I don’t understand this. How would a premptive strike at Zarqawi endanger the invasion. As I recall we had special forces in Iraq before the invasion anyway, and I imagine they had pretty free reign in N. Iraq where Saddam’s military control was nominal.
Also, the administration must have realized there was a strong possibility Zarqawi would escape in the chaos of the invasion if we didn’t try and get him before hand. After all, we’d just invaded Afganistan to try and capture its terrorist and seen several key figures (OBL and others) manage to slip away.
I’m always curious to see what the Saddamites in this forum will come up with next. And Stoid, you’re as good a leading indicator of future GD looniness as anyone, so let me know if I’ve got this more or less right.
As of last week, the US and Britain and allied forces attacked Iraq, a place where al Qaeda was not present until invasion forces enticed them in, ‘unilaterally’ (in fairness, I’m not 100% current – have y’all abandoned this semantically contradictory, factually incorrect and racist assertion? That would be a welcome piece of news.). And that was bad - they should have waited until the coalition was larger.
But now there’s a story which indicates, if and when it proves out, that the coalition did not attack Iraq, a place where al Qaeda was present, even though they weren’t, while it was trying to entice more countries to join them (unaware that some of those countries were making more money than H411ibur70n!!1!1!! ever dreamed of off of the ‘crippled’ -courtesy of the sanctions, which were working and just needed more time, of course - prior regime). And that was bad -they should have gone ahead without trying to build the coalition.
Does that pretty much cover the original post here?
I was wondering where the Saddamites on this board would go when it became clear American voters weren’t buying the “OMG BUSH LIED ABOUT WMD TO HELP HIS OIL BUDDIES” line of crap. Thanks for the head’s up.
Personally, though, I’d suggest going with actual responsible liberal leaders’ stance of “Hell yes, Iraq needed overthrowing - we should have thrown further over, harder.” In addition to being, well, true, it has the advantage of not making you look reflexively anti-American.
A point of order, if you please. This is great debates, right? The forum where we, even ex-moderators, are enjoined to keep a civil tongue in our head? Saddamites? Leading indicator of looniness? Maybe not fighting words, but close, very close.
I dunno about that, given that Bush has his lowest approval rating ever and Kerry leads in every major poll, I’d say that the American people are increasingly becoming aware of “that crap” about the “little white lies.”
So, you’re saying that we should immediately invade North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Colombia, well, I guess Pakistan… then, which side do you want to take on the Russia/Chechnya conflict? Terrorists or evil repressive regime? THen there is most of the continent of Africa. Don’t forget your box of kleenex when you’re crying tonight about the Diamond Wars or anything. We know how greatly you care about the concerns of world citizens, and desire direct and immediate military intervention on their behalf.
Understand, this was something I remember reading a few weeks (perhaps months) ago, and I’m too lazy to look it up. If you are asking for a cite here, you’ll have to wait until I’m rested and sober.
That said, what I recall of the article said basically that the Administration had a pretty good idea where Zarqawi was in 2002…and he was in Northern Iraq in one of the terrorist camps there. However, the decision was made not to attack because the only feasible way to do so was with air strikes…and that this would throw off the time table of the invasion (the details presently allude me). Basically I think it was because the Administration hadn’t yet shown its hand as far as the invasion went (and perhaps they were still holding out for Saddam to bolt the country like a smart man would have) and didn’t want to mess with Iraq until it started.
I assume they figured that either they would wack him during the initial operations (as you said, we had SF units in Northern Iraq, and we targetted those camps early on), or we’d get him sometime after Iraq was pacified. Its not that wild of an assumption either way. In any case, again from what I remember, the priority was on Iraq, not on specific terrorist cells or their leaders. As I said, I think this was a mistake as I think our primary priorities should have been terrorist cells and their leaders and Afghanistan in that order.
I’m not sure exactly who this was directed at, but I’m thinking it was me. On that assumption I’ll respond. For my part, I never denied that there were terrorist cells operating in Northern Iraq. I was never one of the people saying Saddam was terrorist free. My position, if you care, was that Iraq was a waste of resources and a distraction from what we should have been doing…namely hunting down terrorists and rebuilding Afghanistan, which I fully supported for the invasion. So, I don’t think we should have ‘waited until the coalition was larger’, or gone in heavier (though it certainly would have helped to go in with a larger initial force IMO)…I don’t think we should have gone in at all, at least not with the regular army.
