No. 2 Leader of al-Qaida in Iraq Killed

[Odin]

Dreake, quit being a dumb-ass tool.

SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Now, how much of this is true is not known, especially given the well-known failure of our intelligence agencies, but you have to remember that this was the conventional wisdom at the time, so much so that Colin Powell was willing to make these claims about Zarqawi in front of the UN Security Council. The administration believed that Zarqawi, a terrorist with known ties to Al Qaeda, had received medical treatment in Baghdad and had set up his terrorist organization there. He was also working with Ansar al-Islam in Kurdistan, possibly on ricin-based chemical weapons (his speciality). Now, are you saying that the adminstration shouldn't have been the least bit concerned about a connection between Zarqawi, Al Qaeda, Saddam's regime and Ansar al-Islam, given what they believed to be the state of affairs at the time?.

There is a monumental difference between being"concerned" and something being a worthwhile justification for the sort of war being waged. Hell, if salafist terrorism was the main problem, we could have bought SADDAM to do our dirty work. Heck, we know just how good he was at getting rid of internal enemies. I doubt Zarquawi would have been able to be anywhere near Iraq if the Saddam regime wanted his ass-why most of these guys high tail it when one of these Arab regimes wants them internally.

As for the "ricin chem weapons"- so ****ing what? We went throught this before the invasion- the threat form such weapons is no greater than form HE, and terrorist have gotten their hands on a lot of that thanks to the monumental failures to secure Iraq's huge weapon stockpiles.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Sikander


Bush declared war on Iraq as promised, despite having other significant military entanglements in Afghanistan etc. That's his fault. But the intelligence community got it wrong all on their own, in agency after agency in country after country. That's their fault. Whether Bush was willing to hear the truth or not is beside the point, as it was not presented to him as such by his intel chiefs. Colin Powell who spent a fair part of his life hearing highly classified intelligence briefings as a Commanding General, NSC staffer, National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during wartime (on the same country) and finally as Secretary of State believed that Iraq had wmd. It was the conventional wisdom throughout the community. Why do you expect a relative newbie like Bush to see what experts missed?

And btw, what the hell do you mean by "fixed"? Why use language that is stupidly imprecise and has been recently proven to be so?

First of all your "conventional wisdom," is a load of BS. The two head weapons inspectors on the ground, who were the most knowledgable about what Iraq had or didn't have, said repeatedly they had no weapons.

The only feeling of "conventional wisdom" comes from the PR game that was set in motion by the administration to make everyone think there was something there.

There is a video out there somewhere put together by the intelligence community that basically rips Powell's presentation to shreds.

Secondly Bush is going to miss the truth --DUH-- because he wanted the war no matter what and was looking any excuse to get it going.

Regarding Powell, he made the presentation to the UN because he knew the war was inevitable and the case at the UN was only a formality. The ONLY reason Powell got to go before the UN is because he repeatedly appealed to the Administration to put the case before the UN, and they only grudgingly did so because he personally intervened.

How much in his heart he actually believed what he was presenting, is doubtful.

He wanted to give the guys on the ground, who were going to give their lives, the best chance to succeed, and that meant getting international support and credibility for the mission. That meant putting his own reputation in front of the whole world and asking for support, even with the details sketchy.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's amazing that people will vociferously accuse Bush of lying to the world, but will give Powell a pass on presenting those "lies" in person to the UN Security Council. It's almost as if some sort of irrational bias is at work...

[KrazyHorse]

Giving Powell a pass is just plain dumb.

I watched him lie to the UN. I watched him lie, knowing he was lying, and I watched him wear his guilt on his face. I lost all respect I'd ever had for him that afternoon.

Bush, on the other hand is a ****ing moron who has an amazing capacity to believe whatever's most convenient.

[Drake Tungsten]

Who gives Powell a pass?

Regarding Powell, he made the presentation to the UN because he knew the war was inevitable and the case at the UN was only a formality. The ONLY reason Powell got to go before the UN is because he repeatedly appealed to the Administration to put the case before the UN, and they only grudgingly did so because he personally intervened.

How much in his heart he actually believed what he was presenting, is doubtful.

He wanted to give the guys on the ground, who were going to give their lives, the best chance to succeed, and that meant getting international support and credibility for the mission. That meant putting his own reputation in front of the whole world and asking for support, even with the details sketchy.

Thought it was pretty clear...

[KrazyHorse]

I DanSed you. Missed that part of the page before I read your response.

The rest still stands.

[Drake Tungsten]

You've always made sense in your opposition to the war, unlike most of the people here.

[KrazyHorse]

I find it hard to get mad at Bush.

Very easy to feel sorry for the US for having him as their Presdent though.

[Drake Tungsten]

Very easy to feel sorry for the US for having him as their Presdent though.

I know I felt sorry for my country when I saw the choice we had in the last election. Having two completely worthless parties sucks...

[KrazyHorse]

That was truer than most times in 2004.

John Kerry's indecisiveness was not necessarily a fatal flaw, but it would not have served him well in extricating himself from the hornet's nest that Dubya over-decisiveness caused.

There really is a happy medium between paralysis by uncertainty and steadfast refusal to admit the possibility that you might be wrong. Unfortunately the American public was presented with those two extremes last time.

Kerry would have been a good peace-time President.

The real choice was made in 2000. As much as I dislike Gore as a person, his caution would have prevented the Iraq mess, while his being forced to action by Sept. 11 would have gotten about as much done against Al Qaeda and the Taliban (who needed to go on their own merits anyway).

Plus I think a Democratic President would have trampled less heavily on civil rights in the US and human rights abroad.

Then again, people probably didn't realise that they were electing the pet monkey into a situation which would call for rational strategic thought and the weighing of opportunity costs involved in opening various theatres in a diffuse war on terror.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm reluctant to judge Bush/Gore through the lens of hindsight, as we really don't know how Gore would've responded to the problems Bush had to face. At the time, I was pretty disappointed in both of them. 2004 was indeed a lot worse though...

[Ted Striker]

I'm not giving Powell a pass for what he did.

I lost all respect for him after what he did.

BUT NICE STRAWMAN

THe point was that Sikander was trying to use Powell going before the UN as proof of the claim that "everybody" thought that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

I showed that his motives were not because he considered the information "legit," but because he had other motives.

So, my post was all about his motives for doing what he did, and why those motives meant he didn't find the information legitamite, not because I agreed with them.

Nobody is getting a "free pass," here.

Nice try though Drake but thanks for demonstrating proper spin and lying technique for us.

[mitch]

Apparently Zarqawi has an unlimited number of top lieutenants:

http://blogenlust.typepad.com/blogenlust/2005/09/kiss_of_death.html

[Ted Striker]

Yep, it's funny, all these "Top Lieutenants," always dying, doesn't seem to make a bit of difference.