War is an ugly thing...

Post-9/11 Era Forum

...but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

—John Stuart Mill

How Prophetic was that Britt

Thanks for reminding us of the great minds of the 17th century.Somehow they can sum it up so quickly and elegantly. Lincoln was the best! Imagine the horrors if they read this forum.

Horrors? Imagine the horrors of being in Iraq fighting a war in which there's no end, watching your fellow soldiers dying daily for something your not sure is right or wrong in the first place, wondering when will it be your time.

Now thats a horror, horror from hell.

War is an ugly thing...

...but not the ugliest of things. The lies and dishonesty used to whip up the moral and patriotic feelings to support a war based on those lies and diseption is much worse. The person who believes anything and everything and is willing to fight without thought, regardless of his own, his families and the world's safety, is a blind and dangerous creature and has no chance of being free unless woken up by the exertions of better men than himself.

well said.

There is nothing that can be said or done to change the opinion that is festered in your noggin' so I will save my time currently for something more constructive. I would, however like to know exactly what needs to happen with the issue at hand to get YOU on board. What does the admin. need to do OR find to get fellow countrymen on the same sheet of music?

And Peace, your post describes every battle and every war ever fought in the history of this world. War sucks!!

Lol, some of these responses show how prophetic Mill actually was.
"...(the) feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war (is worse than war itself)"
-We know for a fact that Hussein murdered millions, and would continue to butcher as long as he was in power.
-We know for a fact Hussein has used WMDs in the past, and despite our inability to find stockpiles, the only real question is 'where are they?' not, 'did he actually have them?' Do we seriously believe that his very last batch of chemical warheads was used in the massacre of Kurds decades ago? Come on people.
-We know for a fact that the single greatest threat to America is regime-backed terrorism, and that Hussein was in the process of building WMD's (he had an extensive infrastructure to do so) and would applaud any terrorist group that used them against america. Put 2 and 2 together.
Bottom line: Those against this war (basically only because they have ideological diffences with Bush) would probably not be for it under any circumstances, which puts them right in the category of "a miserable creature who has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by better men ..."
Freedom isn't free people. And you don't retain something that has a cost simply by trying to make everybody like you. Spin your rhetoric, spout your rationalizations, but just remember in the end, you are free to do so because of better men than yourselves.

That answers NOTHING. It is YOUR muddled view and nothing more. Read the question again.

On the contrary devil I think h@ts is exactly hitting the target. You and the rest of the supporters of this war keep forgetting something.

Bush never found what he said was there. Every argument you make for this war now is voided by this fact. You couldn't even get a grandjury to indict on the evidence Bush gave us, and that's the easiest thing to do in our judicial system. If those WMD are not there and haven't been found, then everything afterward, and preceeding up to this war is not supported by fact. If it's not supported by fact, then it is wrong plain and simple. What is so hard about comprehending that?

[QUOTE]Wolf_eyes said this in post #8 :
[B]

"The situation in Iraq was terrible. It was an affront to mankind. However, when one country or leader is committing atrocious crimes within its own borders, it calls for a revolution, not an invasion by a foriegn nation".


Like Iraqi people were EVER going to do something. Please! A terrorist is effective by instilling fear into the masses. Did anyone even run against him(and live)? He won every election unanimously. That should tell you all you need to know. An "insult to mankind"????? How so?



"Consider the ill effects had france invaded our country during our time of independence, fought off the british, and lay claim to our natural resources".



When did we lay claim to their natural resources?

PS..... because one disagrees with this war doesn't mean we disagree with war period as it keeps getting asserted as such. And devil I know my earlier post describes war as a whole.

The problem is when the war's objectives aren't clear, then one loses faith in his actions as just. It's moral that I think many over there are lacking because it is not clear why we invaded in the first place. Certainly not for the reasons Bush said because it's non-existant

So far,peace,so far. Can we give the Coalition at LEAST as much time to find these weapons as we gave Saddam Hussein to comply? Even you have to say THAT is fair. Actually ,I guess not, since you have already been all over him(Bush) about finding this and that. Now I wonder;How long did YOU give our boys before you determined the outcome? That being , no WMD. 1 week in ?
2 weeks? Maybe you waited a month before declaring this FACT of no weapons. Give it a chance peace, our guys aren't detectives, and even if they were....there're kinda busy. Again ,I want to know; What does this admin. have to do or find to get you on board? Because this war could go anywhere.It has been stated as such. Maybe Iran next,maybe Syria,and yes,even perhaps your #1 objective N.Korea. Either way,we are bound to piss someone off. I don't see how it is possible to pull off what Bush has planned without stepping on toes. Do you?

