
France, Germany, Russia, Turkey, just to start. If we were so popular, why were so few countries part of this coalition?
France had very lucrative oil contracts with Iraq. Where is the cry that their opinion is all about oil? Germany built many of Saddam's bunkers and Russia supplied them with arms. Of course these countries would not support a war with Saddam.
How many countries were part of the first war? How many countries were part of Clinton's bombing raids on Iraq, Kosovo, etc.? I'd say that this was a well supported war in comparison. About 1/3 of the troops in this war were Americans. That says a lot.
But we support Israel and only give North Korea a stern look.
Isreal is being attacked by a non-nation and now that we have taken care of Iraq, North Korea is backing down fast knowing that we mean business.
They see how we protect the Oil Ministry but do nothing to defend the hospitals or museums. And one can only hope the U.S. actually does manage to scrape up a weapon of mass destruction somewhere in the country.
I would say that we were a little busy at the time. Now we are taking care of that matter link.
As for the WMD's, why were there so many army personnel protecting what was reported as fertilizers in barbed wire fences? Is it possible that they could be turned into gases used against people? How do you explain all the other finds? Just yesterday they found more barrels that three initial tests indicated that they contained a deadly mixture of cyclosarin nerve agent and mustard gas. They were found in a nine-square-kilometre storage area that also contained missiles, missile parts, gas masks, protective gear, a stripped mobile weapons laboratory and large storage containers covered by camouflage netting.
So yes, I am more inclined to read the articles that talk about what we're doing wrong as opposed to the ones that are merely acting as cheerleaders.
I hope you do read these articles and I also hope you dig deeper. What is the political leaning of the person writing the articles and are there reliable sources to back them up? Check out whatever you read because there is people who will twist things and outright lie to get you to think a certain way. It is done on both sides of arguements, so verify what you read.
We can not have liberty if we don't have peace, and wars such as this do not foster a peaceful environment.
We can not have liberty or peace if we are not willing to fight for it. This war seems to have caused North Korea to rethink it's strategy.
If you're going to do a suicide attack, what do you care if they fire back or not?
If you realize that your attack is going to draw a lot of fire power to your country/group, is that not a strong deterent?
And hatred of the west isn't actually a tenet of Islam.
No, but there are many who would use Islam to foster that hate.
Is it really so imposible to think that if we sat down and talked about what the problems really were and worked to solve them, that the hate would be undermined and peace could actually happen?
Powell's somewhat hopeful account of the meetings contrasted with initial accounts last week by other U.S. officials, who highlighted the negative aspects of the North Korean presentation.
These included a North Korean acknowledgment for the first time that the country possessed nuclear weapons and was contemplating exporting or even using them, depending on U.S. actions.
This is a story from today. Doesn't sound to me like North Korea is exactly in a panic or even really backing down. Sounds like they're talking just to see what they can get.
Is it really so imposible to think that if we sat down and talked about what the problems really were and worked to solve them, that the hate would be undermined and peace could actually happen?
Before the war in Iraq N. Korea wouldn't even talk with anyone. they only wanted to talk with us. They didn't want China, S. Korea, Japan or others in on the negotiating because it's harder for them to get what they want. We wisely said no way. So Korea's minister basicly said that there was no movement on the N Koreans side until Kim saw what happened in Iraq. He oddly decided to sit down with talks with other nations besides the U.S after that, Hmmmm ?
You are right they are trying to see what they can get out of it and are using it as a bargaining chip. Why should we trust them. They already broke the first agreement and blackmail like we knew they would. Pres. Clinton gave them aid in exchange for agreement that they would abandon their nuke program. He sent Jimmy Carter over to ink it. In less than 2 years of the signing of the deal Kim and co. broke it and started the program. This was well before the "axis of evil" comment or before Bush even took office. There were some in the Clinton admin who proposed a strike on their reactor and for some reason somebody nixed it. It's water under the bridge now but signing agreements with 3rd world despotic dictators who mistreat their own people is bad policy IMO. How can you trust anyone like that ?
I don't think we should give Kim and co. squat. Doing so would only be like feeding racoons. They'll be back in 2 days asking for more. 3 years from now they'll say well we started this program again or, hey if you don't give us more aid we're selling a nuke to Alquieda or Hamas. It's extorsion on an international scale. We've tried appeasing, reasoning and negotiating with leaders of Kim's ilk for years. It doesn't work.
