Ted Re....Look, you may well be right......Saddam gave money to bomber families in order to encourage others to suicide.
Finally. Was it that difficult to admit the obvious.
But so what.......the bigger issue is why did it work assuming that it did work?
Once again, this discussion centered upon your statement that Saddam didn't support terrorism. The very public payouts Saddam made, prove otherwise. So, quit trying to say Saddam didn't support terrorism, and say Saddam didn't support Al Qaeda. Then you could have a case. As to why it worked, consider that earnings of $25,000 in Palestine, is equivalent to a quarter of million dollars here, and if you offered a quarter of a million dollars here, I have no doubt, a lot of people would take you up on the offer.
Its not another problem.....its the heart of the problem
That is not what we were discussing. We were just discussing whether Saddam supported terrorism, period. Secondly, Saddam can't make that offer anymore, so that offer isn't a problem anymore.
A losing gambit? Just like the Taliban's tactics were a losing proposition against Russia; like the Viet Cong attacks were a losing gambit against the US? Its these "losing gambits" that tend to bring goliaths to their knees.
The Taliban probably never wuld have ousted the Russians, if Carter hadn't ordered the CIA to help them with tactics and supplied weapons, especially Stinger missiles. There isn't a CIA like operation in existence, which could offer that much help today. Secondly, most of the warlords, banded together, not just the Taliban, to defeat Russia' Today, most of those same warlords, joined the Karzai lead effort, and passed a new constitution, in a loya jirga. As for Vietnam, that was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. More importantly, not only were the battle field conditions worse, and the battlefield tactics terrible, there also was a strong Russia, and China, providing weapons, just as the CIA did in Afghanistan. Russia right now has its own Muslim inspired terrorism to contend with, and has an interest in getting rid of terrorism; and China is very busy trying to dominate the US economically, and wouldn't take the risk of losing that business. So the conditions right now don't favor either the Russian experince in Afghanistan, or the American experience in Vietnam, from happening again.
Excuse me, Russia left Afghanistan with its tail between its legs and the war in Iraq isn't over yet. And FYI, its not going well for the US!
Of course you want to tell everyone, Iraq isn't going well right now. Undermining administration efforts has been your main priority forever. But considering the predictions of Garafolous, Clooney, and your other Hollywood pals, the finishing of the 12 yr Iraq war is going just fine. The Shia, and Kurdish elements, which constitute 80% of Iraq's population, want to see a duly elected democratic gov. Probably, even 80% of Iraq's Sunni population also want to see a democratic gov. It is just that 20% of the Sunni population, and the foreign fighters, who seem to be resisting at this point. Which isn't that bad, considering, it is right now, still less than a yr. since the war began.
They don't know that.......when they think about it, they just want it.
LOL What kind of Yogi-ism is that.
I have always said we should go after al Qaeda. However, I was not stupid enough to suggest starting a war and then drawing them in.
Which is why you never will be accused of being a military strategy thinker. It is common military tactics to draw the enemy into a trap. Just how else did you intend to round up the terrorists?
That's a mighty big 'might' and we may well spend multiple billions and lose thousands of lives trying to figure out if it will work. For what? So Iraq has a chance at playing democratic. I don't think so!
It already is working to a degree. Several Al Qaeda higher ups have been arrested in Iraq already. By thousands of lives, are you saying American lives. We have already lost thousands of lives to Al Qaeda attacks, preceeding, and during 9/11. You should know, that on a yearly basis, we have lost fewer American lives, from 1998 to 2002, from terrorist attacks, than we have lost, since, from the combined, terrorist attacks, and the 2 wars, and the rebuilding efforts in Iraq, and Afghanistan. And we lost more in value per yr, from those attacks, than those wars cost us. We lost over a trillion dollars in stock value alone, plus the cost of the bldgs, and the repairs of the Cole, not to mention the value lost in GNP. And if Al Qaeda gets control of the oilfields in SA and Iraq, just how much do you think that will cost? Could you even begin to take the chance?
WASHINGTON -- Critics are blasting Vice President Dick Cheney for his recent interview with the Rocky Mountain News of Denver, in which he said the “best source of information” about alleged connections between Iraq and al Qaeda was a magazine article that the Pentagon already had called “inaccurate” and based on “deplorable” intelligence leaks.
I will let this article do the talking for my rebuttal.
.............................
newsmax.com
Weekly Standard Sticks to Its Guns in Face of DOD Denial
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Monday, Nov. 17, 2003
Defending its blockbuster expose of ties between Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein from a strongly worded Department of Defense statement that "News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate," the Weekly Standard’s Nov. 24 issue provided convincing details of the link.
The DOD Nov. 15 statement noted that a "letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27, 2003 from Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony. One of the questions posed by the committee asked the Department to provide the reports from the Intelligence Community to which he referred in his testimony before the Committee. These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida."
Included in that letter was a "classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the Committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the Intelligence Community."
Those items, DOD insists, "were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA," and their transmittal to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence Community. "The selection of the documents was made by DOD to respond to the Committee’s question
But in its new issue, the Weekly Standard notes "Case Closed," and provides substantial evidence of the link between al Qaeda and Baghdad from what it called "The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden."
According to that 16-page memo, dated Oct. 27, 2003, and sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Sens. Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the Senate Intelligence Committee, "much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources and some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, while some of it is more than a decade old."
The memo lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points that include allegations that:
Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein "had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda – perhaps even for Mohamed Atta. …"
The Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued all the way through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War . The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions."
The statement concluded, "Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal."
began.
Sometime in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."
According to another NewsMax.com story on the memo, Intelligence Bombshell: Saddam Financed Lead 9/11 Hijacker, the memo cited evidence that Iraqi intelligence bankrolled lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in the months leading up to the worst terrorist attack ever on U.S. soil.
The memo reports that a defector revealed that "Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."
That allegation was confirmed in a debriefing last May of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, who said that there were several meetings between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda from 1992 to 1995. Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9/11, the source said, Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign investigators.
The director of Iraqi intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti, met privately with bin Laden at his farm in Sudan in July 1996. Al-Tikriti used an Iraqi delegation traveling to Khartoum to discuss bilateral cooperation as his "cover" for his own entry into Sudan to meet with bin Laden.
The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir (al Ani), in Prague on several occasions. During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office.
The CIA says it can confirm two Atta visits to Prague – in December 1994 and June 2000 (data surrounding the other two purported visits – on Oct. 26, 1999, and April 9, 2001– is complicated and sometimes contradictory, and CIA and FBI cannot confirm that Atta met with the IIS). Moreover five high-ranking members of the Czech government have publicly confirmed meetings between Atta and al Ani.
The Standard concludes that "there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans."
........................................................
You will note this part.. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions."
The statement concluded, "Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal."
Critics are blasting Cheney for referring to that article, and verifying its authenticity. Cheney actually did no such thing. Cheney told the Rocky Mountain news, that it was his, meaning the publics, best available source. Cheney didn't say it was completely accurate, just that it was as accurate as any documents out in public domain. While they were secret documents when published, they weren't secret anymore, and Cheney didn't elaborate on their authenticity, so the critics are again whinning over nothing. Secondly, some of the info, related to Feith's presentation, has already been confirmed, through documents found in Iraq, or been proven false leads, since July 10. However, Feith was relaying the info, the administration had to go on to make a decision to go to war, 10 months earlier. If that leaked info is correct, and the DOD never said it was incorrect, in that regard, than any reasonable man could easily have concluded there were some connections, between Saddam and AL Qaeda, and secondly, the congressmen on that committee, agreed with GW's conclusion, based on the same evidence GW had at that time. |
