• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

Hey Molly: Shrub may have been right.

Does news of confirmed links between Iraq and Al Quada change things?

  • No - Bush is a bad man and must be defeated at all costs

    Votes: 6 24.0%
  • Maybe - But I hate Bush anyway.

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • Maybe - I always thought there might be more to this story.

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • Yes - I have to give President Bush his due: He was right.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes - But I've always believed he was right on this matter.

    Votes: 4 16.0%
  • Huh? or See my different answer below:

    Votes: 5 20.0%

  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp

"THE PRESIDENT CONVINCED the country with a mixture of documents that turned out to be forged and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with al Qaeda," claimed former Vice President Al Gore last Wednesday.

"There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever," declared Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism official under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, in an interview on March 21, 2004.

The editor of the Los Angeles Times labeled as "myth" the claim that links between Iraq and al Qaeda had been proved. A recent dispatch from Reuters simply asserted, "There is no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda." 60 Minutes anchor Lesley Stahl was equally certain: "There was no connection."

And on it goes. This conventional wisdom--that our two most determined enemies were not in league, now or ever--is comforting. It is also wrong.

In late February 2004, Christopher Carney made an astonishing discovery. Carney, a political science professor from Pennsylvania on leave to work at the Pentagon, was poring over a list of officers in Saddam Hussein's much-feared security force, the Fedayeen Saddam. One name stood out: Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. The name was not spelled exactly as Carney had seen it before, but such discrepancies are common. Having studied the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda for 18 months, he immediately recognized the potential significance of his find. According to a report last
week in the Wall Street Journal, Shakir appears on three different lists of Fedayeen officers.

An Iraqi of that name, Carney knew, had been present at an al Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on January 5-8, 2000. U.S. intelligence officials believe this was a chief planning meeting for the September 11 attacks.....
 

giff57

Corn Burning Fool
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
5,443
Points
34
I am curious to see the Wall Street Journal article. I have said this in another board I frequent. I hold as much stock in The Weekly Standard as EG does Al Franken. I would like to see some of this stuff from an un-bias source.

Of course the war isn't my biggest beef with GWB. I only have minor issues with that, and much of that comes from hindsight. I will say, I do not think we are any more safe, and perhaps less so than before we took out sadam. I don't have the answer, except I think more of the huge dollars we are spending in Iraq could be used in homeland security. Lets get it done and get out ASAP.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,173
Points
51
I would say wow, this changes things, but it does not. W was right, he is right, and he will continue to be right. He is not much of a politician, and people rip on him for that. But what he is a real man. A man that makes up his mind on an issue, is not afraid to let people know his choice.

Even though many people said that there was no connection... more people asked how could there not be. Now no one needs to ask anything. We just need to kick the a$$ of terrorism.
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
923
Points
22
I am not sure that a guy in the Pentagon who found some paper record of a terrorist and an Iraqi officer with the same name (but spelled differently) is enough to convince me.

I usually wait for corroboration, particularly when the source is one like the Weekly Standard. It seems to me that we are in a heap of woe because we didn't check our sources well before going to war. And it was the Weekly Standard that beat the war drums the loudest based on WMD.

One of the themes in anti-war rallies in our area is parents of soldiers who want their children home. They were willing to send them off to defend the United States, but with the growing evidence that the administration was either sloppy or untruthful in its justifiction for war is causing them a lot of anguish.
 

freewaytincan

Cyburbian
Messages
125
Points
6
Wulf9 said:
I am not sure that a guy in the Pentagon who found some paper record of a terrorist and an Iraqi officer with the same name (but spelled differently) is enough to convince me.

I usually wait for corroboration, particularly when the source is one like the Weekly Standard. It seems to me that we are in a heap of woe because we didn't check our sources well before going to war. And it was the Weekly Standard that beat the war drums the loudest based on WMD.

One of the themes in anti-war rallies in our area is parents of soldiers who want their children home. They were willing to send them off to defend the United States, but with the growing evidence that the administration was either sloppy or untruthful in its justifiction for war is causing them a lot of anguish.


So two things:

1) Why should it have to be JUST Al-bastards? I mean, consider that Saddam supported other terrorists.