I read Iran is interested in talking to us now. Early indications are that they want to open formal diplomatic relations.
Exactly. They also sent back the Anslar Islam terrorists groups that fled Northern Iraq when we went after them. Even Iran didn't want them. Not to mention they stopped a suicide boat headed for Umm Kassar. I have no illusions about Iran, but there's a growing movement in their youth who wants freedom and Iran is seeing the writing on the wall. If it's the threat of their new neighbors that made that happen so be it.
I don't remember whom I was talking to about this but it was a while back and I think this can be a positive from this. It shows what can happen when you actually back up your threats. Once and a while you have to, in short you can end up avoiding conflicts down the road because of it which is a good thing. Constant words, debate and hollow threats without action leads to more violence down the road. But backing up what you say has to be done once and a while. Not all the time but you don't need to if people know you're serious.
Yes, well they weren't "Coalition Members", which IS what I was talking about, now were they?
No, they were the "loyal" opposition, some might goes as far to describe them as the enemy. The point was they opposed our actions because of their economic interests just as those that sided with us had their own interests. Why the members of the coalition joined the cause has no bearing on whether the cause was just. France, Russia and Germany were willing to side with Saddam as long as the benefits outweighed the costs. Was their cause just?
No, just careful use of words. If he declared an end to the war, we would have to leave the work in Iraq 1/2 finished. What he is saying is that the major battles in Iraq are over. There is still some clean up to be done which includes finding any hold outs, destroying any WMD's, finding the remaining on the wanted list and bringing them to justice, helping to build a free government, etc.
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people." (Applause.)
"In the images of celebrating Iraqis, we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement. Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food and water and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices; and everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear."
Yesterday, was one hell of a well-choreographed and interesting display of false-bravado from our President, who finally got to stand next to REAL warriors. It is amazing what jealously will make some people say.
It was embarrassing, presumptuous and selfish of him to steal ANY of the glory that belongs to THEM. They wouldn't be heroes if Bush hadn't had the guts to stand up to the world and say we must remove Saddam. It wouldn't have happened if any democrap had been in office. Cowardly bunch of assholes the lot of them. I can't see why you admire them so, fold.
Now, where are those damn WMDs that was purportedly in imminent launch mode on the "international community" by that evil megalomaniac ? There were many reasons to go into Iraq. One of them was the weapons which the Iraqi scientists say are there. So shove it, Spock, you pointy eared hobgoblin!
Shouldn't Bush single-handedly want to be a bigger hero by exposing these double-crossing Syrians that are hiding the Iraqi WMDs ? ;) That would be fine with me. It is obvious you are filled with hate for Bush. Get over it. He is doing a great job and there isn't any democrap that could even come close to Bush's level of performance.
If I were the marine, I don't think I'd want those lips anywhere near my ass!
The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
By Inigo Gilmore
(Filed: 27/04/2003)
Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.
Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.
The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.
The papers will be seized on by Washington as the first proof of what the United States has long alleged - that, despite denials by both sides, Saddam's regime had a close relationship with al-Qa'eda.
The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia and lettering of the Mukhabarat.
They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan, where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.
Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents.
One paper is marked "Top Secret and Urgent". It is signed "MDA", a codename believed to be the director of one of the intelligence sections within the Mukhabarat, and dated February 19, 1998. It refers to the planned trip from Sudan by bin Laden's unnamed envoy and refers to the arrangements for his visit.
A letter with this document says the envoy is a trusted confidant of bin Laden. It adds: "According to the above, we suggest permission to call the Khartoum station [Iraq's intelligence office in Sudan] to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. And that our body carry all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden."
The letter refers to al-Qa'eda's leader as an opponent of the Saudi Arabian regime and says that the message to convey to him through the envoy "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him."
According to handwritten notes at the bottom of the page, the letter was passed on through another director in the Mukhabarat and on to the deputy director general of the intelligence service.
It recommends that "the deputy director general bring the envoy to Iraq because we may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden". The deputy director general has signed the document. All of the signatories use codenames.