I don't expect Bush to appease everyone, that's impossible. What I do expect though that if he says he has "clear and convincing evidence" then he shouldn't need 12yrs to provide what he says is in his possession in the first place.

I mean what do you mean he needs as long as Saddam had to comply? Saddam said he complied and the US said he didn't. Inspectors said they couldn't find any WMD, but even if Saddam did have them devil, they weren't any good unless he's made more within the last 1 to 5 yrs, in which he was under extreme watch by many including US spies.

Remember how this administration outted the undercover CIA agents name simply because her husband voice his constitutional right to object to this war in Iraq?

Bottom line is this. Bush didn't say he will invade Iraq because Saddam may have those weapons. Bush said he had undeniable proof. That wasn't me or anyone else. Now tell me how can that proof disappear between the invasion and now? Bush is searching for the very thing he said he had already now that doesn't strike you as lacking merit (to put it in a more diplomatic phrase)?

Peace,don't you realize that this was the most telegraphed punch in history? They(WMD) could be ANYWHERE. The debacle of Turkey alone extended their time by what? 5 weeks? You know, saying that they would help & letting us PLAN for a northern invasion just to change their mind later. Turkey screwed things up for weeks. We even told him when it got down to the final hours.

And ,I am convinced that you are NOT an American. What I mean is;I don't think you live in the States. I think you are pretending to be an American. And live abroad.Am I right? And if you don't mind answering;what is your gender?

Let 'em froth at the mouth with their ineffectual dribble, devildog. America's task-at-hand will proceed as planned, of course. Yes, war is costly—in lives, resources and money! Any 'infant' knows that (even the infant-of-infants, oneofdeath). "There is no painless solution to the devilish costs imposed by the terror masters. But there is a solution: Kill the killers. Quickly. And completely."

By the way have you read "BOOTS ON THE GROUND" by Karl Zinsmeister? (It's $15.00 from Amazon.) I highly recommend! It's a riveting account of Operation Iraqi Freedom from a frontline reporter who spent a month embedded with the 82nd Airborne as it convoys north from Kuwait to Iraq's Tallil Air base en route to night-and-day battles within the major city of Samawah and its bridges across the Euphrates. But ultimately, it's a human story: a moving portrayal of the powerful bonds of affection, trust, fear, and dedication that bind real soldiers involved in battle. It's because of heroes like this All-American Division that we are allowed to take for granted our remarkable land where freedom, beauty, and opportunity are available in wondrous abundance to all people, every single day. Let no one tell you otherwise.

Why do things have to be proven instantly ? Give them time. There is alot of country still to search.

peace,
You may be a U.S. citizen but, I'd hardly call you an American.
To me you sound like a neo-nazi or militia member who is simply against any form of Government.
So who's your best pick for 2004? This should be interesting and will give us a clue which page you're on. That is if you're willing to tell us.

Peace, I did not accuse you of anything. I just wanted to know the demographics. Nothing more nothing less. Chill. I actually enjoy reading (most of)your posts and find you the most Inteligent of the opposing view represented here so far. I'm sure that might get a thread started just on it's own. And yes I do think about both sides and you have good points on the WMD's( I feel it just even w/o them). I do agree that they NEED to be found and the CIA needs to be held accountable if there was faulty evidence. You claim Bush KNEW it was bad Intel but used it to garner support anyway(more or less). I don't happen to agree. He was a major contributor of terrorism. That's the war. Yes ,there are others. They will have their day.
I spent a lot of time in your neck of the woods. Beautiful part of the country. I bet your view is outnumbered there. SSSHHH

Thanks for the insult devildog I'll try to get a brain transplant soon to improve my posts ok?

WB Dev,

Well, I guess you can say then that I'm gun shy. Really, I guess i was naive to believe that I could post this opinion and not get slammed for it

Maryland is a beautiful place, although I moved here because of the opportunities. Much better here than where I lived prior.

