Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

In the case of Afghanistan this was
an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
than a transparently flawed excuse

I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?

Both of these men had proven track records of operations against the
U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead to be a
threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq now, al
Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was injured and
received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq.

Before the USA invaded
the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
did not control

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips everyone on Bear Creek"


The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with Al-Queda.
Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts with them.
Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers.
Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

In the case of Afghanistan this was
an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
than a transparently flawed excuse

I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?

Both of these men had proven track records of operations against the
U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead to be a
threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq now, al
Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was injured and
received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq.

Before the USA invaded
the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
did not control

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips everyone on Bear Creek"


The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with Al-Queda.
Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts with them.
Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers.
Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too.

Come now--you KNOW that merely having regular contact with various terrorist
groups, providing medical care to one wanted senior AQ member, and then
giving him a new area to operate from, providing money in support of suicide
bombers, etc., does not constitute "support for terrorism", don't you? Just
ask all of those folks with their heads buried in the sand and from whom
continuously emanate muffled, repetitive chants like, "Saddam never even
*met* a terrorist, much less supported any of them", and "Continued work on
biological warfare programs, hiding of WMD equipment, documents, and
WMD-knowledgable personnel, the finding of a type of binary weapon that was
obviously not developed until after the Iran-Iraq War, etc., does not mean
that Saddam was continuing to pursue WMD's..."; they'll assure you that
Saddam *never* supported terrorists...

Ooops...keep forgetting to turn that danged sarcasm switch off...

Brooks


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote in message ...
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

In the case of Afghanistan this was
an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
than a transparently flawed excuse

I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?

Both of these men had proven track records of operations against the
U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead to be a
threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq now, al
Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was injured and
received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq.

Before the USA invaded
the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
did not control

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

When and when, respectively?

....


"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips everyone on Bear Creek"


The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with Al-Queda.
Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts with them.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection. They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.

Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers.
Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too.

--

FF

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
om:

Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

In the case of Afghanistan this was
an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
than a transparently flawed excuse

I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?

Both of these men had proven track records of operations against
the U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead
to be a threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq
now, al Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was
injured and received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq.

Before the USA invaded
the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
did not control

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

When and when, respectively?

...


"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if
it harelips everyone on Bear Creek"


The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with
Al-Queda. Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts
with them.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection.


That they could FIND no connection.
Of course,there also was a lot of Iraqi records BURNED before they
collapsed entirely.

Just like the WMD materiels may be sitting in Syria,moved before the
invasion.

They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.


Just allowing them safe haven and passage is support.
I wonder about that airframe Iraq had for "hijack training"...


Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers.
Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too.


Too many people seem too willing to believe the worst about the US and the
current administration,and not believe about Saddam's dangers.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote in message ...
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
om:

Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
....

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?


When and when, respectively?

IIRC, Abbas was living there openly after an amnesty agreement.

When was Nidal killed?




The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with
Al-Queda. Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts
with them.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection.


That they could FIND no connection.

Agreed. Thanks for the correction.

Of course,there also was a lot of Iraqi records BURNED before they
collapsed entirely.

Just like the WMD materiels may be sitting in Syria,moved before the
invasion.


Or maybe The Romulan Empire is hiding Iraqi corbomite bombs.
Speculation is not evidence.

They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.


Just allowing them safe haven and passage is support.

ISTR that the meeting took place outside of Iraq. Not indicative
of a friendly relationship.

19 Al Quada persons found safe passage in the US in 2001.

None of them Iraqi.

--

FF

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
om:

Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
om:

Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
...

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are
you saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?


When and when, respectively?

IIRC, Abbas was living there openly after an amnesty agreement.

When was Nidal killed?

The above comments were not from JYanik,your attribs are screwed up.




The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with
Al-Queda. Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but
still,contacts with them.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection.


That they could FIND no connection.

Agreed. Thanks for the correction.

Of course,there also was a lot of Iraqi records BURNED before they
collapsed entirely.

Just like the WMD materiels may be sitting in Syria,moved before the
invasion.


Or maybe The Romulan Empire is hiding Iraqi corbomite bombs.
Speculation is not evidence.

Concerning WMD possibly moved to Syria,there was some unconfirmed
intelligence that this may have occurred.Israel seems to think
so.IIRC,there were 3 *specific* sites in Syria,but the US refused to check
them out.

They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.


Just allowing them safe haven and passage is support.

ISTR that the meeting took place outside of Iraq. Not indicative
of a friendly relationship.

Or plausible denial,"cover your tracks".
IIRC,Saddam told them they could go freely in and out of Iraq.
Giving medical treatment to terrorists IS *support*,it's aiding and
abetting.No different than any MD who gives medical treatment to criminals
wounded in a crime and does not report it


19 Al Quada persons found safe passage in the US in 2001.

A failure of our open border policies and administration conflicts like the
State Dept's.