The other documents then confirm that the envoy travelled from Khartoum to Baghdad in March 1998, staying at al-Mansour Melia, a first-class hotel. It mentions that his visit was extended by a week. In the notes in a margin, a name "Mohammed F. Mohammed Ahmed" is mentioned, but it is not clear whether this is the the envoy or an agent.
Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted. However, the documents do not mention if any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials.
The file contradicts the claims of Baghdad, bin Laden and many critics of the coalition that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda. One Western intelligence official contacted last night described the file as "sensational", adding: "Baghdad clearly sought out the meeting. The regime would have wanted it to happen in the capital as it's only there they would feel safe from surveillance by Western intelligence."
Over the past three weeks, The Telegraph has discovered various other intelligence files in the wrecked Mukhabarat building, including documents revealing how Russia passed on to Iraq details of private conversations between Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, and how Germany held clandestine meetings with the regime.
A Downing Street spokesman said last night: "Since Saddam's fall a series of documents have come to light which will have to be fully assessed by the proper authorities over a period of time. We will certainly want to study these documents as part of that process to see if they shed new light on the relationship between Saddam's regime and al-Qa'eda.
Tim wrote back in November:
I don't think that he has any power, I guess I am trusting the U.N. weapons inspectors, but I don't know who else to trust. And again, let's do a hypothetical. If the U.S. were to attack Iraq, lose American lives, and almost definetely kill innocent Iraqi people, and by chance Sadam DOESN'T slip away, and we kill him, then who will control Iraq? The Kurds? Who has a good solution? Everyone hates America, for numerous reasons, some of which I agree with...
So anyone that considers themselves pro-war: can you please explain a solution to who would run the country, and tell us if they love Americans, and tell us if they will have MORE power than Sadam especially if they start getting oil .money straight from America when the embargo is lifted...
Interestingly prophetic, eh?
So now that the war seems to be largely over, am I free again to call Bush an idiot without having to worry that I've endangered an American soldier by doing so?
Allison Wonderland 4/27/03 11:48pm
Certainly. You are also free not to vote for him in 2004.
There's no way Dubya can lose in 2004.
His #'s will start sliding now that the war is basically over, but there's not one Democrat out there that can beat him.
there's one who could, thx. he already served his two terms though.
I predict a "Darhorse" candidate, who has yet to appear.
I'd like to know who, because I can't think of any Democrat that has a snowballs chance.
It's not gloating. I wouldn't mind someone other than Dubya on the GOP ticket. It's that the Democrats have no-one.
there's one who could, thx. he already served his two terms though.
Really? I don't think Clinton would win today. Even against Dubya. Too bad we'll never find out.
that's just my opinion. it certainly would be interesting to find out, wouldn't it?
Well now that the war is over, Bush can't hide behind his "support the troops" emotional blackmail anymore. Things are going to start going badly and it can't be unpatriotic to say so forever. Iraq is a mess now and either the U.S. will have to continue it's occupation for quite some time, set up an unpopular puppet regime, let the different factions plunge into war with each other, or let Iraq turn to a fundamentalist Islamic regime. Meanwhile the U.S. is losing allies and sympathy all over the world. The animosity of the Arabs is being pushed to new heights as they see this as simply being all about the U.S. trying to grab oil. That will likely mean increased terrorism as the U.S. has also proven that they have no hope of fighting us any other way. Their military is worthless and we won't listen to the U.N. if it doesn't suit our agenda.
All the while the economy continues to stagger. Bush is running up record deficits at the same time he's trying to cut taxes. That money has to come from somewhere, so you can expect interest rates to rise soon which will likely have more of an adverse effect on the economy than a tax cut will help it. And at the same time, more and more people are getting sick of having their civil rights trampled on in the name of all things American. I wouldn't be all that surprised if Bush tried to argue for cancelling the 2004 election because a change in administration would be helping the terrorists.
there's one who could, thx. he already served his two terms though.
And his personal approval ratings were abominable. He wouldn't win if he could run again.
Meanwhile the U.S. is losing allies and sympathy all over the world.
Wishful thinking from a demo partisan.
The animosity of the Arabs is being pushed to new heights as they see this as simply being all about the U.S. trying to grab oil. The respect for the US is growing in the Arab world. They understand force and they understand why it was applied. Now the radical element of the arab world will still be there waiting for another do nothing democrat to get into office.That will likely mean increased terrorism as the U.S. has also proven that they have no hope of fighting us any other way. Terrorism was going to occur anyway. It is less likely now.