Ok now back to Bush

Look, I believe that the CIA did give Bush some faulty info. I don't believe they through in the axis of evil comments and they tying of Saddam to 9/11 mentally that our beloved Prez did. I truly believe Bush wanted to invade Iraq regardless and this is why he embellished to say the least.

Also Bush did not present any evidence that pointed to Saddam's innocence (that's figuratively speaking. I do not think Saddam was innocent). The picture Bush painted was not real and I believe was inspired by his desire to invade Iraq.

Saddam had ample time to work with terrorist, and could have given them many things, but he didn't. So I believe our number one threat should be our top priority which is Osama. North Korea is a bigger threat to us than Saddam ever was right now.

In light of the many lives lost like the children there and our soldiers, I don't think this invasion was worth it. I don't know what Saddam might have done, but we cannot hold him accountable to our expectations. He was brutal no doubt and he needed to go. He does not get one smidgen of sympathy from me But, I do feel for the soldiers and civilians caught in the crossfire.

Saddam never had the ability to hit the US with anything, and speculation of what he might have had has so far proven us wrong.

While watching this whole Iraq issue materialize, I saw an attitude in Bush that refused to be swayed regardless of what he was presented with. If I thought I was right and couldn't convince other nations to the degree Bush hasn't, I would have waited. Saddam wasn't going any where, and he was completely neutralized.

I simply do not believe that Bush has made his case for these actions and I think he continues to pile up one mistake after the next instead of learning from them. But that is just my humble opinion however opinionated I may be

PS. Thanks for the compliment. You have said other things too that make me step back and think, but I believe if Bush doesn't find what he said he had in the first place, as time passes on we will look like more of the villian than the liberators. eace:

oppss..... wrong smiley..

That doesn't mean he is

Well admittance is the first step to the road of recovery Joe. Maybe there is hope for you yet!!!

Such a pathetic individual you are Joe. If it wasn't for the fact that I didn't feel sorry for you, maybe I could get angry, but your just a victim as is many others.

war is ugly .. everyone must be scared of that word.. in my opinon everyone fights for what they want but some people dont deserve what they get.. sadam is captured everyone is happy but i feel sort of bad because he is human also but he deseves this but we should let god pay for his wrongs and mistakes..we all just want peace and to be happy in the usa and god just please give us this


and pllllllllllllease nnnnnnno more warrrrrrrrs they get us no where

Put down the pipe

Oh bull. Why do you all have to romanticise everything? You hate war, you have a duty to stop it. How about: it's not about you?? Maybe there are people who are, well, maybe not smarter than you , but certainly better trained to deal with situations like war. Sometimes war is necesarry. And the reason I think you tried to prevent it is just because of your personal dream to be a bloody peace maker. A hippie or something. Doesn't have a thing to do with common good. Not really, doesn't it?
~Now get me slaughtered-saying truth sometimes causes that.~

Peace,
I guess I got my one of my descriptions of you wrong. Oh well.
You still didn't answer my question. Who's your best candidate for 2004?
Come on, enquiring minds want to know.

"Nothing is ever done in this world until men are prepared to kill each other if it is not done."
—George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) [/B][/QUOTE]


Given GBS's politics he was almost certainly meaning Stalin when he said that.

Runners? Well, Bush is the Republican incumbent (whom I'm voting for) and then there's Dean, the likely Democrat, with Edwards, Kerry, Kucinich, Gephardt, Lieberman, Sharpton, Mosely-Braun (snicker) and Graham as the rest of the current Democratic players.

Well once the primaries are over we'll see who the runners are. No sense until then on supporting a candidate.

As for Bush, if you believe this nation is better than it was before he came into the White House, then by all means vote for him. Personally the only ones that made out is the rich and corporations. This is exactly why Bush is trying to force a bill through congress killing overtime for millions.

I'm sorry, if Bush think this is the best thing for Americans, then surely he is well out of touch. His reasons for war are more of the same. He need to focus on Osama whom is still reeking havoc all over the world to this day.

peace,
So you voted for Bush last time?
Put it this way, I voted for Gore last time and am glad he didn't get the job in retrospect. Saddam would still be in power today as I'm sure Gore would not have made the decision to invade Iraq on his own.
I have never been dedicated to any party line and listen to them individually. Those who stoop to mud slinging don't get my vote.
Unless they can reserect JFK, I'll most likely vote for Bush. We need a pro-active decision maker, not some wishy washy liberal being led around by lobbyists.