2) What's with this whole liberal obsession with vengeance. I mean, I thought you guys were beyond revenge? Newsflash! It's not about revenge, because it's about stopping terrorists from doing these things before they can!
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,549
Points
25
Wulf9 said:
I am not sure that a guy in the Pentagon who found some paper record of a terrorist and an Iraqi officer with the same name (but spelled differently) is enough to convince me.
I agree with you...and why should anyone believe anything that comes out of this administration regarding Iraq as it turns out that everything else they told us has been based on lies. Bush gained support for this war by scaring the American publis into thinking that IRaq actually posed some type of a gathering threat. He has also done a great job at convincing Americans that anyone of Arab descent is automatically a suspected terrorist.
 

SGB

Cyburbian
Messages
3,388
Points
26
Revisionist historians

So a discover made in February 2004 of a link between Iraq and Al-Queda (if it is indeed true) can justify a war that started a year earlier? B-)

I thought our armed forces were sent to war based on current information at the time, not speculation of future information yet to be discovered.
 

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
13,900
Points
57
I'm with SGB's sentiments.

Why worry about trying to justify something that's already done. We're there and in the thick of it, so the new push should be to setup Iraqis with enough tools to become a stable, healthy nation where there isn't oppression of dissent.

This needs to be done as soon as possible.

And it looks like the above could most effectively be accomplished through democractic government, but that really needs to be up to the Iraqis with US advice (not proscription).

BTW, I voted "Maybe", but Bush has still got to go.
 
Last edited:

Wulf9

Member
Messages
923
Points
22
freewaytincan said:
So two things:

1) Why should it have to be JUST Al-bastards? I mean, consider that Saddam supported other terrorists.

2) What's with this whole liberal obsession with vengeance. I mean, I thought you guys were beyond revenge? Newsflash! It's not about revenge, because it's about stopping terrorists from doing these things before they can!
1. There are many governments that sponsoer "terror" against other nations but not the U.S. We now have our entire military tied down in one of those nations, not in addressing nations that have the potential to harm the U.S. That's not good judgement in my opinion.

2. Vengeance? Liberal? Not true on either case. I am an anti-war moderate. And I don't see where vengeance comes in at all.

I think we did the "war on terror" in exactly the wrong way. First, we should have defined what terror is and who are terrorists. (It's not just people we don't like.) We should have really mopped up in Afghanistan, which is where the terror bases were. We should have kept our worldwide alliances because it takes worldwide cooperation to fight terror. It's obvious in retrospect that there was more time for negotiation and to build a coalition against Iraq. We should have done that, and maybe war would not have been necessary. If it was, we could have had a true coalition (not just Britain and Tonga as allies). And above all, we have tied up our military in a war we probably didn't have to fight, against a nation that wasn't a true threat to the United States. We have shown the limits of our military. I don't know if the Iraqi resistance was pre-planned, but other nations are studying it as a way to resist American military operations if we are to attack them. If it was pre-planned, that is Saddam's revenge.
 

otterpop

Cyburbian
Messages
6,655
Points
28
I knew that if they looked long enough they could find some link. Just about any Moslem nation will have links to a terrorist organization if you look long and hard enough. You don't even have to look very hard to find them in Saudi Arabia.

The invasion of Iraq was never about protecting us from terrorism. It wasn't about getting rid of Saddam to free the Iraqi people. It was about protecting our national interest regarding oil supplies. We don't say that. We prefer to couch our self-interest in noble terms, but I think most of the other nations see it for what it is.

That is, of course, my own opinion. Others feel differently.
 

The One

Cyburbian
Messages
8,289
Points
30
Hmmmm......

Conveniently Timed Eh? What does this say about the bookworm nerds in our intelligence agencies? You know, the one's that don't like to get their feet dirty anymore (prefer the office setting and occasional vacation to visit the field, aka 5 star hotels). Anyway, unless someone confirms beyond the "similar" name (such as photo/other surveillance), its a stretch to use this as the "link". Maybe our intel people could focus on finding and keeping track of the bad guy's for the Billions we spend on their services....
 
Last edited:

The One

Cyburbian
Messages
8,289
Points
30
CIA Resignation

Looks like DCI ran his course......hmmm personal reasons.....sounds like mis-information to me.. :-\ ..I heard a CIA expert on NPR today talking about how one of the main continuing problems with the agency is that they continue to assign Senior Analysts B-) to Chief of Mission posts when that job should and traditionally was handled by someone with field training and expertise (not the book reading ivory tower, office sitting reflecting on their 3 PhD types.. :f: ..) Then this guy said that the deputy director of operations had 80 million bucks :-0 in the bank and did his job for the love of country....(ex financial officer for some company....) I'm not one to go "old school" for anything, but maybe intelligence is one exception.....
 
Top