All the while the economy continues to stagger. It isn't as bad as you are hoping it will be.
Wishful thinking from a demo partisan.
France, Germany, Russia, Turkey, just to start. If we were so popular, why were so few countries part of this coalition?
The respect for the US is growing in the Arab world.
If by respect, you mean fear, then perhaps so. But nothing I've read indicates that this war has made us more popular with Arabs. Many believe this was about oil. Others see it as a war against Islam. We took out Iraq. We threaten Syria and Iran. But we support Israel and only give North Korea a stern look. The Arabs see how we allowed (some even say encouraged?) the looting in Iraq. They see how we protect the Oil Ministry but do nothing to defend the hospitals or museums. And one can only hope the U.S. actually does manage to scrape up a weapon of mass destruction somewhere in the country.
Now the radical element of the arab world will still be there waiting for another do nothing democrat to get into office.
It's times like these that spur a boom in the creation of such radicals.
Terrorism was going to occur anyway. It is less likely now.
The means have been decreased. The will has been increased. Hard to say which one will win out, but they do say where there's a will there's a way. And if terrorism is less likely now, why is the terror alert still where it was before the war?
It isn't as bad as you are hoping it will be.
There's still a lot of uncertainty out there, and I think Bush is making things worse.
No I mean respect. A lot of people understand that at this time the United States is not going to be cowardly. That the U.S. will follow through when it says it will.But nothing I've read indicates that this war has made us more popular with Arabs. Yes I am sure you are reading the left wing rags.Many believe this was about oil. Others see it as a war against Islam. It well may be.We took out Iraq. We threaten Syria and Iran. Yes and they don't deserve it?But we support Israel and only give North Korea a stern look. North Korea is not a problem. If China doesn't resolve it we will.The Arabs see how we allowed (some even say encouraged?) the looting in Iraq. Keep buying the anti-American propaganda.They see how we protect the Oil Ministry but do nothing to defend the hospitals or museums. The oil is Iraq's ticket to recovery.
Other suporters were:...
So we have 28 countries out of how many in the world? I lost count but I think it's between 150 and 200. So yes, I'd say it's not a very popular war.
No I mean respect. A lot of people understand that at this time the United States is not going to be cowardly. That the U.S. will follow through when it says it will.
So then you do mean fear. I rather doubt Arabs are sitting around lauding the nobility of the Americans for taking action. More likely they're trying to guess at the real motivations of the U.S. and worrying if they might be next.
Yes I am sure you are reading the left wing rags.
Mostly I'm reading stuff on Yahoo and in the paper. Though I do tend to avoid articles whose point seems to be merely to say "Look at how great the U.S. is!"
Keep buying the anti-American propaganda.
You don't think the Arabs are? Most of them hated us even before this all started.
No it times like these that reduce their numbers. A lot of them are being taken out.
A lot of the existing ones, but it also helps to encourage new recruits.
Some of them should worry.
My guess is you are drawn to articles that say how bad the U.S. is.
I don't need emotional coddling and reassurance about the superiority of the place I live. I already know what our good points are and I'm happy to be a part of it. But I do want to know if and when we're doing something wrong because I see it as my responsibility as a citizen to then try and do something about it. So yes, I am more inclined to read the articles that talk about what we're doing wrong as opposed to the ones that are merely acting as cheerleaders.
You seem to think the Arab world is monolithic.
I'm referring to what is likely the prevailing belief.
If true, then we had little or nothing to lose by going in.
There's a difference between someone who simply doesn't like you and someone who wants to seek revenge on you. We can not have liberty if we don't have peace, and wars such as this do not foster a peaceful environment.
Being cowardly in the face of attack encourages them more.
Yea, whatever. If you're going to do a suicide attack, what do you care if they fire back or not? Terrorism is a form of warfare for those who don't have the military might to fight any other way. So have you never asked yourself why they are at war with us? Or do you just buy the convenient excuse that their religion has made them insane and there's nothing we can do to make peace? You can't win a war on terrorism because someone who is pissed off enough will find a way to blow something up somewhere, and if we keep doing stuff like this, there will be plenty of people who are pissed off enough.