I voted for Gore too. I also believe the election was hijacked, but when Bush was sworn in, I never thought Bush to be a bright fellow but I supported him. After 9/11 and our subsequent invasion of Afghanistan and the Taliban, I thought he did a superb job.

When he first started in on Saddam, I was definitely in his corner. But as time progressed I saw some things in him I didn't like. He was too ridged and appeared to be convinced that he would raid Iraq no matter what. Then I looked at world opinion and I saw that we had a problem convincing them. Then when I saw Bush berate the countries in public that didn't support his position, I knew something was not right here.

When Bush said he had undeniable proof and we invaded, I was waiting to see what happened. I was glad we routed Saddam then when the first report of barrels found with possible chemicals in it I was relieved, so I thought.

This is when my opinion changed. After seeing Bush so adamant about it then not finding what we said we had undeniable proof of led me to believe that the others were right and we are wrong. Then comes all the searching after the fact.

I did a little research and I saw that Bush was not unbiased or honest about his assessment of Iraq. Knowing the history of our great nation I began to look at the events and not the words of Bush. Bush simply lacks credibility in my opinion. We know Saddam couldn't have made any of that stuff within the last 10 yrs because he didn't have the capacity to. We focus on the chemicals he had prior to the Gulf war. Bush also knew that Saddam had very poor production factories and that his product was so low grade, it wouldn't have lasted a few weeks let alone 15 yrs.

Other things Bush simply didn't share and then N. Korea, outwardly defiant. I found that N.K. was on the US terrorist list long before Saddam. They even admit what Saddam didn't, that they had nuclear weapons. They kicked out inspectors like Saddam did, inspectors that were there since 1994. Kim Jung has a hideous human rights record rivaled by Saddam's, and Bush shows absolutely no urgency there what so ever.

To tell you the truth, when Bush out of the blue started trying to tie Saddam to 9/11 I began then to be skeptical for him because he seemed to be reaching for anything then. Unfortunately as time has proved, Bush never had any convincing proof and was totally blinded by his desire to ouster Saddam. My concern was and still is about the soldiers that are dying behind the reasons Bush gave America. I think they deserve better than this.

Some here in America seem to believe we're the "World Liberators". And they say Gore or Clinton wouldn't have gone to war. Well under the conditions we went, they shouldn't have and neither should Bush. Does this mean they would never go with actual proof?

I remember Serbia and Milosevic. The UN gave him warning and didn't really want to move there either, but Clinton led NATO and the UN in removing Milosevic. What he was doing was no worse than Saddam. We went in, disposed him, and left. No embassies set up, no bases, no hidden agendas that I could see. I welcome someone to point to a reason why we did this. It seemed Clinton's motives were genuine in removing Milosevic and we had nothing to gain in return for it.

The wars in the Middle East are different. After we finished there, we set up bases in the 3 richest resourced countries on the earth. We led the efforts in Iraq including every resolution against him since 1990. We ignore the suffering of other nations under brutal dictators only to talk of Syria and Iran.

There's more, but when I weigh the actions against Bush's words, I'm sorry but it simply does not add up. Instead of us seeing this we want to blame Clinton and Gore for Saddam and Osama? Either we have completely no idea how they both came to be the powers they are, we're in denial, or we simply don't care to know the truth.

Enough for now.

April 28, 2003, 8:45 a.m.
The Clinton Intel Record
Deeper failures revealed.

By Mansoor Ijaz



The unearthing of documents directly linking Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization to Saddam Hussein this weekend may have hermetically sealed the Bush administration's case that dismantling Iraq's Baathist enterprise was in part necessary to undo terrorism's dynamic duo. But closing that case may reopen a Pandora's box for ex-Clinton administration officials who still believe their policy prescriptions protected U.S. national interests against the growing threat of terrorism during the past decade.

The London Telegraph's weekend revelations raise deeply disturbing questions about the extent and magnitude to which President Clinton, his national-security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, and senior terrorism and State Department officials — including Assistant Secretary of State for East Africa, Susan Rice — politicized intelligence data, relied on and even circulated fabricated evidence in making critical national-security decisions, and presided over a string of intelligence failures during the months leading up to the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

Analysis of documents found in the rubble of Iraq's intelligence headquarters show that contrary to conventional wisdom, Iraqi military and intelligence officials sought out al Qaeda leaders, not the other way around, and ultimately met with bin Laden on at least two occasions. They also show that channels of communication between al Qaeda and Iraq were created much earlier and were wider ranging in scope than previously thought.

