Clinton Back's Bush's War in Iraq

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
no proof fez. and if it did have something to do with removal of dictator, lets invade ZIMBABWE, where last I checked, people were starving and oppressed. and also lets invade North Korea, and the Sudan. You want us to invade those countries fez? cuz if you dont, then your logic, as usual, dont mean ****.

No problem there. Go invade Zimbabwe. Please go on. We got better things to do then get involved in some part of the world that can't be democratized because natural resources don't exist. The DRC does have natural resources.. but the Europeans left it one big country extending across tribes who don't get along with each other (on paper a country but not really). And North Korea.. nuke that Kim Jong Il.. or I would till his regime collapses. It won't be too long. And Sudan.. well the Sudanese recently signed a peace treaty with the rebels in the South. Your logic is as usual arrogant and stupid, and you are drunk as usual (or is it high now?). Stop supporting little Hitlers like hussein and start supporting the US.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo



My understanding is that it was just some dude in the embassy, not an "Iraqi intelligence agent." In pretty much every source I've read it's "embassy contact," not an intelligence agent. Can you substantiate this what a more reliable source?

"Shakir got his airport job through a contact at the Iraqi Embassy. (Iraq routinely used its embassies as staging grounds for its intelligence operations; in some cases, more than half of the alleged "diplomats" were intelligence operatives.) The Iraqi embassy, not his employer, controlled Shakir's schedule"

Steve Hayes, The Weekly Standard.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Giancarlo

Stop supporting little Hitlers like hussein and start supporting the US.

Don't support the little hitlers... support the big hitlers!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I will say it for the last time- I do not care. After almost 3 years no one has shown anything more than possible coincidences here and there-and that includes an entire year of control of Iraq.

theyve shown years of regular contacts between Iraq and al qaeeda.

Proof. Maybe not. But enough to debunk the idea that Americans are idiots for thinking there was a connection.

[GePap]

So the guy can speculate given the realities in OTHER, thought he can;t even state that one in particular location. Hmm more than Half...so that's a 60-40 chance he might be correct, though only if that were true for that specific embassy. And even then, making the assumption this would be done solely as part of the person's intelleiegnce work and not other reasons..

Wow, a case built upon so many "maybe's". solid

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
So the guy can speculate given the realities in OTHER, thought he can;t even state that one in particular location. Hmm more than Half...so that's a 60-40 chance he might be correct, though only if that were true for that specific embassy. And even then, making the assumption this would be done solely as part of the person's intelleiegnce work and not other reasons..

Wow, a case built upon so many "maybe's". solid

er plus the fact that when he was being held in Jordan, Iraq specifically asked for him back. Was that his visa issuing cousin again?

[Sava]

WSJ is a right wing rag.

[GePap]

And?

That whole case on based on an immense amount of asusmptions.

So Iraq wanted this guy right back- maybe they wanted to interrogate him themselves once they learned what he was up to? Who knows, but right now I can give as much "proof" of that as you can. Meaning it add 0 to the debate.

Hence it is irrelevant, just as quoting the distance of mercury to the sun is irrelevant, as it add nothing to the debate.

[Ramo]

"Shakir got his airport job through a contact at the Iraqi Embassy. (Iraq routinely used its embassies as staging grounds for its intelligence operations; in some cases, more than half of the alleged "diplomats" were intelligence operatives.) The Iraqi embassy, not his employer, controlled Shakir's schedule"

Yet another strike against the WSJ article, which made the apparantly half-assed assumption that the connection's an intelligence agent. And more than half being intel people in some cases, doesn't say a single thing about the likelyhood of this connection being with intel. Extremely ****ty journalism.

As for why the Iraqis wanted him back, that's common practice when a state has a citizen of another state detained. And given that he's connected with the embassy in some fashion, I don't see how it's unreasonable to expect them to be unusally insistent on this point.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
And?

That whole case on based on an immense amount of asusmptions.

So Iraq wanted this guy right back- maybe they wanted to interrogate him themselves once they learned what he was up to? Who knows, but right now I can give as much "proof" of that as you can. Meaning it add 0 to the debate.

Hence it is irrelevant, just as quoting the distance of mercury to the sun is irrelevant, as it add nothing to the debate.

anything that doesnt provide proof adds nothing to the debate?

May I ask for your "proof" of Bush motives?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

No problem there. Go invade Zimbabwe. Please go on. We got better things to do then get involved in some part of the world that can't be democratized because natural resources don't exist. The DRC does have natural resources.. but the Europeans left it one big country extending across tribes who don't get along with each other (on paper a country but not really). And North Korea.. nuke that Kim Jong Il.. or I would till his regime collapses. It won't be too long. And Sudan.. well the Sudanese recently signed a peace treaty with the rebels in the South. Your logic is as usual arrogant and stupid. Stop supporting little Hitlers like hussein and start supporting the US.

and what makes a country democratized? resources? Taiwan doesnt have natural resources, but its a democracy. wrong again.

and how many times have peace treaties been broken in Africa? they arnt worth the paper they are printed on.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


and what makes a country democratized? resources? Taiwan doesnt have natural resources, but its a democracy. wrong again.

and how many times have peace treaties been broken in Africa? they arnt worth the paper they are printed on.

Well perhaps an educated populace aswell.

Africa is a basket case. Iraq doesn't have to be one.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Sava
WSJ is a right wing rag.

hmmmm.... Sava doesn't like it, I must be right.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


anything that doesnt provide proof adds nothing to the debate?

May I ask for your "proof" of Bush motives?

Well, lets see.. I look at the men Bush put in position of power, specifically Cheney, Wolfie, Rummy, and so forth, and their histories. Then you look what they wrote and said. And you find that these men wanted to invade iraq since 1998, or 92 in Wolfie's case. Then you take the president's quotes about how he takes info in, that he does not get his info from the press, but from his circle of trusted advisors. Then you take the small anecdotes form the likes of Clark and O'Neil and what I see is an admin. full of people pushing for an invasion of Iraq being the ones who have the ear of the president and then I get some first hand quips.

That is a sight better info and a far more solid base than what that WS article gives about its claims, or at least i think so.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


And you find that these men wanted to invade iraq since 1998, or 92 in Wolfie's case.

as an experiment in American power. I'll go check the PNAC piece again myself, but Im quite sure it rehearsed the arguments about the threat from Saddam to the US and the region.

Im also dont see how Bush getting info from his circle speaks to HIS motives.