Well you need be a little more critical of those articles that slam the U.S.. They are often written by people with their own agenda or simply pass on the agenda of those that they are reporting on without a critical eye. Maybe they expect the reader or viewer to provide that but unfortunately that talent isn't being taught by our schools.
Well you need be a little more critical of those articles that slam the U.S..
And shouldn't one also be critical of those that praise what a good job the U.S. is doing?
Suicide bombers are the least of our concerns. They don't accomplish much other than to give fodder to those that want the U.S. to bend over and take more up the ass.
Oh are they now? Perhaps you've forgotten that 9/11 was executed by people doing a suicide attack? If that sort of thing isn't a concern, just what were you concerned about? That Iraq was going to land ground forces in Virginia?
I don't care why. Every "reason" that has been given will not be resolved by appeasement.
Well I'm not surprised that you don't care why. Or that you wouldn't have "heard" any reasons that can be solved (were you listening for any?) I don't believe the Arabs were actively seeking the destruction of the West until after WWII. In fact, I think we actually got along with them reasonably well. And hatred of the west isn't actually a tenet of Islam. Many Muslims actually live happily in the U.S. So could it just maybe be that we actually have done something to piss them off? Is it really so imposible to think that if we sat down and talked about what the problems really were and worked to solve them, that the hate would be undermined and peace could actually happen? But of course for that to happen, we'd have to admit that we've done some things wrong and how likely is that when so many people here won't even acknowledge it to themselves?
Just because a few things get blown up doesn't mean you are not winning or cannot win the war. Ask the Israelis. If you need to, kill as many as it takes.
Ask the Israelis? Ask them what? How they've put an end to terrorism? Ask them how they managed to achieve a peaceful existence? Ask them how wonderful life is for them since they never have to worry about being killed at any moment by an attack of some sort? You're right that we should learn from them, but we should be learning from their mistakes, not trying to emulate them. They've accomplished nothing in trying to solve this problem.
That is really a thoughtful response. That is the usual response from liberal nitwits that haven't been told how to respond.
Well it is hard to respond when you're so shocked that someone would even espouse such views.
And shouldn't one also be critical of those that praise what a good job the U.S. is doing? The US is doing a fine job.
that wasn't the question.
Oh are they now? Perhaps you've forgotten that 9/11 was executed by people doing a suicide attack? If that sort of thing isn't a concern, just what were you concerned about? That Iraq was going to land ground forces in Virginia? 9/11 was a little more than your typical sucide bombing.
In fact, I think we actually got along with them reasonably well. And hatred of the west isn't actually a tenet of Islam. I think we get along well with most of them now.
Many Muslims actually live happily in the U.S. So could it just maybe be that we actually have done something to piss them off? Is it really so imposible to think that if we sat down and talked about what the problems really were and worked to solve them, that the hate would be undermined and peace could actually happen? But of course for that to happen, we'd have to admit that we've done some things wrong and how likely is that when so many people here won't even acknowledge it to themselves? There are enough people like you admitting that we have done plenty wrong. Furthermore, we get along well with most of the Islamic countries. It is the Islamic malcontents that are the problem.
Ask the Israelis? Ask them what? How they've put an end to terrorism?...They've accomplished nothing in trying to solve this problem.
They have not lost the war.
Well it is hard to respond when you're so shocked that someone would even espouse such views.
Yea, whatever.
Allison In Wonderland.
More popular ? With some living in Iraq it has. Others ? No, as you yourself stated, they hated us before the war anyway.
They also believed from reports in the arab media that Iraq was winning the war as well. We've also donethings IE the Balkans and Somolia which are mainly Muslim nations to help as well. Coincidentally there were some who were sure the Balkans were about oil too because there's oil there too. Apparently if there's a can of Valvoline in the country we ought not do anything.
So are you saying we should have appeased a guy like Saddamn. Should we not threaten Syria who is harboring god knows what and allowed troops to come over when we were at war with Iraq ? Ever hear of aiding and abeitting ? Should we not have supported Israel ? Are you for scrapping talks and invading North Korea ? Where is the U.N on that ? I guess it's o.k to be unilateral and unpopular if other nations and the UN wan't nothing to do with North Korea. So we meddled in Iraq and are somehow imperialist yet we aren't being harsh enough with North Korea. Hmmm. Can't win I guess when someone's driven by some idealogical beliefs that no matter what a country does it's bad. Well it's politically expediant so why not. And it's a vote getter to bash the U.S. Ask Gerhard Schroeder.