The timing of the meetings sheds important new light on how grave the Clinton administration's intelligence failures may have been.

On February 19, 1998, about six months prior to the attacks in Dar Es Salaam and Nairobi, Iraqi intelligence officials set in motion a plan to bring a senior and trusted bin Laden aide to Baghdad from Khartoum. One of the key Mukhabarat intelligence documents shows that a recommendation was made for "…the deputy director general to bring the [bin Laden] envoy to Iraq because we may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden." The meetings took place in March 1998.

The initial program to have the terror talks last for one week was extended to two because of the success in whatever nefarious plans were being hatched. The meetings also laid the groundwork for Iraq's former intelligence chief, Farouk Hijazi, arrested last Friday in Iraq, to meet with bin Laden in December 1998 in Afghanistan. Press reports also chronicled an earlier meeting between Hijazi and bin Laden in Sudan in 1994.

Baghdad, however, was not the only game in town. While Saddam was busy trying to find a formula for embracing and employing al Qaeda's budding global terror network to attack U.S. interests, Sudan was busy trying to alert Western intelligence officials — including those at the National Security Council, the State Department's Terrorism Bureau, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency — of the dangers still lurking in Khartoum's sandblasted neighborhoods after bin Laden's May 1996 expulsion.

A brief chronology demonstrates how compelling the Sudan's offer to turn over terrorism data might have been in thwarting attacks on U.S. citizens and assets overseas, and how mendacious a narrow clique of Clinton officials were in not taking advantage of those efforts.

OCTOBER 27, 1996. In a confidential memorandum I wrote to Sandy Berger to follow up on the August 1996 meeting he and Susan Rice (then a National Security Council official) had called me to the White House for to discuss U.S.-Sudan relations, I recounted events of my first meeting with the new Sudanese intelligence chief, Lt. Gen. Gutbi al-Mahdi, just days earlier — a meeting whose consequence even I did not fully grasp at the time:

…the purpose of my meeting [with al-Mahdi] was to see if we could glean any insights into the data Sudan has on those who have been attending the Popular Arab & Islamic Conference meetings convened by [Sudan's theological leader Hassan] Turabi. As you recall, during our August meeting, I told you I thought this data could be invaluable in genuinely assessing terrorism risk from Sudan and neighboring countries… His [al-Mahdi's] central contention is that Sudan is prepared to share data on those people attending the conferences and belonging to banned groups, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Jamaah Islamiyah, and others, if we are prepared to genuinely engage and incent the Sudan away from its present course. He complained bitterly about repeated efforts to communicate with the administration, which are as I understand it, being blocked at very low levels because of what he called "blind spots."He showed me some files in which the data seemed pretty compelling — names, bio data like dates and places of birth, passport copies to show nationality, recent travel itineraries in some cases and a brief description of each individual to delineate which groups they claim loyalties to. In short, it seemed to me everything we discussed in August was available. Strongly suggest we test the Sudanese on the data, perhaps even try to get at the data on an unconditional basis…

Berger's secretary, Kris, confirmed he had received and read the memo. Berger's reply: We'll evaluate this after the election. Election day came and went. No action was taken.

APRIL 5, 1997. Sudan's president, Omar Hassan El Bashir, delivered to me a final, unconditional political offer, addressed to Rep. Lee Hamilton, to invite FBI and CIA officials to go to Khartoum and evaluate Sudanese intelligence data on terrorists that had lived in or passed through Sudan. The offer went without a reply even as Hamilton repeatedly queried Berger, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and others about what was wrong with the offer and why it was not being evaluated more seriously. Correspondence in my files fully documents these events.