None of them Iraqi.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
om:


Jim Yanik wrote in message
1...

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
e.com:


Jim Yanik wrote in message
.21...

...

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are
you saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

When and when, respectively?

IIRC, Abbas was living there openly after an amnesty agreement.

When was Nidal killed?


The above comments were not from JYanik,your attribs are screwed up.


The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with
Al-Queda. Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but
still,contacts with them.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection.


That they could FIND no connection.

Agreed. Thanks for the correction.


Of course,there also was a lot of Iraqi records BURNED before they
collapsed entirely.

Just like the WMD materiels may be sitting in Syria,moved before the
invasion.


Or maybe The Romulan Empire is hiding Iraqi corbomite bombs.
Speculation is not evidence.


Concerning WMD possibly moved to Syria,there was some unconfirmed
intelligence that this may have occurred.Israel seems to think
so.IIRC,there were 3 *specific* sites in Syria,but the US refused to check
them out.

They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.


Just allowing them safe haven and passage is support.

ISTR that the meeting took place outside of Iraq. Not indicative
of a friendly relationship.


Or plausible denial,"cover your tracks".
IIRC,Saddam told them they could go freely in and out of Iraq.
Giving medical treatment to terrorists IS *support*,it's aiding and
abetting.No different than any MD who gives medical treatment to criminals
wounded in a crime and does not report it

Is it okay for the House of Saud to provide aid to terrorists?

Cheers

--mike



19 Al Quada persons found safe passage in the US in 2001.


A failure of our open border policies and administration conflicts like the
State Dept's.

None of them Iraqi.

Mike Dargan wrote:

Is it okay for the House of Saud to provide aid to terrorists?

I'm sure you can provide an example? No? I didn't think so. The only thing the
Saudi government has been guilty of is not cracking down on the Wahabbi
madrasses that are creating people who will be drawn to terrorist groups. After
they blew up a square block of a Saudi city, the government got the point and a
crack down has begun.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

When and when, respectively?

Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad in August of 2002. There is considerable
mystery surrounding his death. Baghdad initially claimed he died of an illness,
then they claimed suicide. Information leaked out shortly after that he died of
multiple gun shot wounds. CNN had this to say about Nidal after his death;
"Nidal and his group have been blamed for more than 90 terrorist attacks that
killed more than 300 people and wounded 600 others. The attacks struck at
Middle Eastern, European and *U.S. targets.*" (my emphasis). The question
remains; why did Hussain kill Nidal? Lots of speculation, but nothing certain
except that Hussain was haboring a known terrorist.

Abu Abbas was picked up in Bahgdad shortly after the U.S. took control of
Baghdad in April 2003. It was no surprise however and President Bush had even
mentioned Baghdad's harboring of Abbas as proof that Hussain was supporting
terrorism in a speech before the Iraq invasion began.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection. They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.


Great, Iraq and Hussain had nothing to do with 9/11. The point most liberals
fail to understand is the "War on Terrorism" goes beyond al Queada, beyond
Afghanistan and beyond Asia.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

When and when, respectively?

Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad in August of 2002. There is considerable
mystery surrounding his death. Baghdad initially claimed he died of an
illness,
then they claimed suicide. Information leaked out shortly after that he
died of
multiple gun shot wounds. CNN had this to say about Nidal after his death;
"Nidal and his group have been blamed for more than 90 terrorist attacks
that
killed more than 300 people and wounded 600 others. The attacks struck at
Middle Eastern, European and *U.S. targets.*" (my emphasis). The question
remains; why did Hussain kill Nidal? Lots of speculation, but nothing
certain
except that Hussain was haboring a known terrorist.

Abu Abbas was picked up in Bahgdad shortly after the U.S. took control of
Baghdad in April 2003. It was no surprise however and President Bush had
even
mentioned Baghdad's harboring of Abbas as proof that Hussain was
supporting
terrorism in a speech before the Iraq invasion began.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection. They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.


Great, Iraq and Hussain had nothing to do with 9/11. The point most
liberals
fail to understand is the "War on Terrorism" goes beyond al Queada, beyond
Afghanistan and beyond Asia.

Providing your enemy with a cause that will increase the number of
volunteers 10 fold for his army doesn't strike me as a smart idea. We need
to work to win "hearts and minds" thoughout the arab wold rather than hoping
that grabbing them by the balls as this administration has will work. This
doesn't mean that military operations aren't needed, they are, but they need
to be well thought out with an eye to the long term consequenses. Throwing
Saddaam out was the easy part, putting in a government in Iraq that is
friendly to US interests, has the support of its populace and that its
neighbors and the world won't see as US puppet is going to be the hardest.
We won't know if this can be accomplished until long after whoever wins the
next election leaves office.

I'm certainly not voting for the best recruiter Al-Queda ever had in
November





BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"