I've got news for you. We protected the hospitals we could. There are 900 hospitals in Iraq. Which ones and how many people are you going to send troops to while you're still engaged in combat ? Not so easy when you have to be the one to do it and still fight a war but criticism is easy. As far as Oil. I know it's a dirty word but without it they have nothing. If the fields go so does their economy, it's a simple fact. They have no other items of export or means of econonmical survival. Had all the oil fields been blown up it would have taken 3-4 years for them to get going again. Would their be any complaints then of the plight of the Iraqi's. ? You bet and it would take billions more to rebuild their economy and slowed recovery immensely.
As for the museum it's sad, what I think is even more sad but telling is that some who are up in arms about that are the same ones who thought 12 years wasn't enough time. I men AI only put a conservative estimate of 10,000 deaths a year carried out by Saddamn's death squads, but get a few vases stolen and the outrage is enormous. It says alot about priorities.
Don't take this personally AIW because it's not meant this way.
I agree we haven't always done everything right, find a nation that has. You say that
Over 1,200 Americans died prior to 9-11 in terrorist attacks. What made those people radicals ? Can you explain ?
What are YOUR solutions to the problems ? Seems there's plenty of criticsm, what's your solution ?
IMO we've tried many different things over the years. We've tried diplomacy, to foster interior change which are hard to accomplish with brutal leaders as those, we've tried sanctions, We've had 12 years of finger pointing and resolutions, we've had many years of simply and quite frankly ignoring terrorist acts. Oh we'd get mad on TV and say some harsh words and maybe launch a few cruise missles. But we've never taken real and decisive action before. I think it's an opportunity to try and jumpstart the M.E. It hasn't been tried and I think is bold and yes courageous. IT's a challenge no doubt and we can't allow another autocracy to start. It needs to represent all their people. It's not easy, it's easy to point fingers and criticize. What's not is to actually try to help a nation and a people flourish. It's a chance not for other Muslim nations to live in fear of the U.S but to look at Iarq and say, You know , they are doing pretty well for themselves. Then they can look around their country and find it stuck somewhere in the 19th century. If they want a better life they might just take action and change. You know what country is on the verge of change right now ? Iran of all places. Their young people are making noise and pushing for freedom and democracy.
Well now that the war is over, Bush cant hide behind his support the troops emotional blackmail anymore.
Please show us where he said anything similar to this.
Iraq is a mess now and either the U.S. will have to continue its occupation for quite some time, set up an unpopular puppet regime, let the different factions plunge into war with each other, or let Iraq turn to a fundamentalist Islamic regime.
Have we not had to be there for some 12 years already? We should have finished the job back when we had Saddam on the run.
Actually, delegates from inside and outside Iraq agreed today to hold a nation-building meeting next month and fashion a temporary, post-Saddam Hussein government that the United States predicted could be in place within days after that link. The U.N. was invited to todays meeting, but declined to send a representative link.
So, they will setup their own form of government that they can all vote on and we will be there to help but not to make decisions for them.
we won't listen to the U.N. if it doesn't suit our agenda.
What the heck have we been doing for the last 12 years? The U.N. has not done it's job and left us to do the work for them. Now they claim they want in on the action, but refuse to send a representative to the meetings. They are making a laughingstock out of the U.N. and rendering it useless.
Bush is running up record deficits at the same time he's trying to cut taxes.
How has Bush ran up deficits? Have you seen the crap that the Dems have added to the spending bills? Not a peep on that though.
Tax cuts have historically created more jobs and added more money to the governments budgets. It is the thing to do.
I wouldn't be all that surprised if Bush tried to argue for cancelling the 2004 election because a change in administration would be helping the terrorists.
Wow, you really are an extremist.
France, Germany, Russia, Turkey, just to start. If we were so popular, why were so few countries part of this coalition?
France had very lucrative oil contracts with Iraq. Where is the cry that their opinion is all about oil? Germany built many of Saddam's bunkers and Russia supplied them with arms. Of course these countries would not support a war with Saddam.