We knew there were terrorist cells operating in Iraq…we should have sent in SF units to scout them out and target them, and used air strikes to blow them to hell. And we should have worked with any other nation in the region willing to work with us to do the say thing there…in Syria, in Iran, in Jordan, in Pakastan…where ever we could find and indentify terrorist camps. And we should have gone after the terrorists on the financial side as well…a full court press. To my mind Iraq distracted us from this.
So, if you want to call me a ‘Saddamite’ thats your afair, but I never defended that bastard nor did I shed any tears when him and his fucked up empire folded. I just think that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary in at the time or in the way we did it.
I doubt if many outside of Baghdad Bob ever did. The accusations implied through the use of the invective “Saddamite” could be the result of manny’s cognitive dissonance beginning to crack. It could be that he now finds invective the equivalent of discourse. Or perhaps not. Maybe he’s just inscrutably wise.
The Admin clearly made some very poor choices re the intel that they presented to Congress and the American electorate. The only question that remains is whether the poor choices were the result of incompetence or malice aforethought.
The defense of the Admin hinges on the Admin being incompetent. If they’re not incompetent, then they’ve intentionally screwed up big time. How many denials before the deniability’s no longer plausible?
Powell: I’m very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I’m deeply disappointed. But I’m also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.
The “multiple sourcing” that Powell references was the result of multiple intel agencies interviewing the same person. The Admin said that the sources were the intel agencies themselves rather than the interviewee. They were technically correct anyway.
Either the WH knew that the info was likely false, (malice aforethought), or they weren’t “aware” of that info, (incompetence). The law of unintended consequences and all that…
“Oops. Did we just fuck up some serious national security issues? Our bad. At least the eastern seaboard hasn’t been attacked by venomous, flying, Iraqi robots of terror that the Prez was “concerned” about. We saved the country from that grave and gathering danger”
At least the Senate Select Committe on Intelligence is looking into these sorst of intentional or inadvertent “cherry picking” of intel for presentation to the electorate.
First off… Stop the Presses! The administration had evidence that there were terrorists working in Iraq actually making WMD’s and we didn’t hear about it? This seems like the sort of thing the Bush admin would have loved to have used. :dubious:
I think it’s reaching the point where there should be a corrolary to Godwin’s law that covers Saddam Hussein.
Hmmm… rather odd sentence structure, but my guess is that you’re conflating surgical strikes aimed at stopping terrorism with all out invasion/occupation of Iraq and then trying to make it seem like a contradictory stance to favor one but not the other.
manhattan, it was just two weeks ago where you apologized for not respecting this forum. And yet you call your fellow posters “Saddamites”? Yes, I allow “Bushies” and “Bushites”: to describe people who can be reasonably said to support Bush (and would likely agree to that themselves), who last I checked was NOT regarded by all as a murdering dictator. You remember when we banned people for saying other posters were nazis or followed nazis? Saying someone is a “Saddamite” is basically the same, UNLESS you have evidence that a poster thinks Saddam was a pretty cool guy.
It also does not escape my notice that Saddamite is a homophone for “sodomite”, and for that reason alone I would not allow it.
Either behave with more decorum, or stop posting in this forum.
Further and dispute or discussion regarding this should be in email or the Pit. Thank you.
They did in fact use this as one of their justifications for the war. Bush, for example:
The problem with this was that even though Zarqawi was certainly in Iraq before the war, there isn’t any proof that he was supported by the Iraqi gov’t. His camps were located in a part of N. Iraq where Saddam had very little control, the CIA and Pentegon, despite their best efforts, were unable to show a plausable link between the two, and the group he was alligned with (Ansar al-Islam) was founded to fight against secularism in Iraq. Thus one would argue that if we really wanted to go after terrorists in Iraq we should’ve gone after these camps instead of taking over the whole country. Instead, as xtisme said, it was thought this might endanger the administrations primary goal of taking over Iraq, and that instead it would be better to hope we could catch him after the invasion.