SEPTEMBER 28, 1997. Sudan's April policy shift to make cooperation on terrorism issues unconditional sparked a heated debate at the State Department, where foreign-service officers believed the U.S. should take a new approach to Khartoum, and lobbied the incoming Secretary of State — still untainted by her politicized and yet-to-be-confirmed staff — to have a fresh look. On September 28, after four months of deliberate and exhaustive interagency reviews, Sec. Albright announced that up to eight U.S. diplomats would return to Sudan to pressure its Islamic government to stop harboring Arab terrorists, and furthermore, to gather intelligence on terrorist groups operating out of Sudan — including Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

OCTOBER 1, 1997. As the reengagement policy was taking shape, Rice, the incoming Assistant Secretary for East Africa, informally confronted the same foreign-service officers who had recommended returning diplomats to Sudan to Albright and vowed that the new policy directive would not stand. On October 1, State Department spokesman Jamie Rubin sheepishly announced an abrupt reversal of the September 28 Albright decision. Rice was confirmed by the Senate on October 9, 1997. To this day, neither Berger nor Albright nor Rice have explained to the American people why a deliberative decision of the U.S. government, made through interagency review, was overturned in such a cavalier fashion by a narrow clique of Clinton advisers when Sudan's April offer to cooperate on terrorism issues had been made unconditionally.

SEPTEMBER 12, 1997 and DECEMBER 5, 1997. On the very day Rice was delivering testimony for her Senate confirmation, Sudan's ambassador to the U.S., Mahdi Ibrahim, met with David Williams, special agent in charge of the FBI's Middle East and North Africa Department. Faced with the growing prospect that political reconciliation was impossible with forces at the National Security Council and State Department lined up adamantly against Sudan, Ibrahim decided to take matters directly to the intelligence community and discuss how the FBI could take advantage of Sudan's offer to cooperate independently of the administration. A second, and critically important, meeting took place on December 5.

FEBRUARY 5, 1998. On the basis of those two FBI meetings in Washington, Sudan's intelligence chief, al-Mahdi, made a final, almost desperate attempt to reach out to U.S. intelligence officials in order to turn over data on the people and evidence of their planning against U.S. targets in the region. He wrote officially to Williams "…with reference to your meeting with Ambassador Mahdi Ibrahim on Sept. 12 and Dec. 5 1997, I would like to express my sincere desire to start contacts and cooperation between our service and the FBI…" The letter was sent at the very moment that Iraq was reaching out to al Qaeda leaders resident in Khartoum. Did al-Mahdi know something serious was amiss in the radical Islamist community he was closely monitoring? Apparently so. He would later recount to Vanity Fair correspondent David Rose in a January 2002 expose that had the FBI come to Khartoum in February 1998 to analyze the data on terrorists Khartoum was actively monitoring, the U.S. embassy bombings would probably not have occurred.

FEBRUARY 19, 1998. Iraqi intelligence plans the trip of a senior al Qaeda operative and trusted bin Laden aide to visit Baghdad.

MARCH 1998. The al Qaeda operative visits Baghdad for two weeks. The visit sets the stage for Farouk Hijazi to travel to bin Laden's Afghanistan hideouts in December 1998.

JUNE 24, 1998. Theoretically, the February Sudanese offer to the FBI should have been evaluated on merits that did not take the Clinton administration's political viewpoint on Sudan into consideration, particularly since it differed from President Bashir's April offer at a political level, in that it was made at an intelligence-to-intelligence level. After all, the U.S. executive branch is not supposed to interfere with the FBI's job. Or so we thought. On June 24, Williams finally replied to al-Mahdi "… I am not currently in a position to accept your kind invitation. I am hopeful that future circumstances might allow me to visit with you…." Future circumstances was code, as I found out later from career officials at State involved in the discussions at the time, for a point at which the politicizing that had come to characterize Clinton administration terrorism policies would end. Blockages created by State's East Africa department under Rice, and by Berger at the National Security Council, remained as both vehemently argued against allowing FBI delegations to visit Khartoum under any circumstances.

U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed six weeks later. Cruise-missile attacks against Sudan and Afghanistan, based on faulty and inaccurate intelligence, followed and ignited the fires burning inside radical Islam's criminal core. As we now know, planning for the September 11 attacks on America began soon thereafter.

I believe that as we continue to unravel the spaghetti strings that bound al Qaeda and Saddam's regime together in the coming months, we are going to learn that Iraq provided expertise, financial, logistical and intelligence support to al Qaeda terrorists in an unprecedented manner. The terrorists, emboldened by their state sponsorship, were able to then carry out their suicide missions almost with impunity.