How many countries were part of the first war? How many countries were part of Clinton's bombing raids on Iraq, Kosovo, etc.? I'd say that this was a well supported war in comparison. About 1/3 of the troops in this war were Americans. That says a lot.
But we support Israel and only give North Korea a stern look.
Isreal is being attacked by a non-nation and now that we have taken care of Iraq, North Korea is backing down fast knowing that we mean business.
They see how we protect the Oil Ministry but do nothing to defend the hospitals or museums. And one can only hope the U.S. actually does manage to scrape up a weapon of mass destruction somewhere in the country.
I would say that we were a little busy at the time. Now we are taking care of that matter link.
As for the WMD's, why were there so many army personnel protecting what was reported as fertilizers in barbed wire fences? Is it possible that they could be turned into gases used against people? How do you explain all the other finds? Just yesterday they found more barrels that three initial tests indicated that they contained a deadly mixture of cyclosarin nerve agent and mustard gas. They were found in a nine-square-kilometre storage area that also contained missiles, missile parts, gas masks, protective gear, a stripped mobile weapons laboratory and large storage containers covered by camouflage netting.
So yes, I am more inclined to read the articles that talk about what we're doing wrong as opposed to the ones that are merely acting as cheerleaders.
I hope you do read these articles and I also hope you dig deeper. What is the political leaning of the person writing the articles and are there reliable sources to back them up? Check out whatever you read because there is people who will twist things and outright lie to get you to think a certain way. It is done on both sides of arguements, so verify what you read.
We can not have liberty if we don't have peace, and wars such as this do not foster a peaceful environment.
We can not have liberty or peace if we are not willing to fight for it. This war seems to have caused North Korea to rethink it's strategy.
If you're going to do a suicide attack, what do you care if they fire back or not?
If you realize that your attack is going to draw a lot of fire power to your country/group, is that not a strong deterent?
And hatred of the west isn't actually a tenet of Islam.
No, but there are many who would use Islam to foster that hate.
Is it really so imposible to think that if we sat down and talked about what the problems really were and worked to solve them, that the hate would be undermined and peace could actually happen?
That worked so well in Iraq, North Korea, etc.
I'll admit it.
I don't care if zero country's backed us.
We did the right thing taking out Saddam.
Powell's somewhat hopeful account of the meetings contrasted with initial accounts last week by other U.S. officials, who highlighted the negative aspects of the North Korean presentation.
These included a North Korean acknowledgment for the first time that the country possessed nuclear weapons and was contemplating exporting or even using them, depending on U.S. actions.
This is a story from today. Doesn't sound to me like North Korea is exactly in a panic or even really backing down. Sounds like they're talking just to see what they can get.
Is it really so imposible to think that if we sat down and talked about what the problems really were and worked to solve them, that the hate would be undermined and peace could actually happen?
Yes.
And of those that did give us the use of their name, many were bought-off.
When are you guys on the right going to admit that simple, yet glaring fact?
Yes. And the French, Germans and Russians were bought off by Saddam, so what?
Allison Wonderland 4/29/03 6:26am
Before the war in Iraq N. Korea wouldn't even talk with anyone. they only wanted to talk with us. They didn't want China, S. Korea, Japan or others in on the negotiating because it's harder for them to get what they want. We wisely said no way. So Korea's minister basicly said that there was no movement on the N Koreans side until Kim saw what happened in Iraq. He oddly decided to sit down with talks with other nations besides the U.S after that, Hmmmm ?
You are right they are trying to see what they can get out of it and are using it as a bargaining chip. Why should we trust them. They already broke the first agreement and blackmail like we knew they would. Pres. Clinton gave them aid in exchange for agreement that they would abandon their nuke program. He sent Jimmy Carter over to ink it. In less than 2 years of the signing of the deal Kim and co. broke it and started the program. This was well before the "axis of evil" comment or before Bush even took office. There were some in the Clinton admin who proposed a strike on their reactor and for some reason somebody nixed it. It's water under the bridge now but signing agreements with 3rd world despotic dictators who mistreat their own people is bad policy IMO. How can you trust anyone like that ?