While the two stances aren’t necessarily contradictory, it is quite odd to insist that the surgical strikes would have been a superior model to all-out invasion, especially considering that the problem was MORE than just the few targets they could have eliminated with the surgical strike.
Think of it this way: Imagine you were trying to kill the Blob. If you freeze half it’s body, well, the other half can still get away and kill people and grow larger and larger and larger. However, if you get it all at once… well, you’re done.
Frankly, I’m surprised Bush’s detractors are hurling their invectives at one of the examples of restraint…
So… are we supposed to invade ourselves for letting the 9/11 and OK City terrorists live and train and plan and plot in America?
I can see the press announcement now. Bush waddles up the podium:
“Good evening, my fellow Freedom loving Americans. This is a delicate time in the world, when the forces of Villainy and Evil seek to destroy our God-fearing country. However, it is true that some of these very villians have abused American facilities. We must set an example that this will not be tolerated. Every member of the Florida National Guard is ordered to shoot themselves in the leg, maybe the upper leg, and the rest of us shall punch ourselves in the arm. Not hard enough to bruise, just enough to ensure Freedom. Thank you, and God bless.”
Many of the conservatives on this board are among the snidest, most hateful people I’ve ever had the displeasure of meeting. The above is a typical example. As if a former moderator doesn’t know the rules of GD, and prefers to toss out cheap insults rather than actually rebut the accusations with arguments or facts?
Hardly. Perhaps you should consider a course in remedial reading?
Look, it’s really quite simple. On Feb. 5, 2003, Colin Powell held a presentation at the UN in which he provided the strongest available arguments supporting a US-led invasion of Iraq. Among these arguments, of which there were several, was the assertion of a link between Saddam Hussein’s regime, on the one, hand, and al-Qaida, on the other. This assertion in Powell’s presentation rested primarily on one specific individual: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
First, it is important to note that this assertion is one of the key lynchpins in the administration’s arguments that Iraq represented a direct threat to US/ World security. As Powell explains in the introductory paragraph, this threat emerged from the distinct possibility that Saddam would exploit his alleged relationship with al-Qaida, via Zarqawi, by giving “WMDs” to them, so that they could carry out terrorist attacks against the West. Clearly, if no such connection exists, then the threat posed by Iraq’s alleged possession of “WMDs” would be significantly less dire. I’m not going to fast for you here, am I, manny?
Now, let’s lay aside the fact that practically every detail of Powell’s presentation regarding Zarqawi above has proven to be misleading, if not downright false, and focus on a single, straight-forward question: if the US knew the location of Zarqawi and his poison camp, why didn’t they simply bomb the smithereens out of it immediately, thus relieving the world of yet another terrorist threat?
This is a fair question. According to Powell, they knew the location of the camp: his presentation even included a satellite photo of it. It was located, by his own admission, in the far north of Iraq, in that section of Iraq controlled by the Kurds, and patrolled by American fighters as a no-fly zone. To bomb it would surely have been a simple operation.
So, to start with, I would ask those who think the accusations in the OP are of the tin-foil-hat variety, or who prefer to meet rational arguments with in juvenile name-calling, to provide for me a compelling explanation for this puzzling discrepancy.
Even Pre-“Gulf War 2, the revenge” It was well known that Northern Iraq was more or less out of Saddam’s control. The fact that Zarqawi may have had a camp set up in Northern Iraq doesn’t necessarily mean that Saddam was aiding him, given that Al Qaida pretty much hated Saddam for being too secular.
If it could be proven that the camp was in Kurdish controlled territory, then that would put the Coallition of the willing in an interesting position.
Could someone confirm for me if Colin Powell’s speech came before or after turkey refused airspace?
Before too terribly long, there may one that covers Bush, i.e., in the midst of protracted future argument someone will resort to hitting below the belt and saying that supporting their opponent’s position is akin to supporting George W Bush.
As for Zarqawi, maybe they just figured that once we invaded, the Iraqi people would seize him and deliver him to US forces. (When they weren’t busy throwing flowers, and waving US flags in gratitude, and offering to pay for our entire invasion with those massive, tasty oil revenues.)
UncleBeer, you’re perhaps thinking of a political belief system that relies on hate, fear, and superstition to perpetuate itself whose followers and defenders don’t experience corruption of the spirit?