The silence of Clinton officials charged with the responsibility of securing U.S. interests around the world, when faced with this compelling timeline of facts, is still deafening. The American people deserve candid answers for the difficult questions posed by their actions in addressing the growing threat of terrorism, and failing repeatedly to respond to meaningful offers of assistance from the very nations who because of their sponsorship of terrorism, best understood those who rose up to attack us.

— Mansoor Ijaz, chairman of Crescent Investment Management in New York and an NRO contributor, negotiated as a private citizen the Sudan's offer to share intelligence data on al Qaeda, bin Laden, and other terrorist groups with the Clinton administration in April 1997.

Devil why do you sound like a magzine article? Copying and pasting political rhetoric aimed at blaming Clinton for 9/11 is simply garbage. I can find a dozen articles that will blame Bush and his intel on Osama prior to 9/11 stating that he was well informed before the attacks happened and has done little to nothing about it. I even see articles that says Bush planned the event to gain support for the being in the Middle East Region. In my opinion this article is just as ridiculous as that one.

One could say why didn't Bush Sr. take Saddam out in 1991? And why did he do nothing when Saddam wiped out the Kurds shortly after the war when the US encouraged them to fight Saddam then sat back and watch Saddam slaughter them?

Look, stay away from the political rhetoric will ya? The facts of this war is simply this. Saddam was not a threat. He was severly degraded as we saw with his military wiped out. Bush said Saddam had WMD and there are none to be found after 8 months of searching. Even if Saddam had those chemicals, they were ineffective sludge at best. Osama is our number one priority not Saddam. There is no evidence that Saddam gave any terrorist anything.

These are facts. Your articles of political rhetoric is not fact what so ever. I'm just interested in what they come up with now they have Saddam. Will they find out where these WMD are if they're there at all?

But there should not even be a question of where are the WMD because Bush stated he had undeniable proof Saddam had them. Now we want to search for anything inside of Iraq after we bombed the country. The hunt is constant. Sooner or later they will find something but whether it's credible will remain to be seen. At any case, whatever they find it assuredly wasn't what Bush was speaking of when justifying this war.

This is undeniable.

Curley Joe said:

Ummm... Those of *Peace*? And there's so much more of them outside this forum.

Chuck let me clarify. What I mean by runners are the one's after the primaries are over, when it's narrowed down to 2 people. It's still early.

Now if you're under the impression that Bush is simply going to win because he found Saddam, then maybe you're a little more detached than I though. By next election this will be old news. What will be new and fresh is the body count in Iraq and STILL no WMD!!!!!

Good choice. The only one worthy of respect in my opinion is Lieberman,also. However,he will NEVER be chosen by the Dems. After all he is looking out for this country's best interest also. And this will not do in that party nowadays. What a joke. And to claim "no matter what I will not vote for Bush" is saying;regardless of who those mindless myrmadons put in the booth,I will vote for them. And it will probably be Dean. Isn't his entire platflorm being run on raising your taxes?? Thought so. Yea. Sign me up for that program. He also wants to put his sticky fingers in your pockets to pay for the bum class and failing social programs. And won't you feel safe with him at the helm? Being so knowledgable about the military and all. Bush will win in a landslide even if you made an all star team(if possible) out of that party of morons to run against him.

@ Dev

Man you should be on stage or the comedy channel.

Bush will win in a landslide? Yeah just like the first Bush right? I heard the same rhetoric then.

And you talk about "mindless myrmadons" tell me this. What was world and domestic opinion of Bush prior to 9/11? Didn't Canada call him a moron? They had to retract the statement and force her to resign.

This was the impression of many and after 9/11 he solidified this in many minds of the world populus. Only in America did he get points for bombing Iraq.

Look, I simply don't know what the use will be for swopping one idiot for the next. Like I said, I will wait for the primary. Although I don't always agree with raising taxes, they should have never been cut in the first place. Bush gave you $500 dollars and now you're screaming his praises?

America is so gullible. You're minds don't even tell you that Bush has lied. Instead you all are looking to excuse him and readily except anything after the fact.

I am neve ceased to be amazed

definitely (good lord..what was that?)

Ok Dev, I'm home now. I was at work earlier. Ok let me start from the bottom up.

First it was the US goal to establish an embassy in Iraq. That was a very unfriendly government and now we have an embassy there. You pawn it off as because we liberated a country. Well did we liberate Iran? How about Saudi Arabia? What about Japan and Cuba? Do you know how many embassies we have all over the world? It has nothing to do with liberating anyone.