I don't think we should give Kim and co. squat. Doing so would only be like feeding racoons. They'll be back in 2 days asking for more. 3 years from now they'll say well we started this program again or, hey if you don't give us more aid we're selling a nuke to Alquieda or Hamas. It's extorsion on an international scale. We've tried appeasing, reasoning and negotiating with leaders of Kim's ilk for years. It doesn't work.
Before the war in Iraq N. Korea wouldn't even talk with anyone.
I read Iran is interested in talking to us now. Early indications are that they want to open formal diplomatic relations.
Who would have thunk?
Exactly. They also sent back the Anslar Islam terrorists groups that fled Northern Iraq when we went after them. Even Iran didn't want them. Not to mention they stopped a suicide boat headed for Umm Kassar. I have no illusions about Iran, but there's a growing movement in their youth who wants freedom and Iran is seeing the writing on the wall. If it's the threat of their new neighbors that made that happen so be it.
I don't remember whom I was talking to about this but it was a while back and I think this can be a positive from this. It shows what can happen when you actually back up your threats. Once and a while you have to, in short you can end up avoiding conflicts down the road because of it which is a good thing. Constant words, debate and hollow threats without action leads to more violence down the road. But backing up what you say has to be done once and a while. Not all the time but you don't need to if people know you're serious.
Yes, well they weren't "Coalition Members", which IS what I was talking about, now were they?
No, they were the "loyal" opposition, some might goes as far to describe them as the enemy. The point was they opposed our actions because of their economic interests just as those that sided with us had their own interests. Why the members of the coalition joined the cause has no bearing on whether the cause was just. France, Russia and Germany were willing to side with Saddam as long as the benefits outweighed the costs. Was their cause just?
Headlines In Reuters Today:
Bush to Declare Start to Syrian "Combat" from Carrier
Rumsfeld in Lebanon to Declare Start of Major "Combat"
;-)
Completely out of context to what I said... as usual.
It appears that way to you because you usually don't understand what you say, much less what I say.
Politically Correct?
No, just careful use of words. If he declared an end to the war, we would have to leave the work in Iraq 1/2 finished. What he is saying is that the major battles in Iraq are over. There is still some clean up to be done which includes finding any hold outs, destroying any WMD's, finding the remaining on the wanted list and bringing them to justice, helping to build a free government, etc.
President George W. Bush
May 1, 2003
"In the images of celebrating Iraqis, we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement. Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food and water and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices; and everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear."
President George W. Bush
May 1, 2003
Really good speech writer he had this time, eh?
I agree. I also think that most of it was written back in November of last year.
Embarrassing? That's just nuts. He didn't steal any glory from anyone. Sounds to me more like you're trying to steal his glory now.
Anyway, whether ya like him or not, Dubya gave a great speech yesterday.
Yesterday, was one hell of a well-choreographed and interesting display of false-bravado from our President, who finally got to stand next to REAL warriors. It is amazing what jealously will make some people say.
It was embarrassing, presumptuous and selfish of him to steal ANY of the glory that belongs to THEM. They wouldn't be heroes if Bush hadn't had the guts to stand up to the world and say we must remove Saddam. It wouldn't have happened if any democrap had been in office. Cowardly bunch of assholes the lot of them. I can't see why you admire them so, fold.
Very nice.
Now, where are those damn WMDs that was purportedly in imminent launch mode on the "international community" by that evil megalomaniac ?
They must be in Syria now, no ? :)
Shouldn't Bush single-handedly want to be a bigger hero by exposing these double-crossing Syrians that are hiding the Iraqi WMDs ? ;)
Now, where are those damn WMDs that was purportedly in imminent launch mode on the "international community" by that evil megalomaniac ? There were many reasons to go into Iraq. One of them was the weapons which the Iraqi scientists say are there. So shove it, Spock, you pointy eared hobgoblin!
Shouldn't Bush single-handedly want to be a bigger hero by exposing these double-crossing Syrians that are hiding the Iraqi WMDs ? ;) That would be fine with me. It is obvious you are filled with hate for Bush. Get over it. He is doing a great job and there isn't any democrap that could even come close to Bush's level of performance.
MPR is re-airing Dubya's speech right now.
THX, take it easy on poor fold. He's having one of his veteran's moments. Or is it just plain envy?
Well, those on the carrier didn't seem to mind.
Matter of fact, they seemed to love him.