Now do I see nothing but failure? Sometimes I don't think you see a thing I type or you simply believe that to oppose this war mean I will never see anything good because I hate Bush or some other ridiculous reason bestowed up me, not neccessarily by you though. No one can deny that there can be good in almost every situation. Even the Arab world adamently opposed to this war see the good in getting Saddam out of there. But what's puzzling is this. War supporters believe that now this war is justified somehow because we caught Saddam. How do we invade a country with weak to no evidence then say "yes we got him, this is our justification". If we didn't get Saddam would we have not been justified?

I say no because that wasn't the reason given for our invasion. WMD is the foundation of our invasion. We have accused Saddam in every thing he had and did as proof he had WMD. He couldn't even flush the toilet without Bush saying he was trying to get rid of evidence. But Dev, how do we justify this war on what we find after we bombed Iraq? Isn't this after the fact? This is just?

As for your uranium assertion, Saddam's head of his nuclear program Dr. Khidir Hamza said that even if Saddam had uranium, he lacked the ability to enrich it to weapons grade. And Osama couldn't do anything with it at all because he lacked any technology period.

And what did Osama do, apply for a passport? How is there documentation that he is in Iran? I can't tell you how many times I heard Saddam and his WMD are in Syria. But at least you're talking about Osama which is more than Bush has done in the last year.

Do you even wonder why Saddam's name was never mentioned in connection with Al Qaeda or Osama until Bush started in on invading Iraq? We have a list of states sponsoring terror. Yes Iraq was on that list, but by our own accounting Al Qaeda and Osama was not even mentioned on it. Now Comes November 2002, and all of a sudden Saddam is knee deep in guilt concerning 9/11 and has all sorts of ties. Do you know every one of those hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? Yet they never made the State Sponsored Terrorist list.

Look you would have to be blind not to see that Bush didn't have any proof of Saddam having WMD. This is exactly why the capture of Saddam is being played so heavily in the "liberal media" that never report anything good on with this war. Trying to justify an invasion after you invade is not just. It's taking almost a year after the invasion for people who are constantly searching for nothing else, to find some connection with Osama and Saddam. Now if Bush had found all those chemicals he said were there, do you think he'd be trying to justify this war with Al Qaeda?

I was simply stating that it is typical for us to establish an embassy after this type of event. I know we have embassies all over the world but we absolutely have them in countries that we have "saved" so to speak.WMD's were not the foundation as you say for this war. Only to you.It is just the only one that hasn't been solved yet. So you hang on. That will evaporate in the coming weeks.The reasons were laid out plainly at the general assemble meeting that someone posted right here. WMD's were among several reason for this war. It wasn't only just,or fair...it was long overdue. And by you saying otherwise,you are saying you want Saddam back. Sorry. That is the ONLY way I see it. I'm glad you got your broken leg fixed but I am mad that you went to the doctor. That's the analogy.

Devil, I don't know whom you were listening to when the US declared we will invade Iraq, but Bush said he had tons of WMD and would supply them to terrorist. Why do you think the world is asking where are the WMD? Just one part? It was the main crutch for this war. Don't fool yourself listening to the desperate trying to explain why evidence Bush said he has isn't there.

I don't need to hang on. It is painfully obvious that we decided to invade first, then look for the evidence later because Bush was sure we'd find it once we did. But Bush gambled too. He thought once we overtake Saddam we will find what he asserted as proof, knowing he didn't have it. Well, the problem is simply that there aren't any. Now we're searching inside the country for something to condone our actions. This is the end justifying the means, nothing more.

On Sept 20 following 9/11, Bush stated that the one's who knocked down those buildings will soon hear from us. He put all terror states on notice. There are 7 States on our list for sponsoring terrorism. the list details exactly who they are accused of supporting.

http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/ja1/wwwhse1398.html

This list shows our info on each state we said sponsored terror. Notice how Iraq's doesn't even mention Al Qaeda. When we bombed the Taliban we never once focused on Iraq until a year later. Then all of a sudden Saddam was harboring Al Qaeda. This was so transparent I simply do not know how you cannot see it.

Your analogy is not appliable here. We are not doctors by any means and we are not bringing healing as we're bringing destruction. Sure in the long term things will stable out, but 8 months later G.I.'s are still dying over there almost daily.