Whatever happened to ?

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Was Saddam a member of Al-Queda? If so, please post the proof here
and be
sure to send it to the White House, because they have been looking hard
for it!

Member, no; shared animosity towards the US, yes. You want a link between
Saddam and AQ? Refuge for Al Zarqawi.

I seem to recall that other Arab countries (countries that this
administration has not attacked) have done that much and worse. And according
to an NBC article, even the present administration did not always deem Al
Zarqawi important enough to go after, even after 911: "But NBC News has learned
that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out
his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the
trigger." (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/ )

Vaughn

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Was Saddam a member of Al-Queda? If so, please post the proof
here
and be
sure to send it to the White House, because they have been looking
hard
for it!

Member, no; shared animosity towards the US, yes. You want a link
between
Saddam and AQ? Refuge for Al Zarqawi.

I seem to recall that other Arab countries (countries that this
administration has not attacked) have done that much and worse. And
according
to an NBC article, even the present administration did not always deem Al
Zarqawi important enough to go after, even after 911: "But NBC News has
learned
that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to
wipe out
his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself - but never
pulled the
trigger." (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/ )

OFCS, don't act as if the pre-9/11 environment that led to our not "going
for broke" to tag Al Zarqawi has any real meaning in regards to this
discussion. You wanted reasons why Saddam merited attention--you got them
(and then you just snipped them away without attribution...do you always do
that with arguments you find difficult to answer?). There is another reason,
too--the US public law signed into law by the previous administration that
stated the US objective for Iraq, due to a number of reasons, would be
"regime change".

Brooks


Vaughn

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

I seem to recall that other Arab countries (countries that this
administration has not attacked) have done that much and worse. And
according
to an NBC article, even the present administration did not always deem Al
Zarqawi important enough to go after, even after 911: "But NBC News has
learned
that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to
wipe out
his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself - but never
pulled the
trigger." (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/ )

OFCS, don't act as if the pre-9/11 environment that led to our not "going
for broke" to tag Al Zarqawi has any real meaning in regards to this
discussion. You wanted reasons why Saddam merited attention--you got them
(and then you just snipped them away without attribution\

One entry found for attribution.
Main Entry: at·tri·bu·tion
Pronunciation: "a-tr&-'byü-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act of attributing; especially : the ascribing of a work (as of
literature or art) to a particular author or artist
2 : an ascribed quality, character, or right
- at·tri·bu·tion·al /-sh(&-)n&l/ adjective

..do you always do
that with arguments you find difficult to answer?).

If you really mean "attribution" then I wish to acknowledge that they are
your arguments. If you mean "address"; I have no obligation to address every
argument posed by every poster, if we all did that, the Internet would be a
ponderous place. If I fail to address one of your arguments, 1) I accept it,
or 2) didn't follow it, or 3) think it is beside the point or an unnecessary
distraction, or 4) Find it so insubstantial as to not be worthy of comment' or
5) Simply trying to focus the discussion, or 6) Perhaps I somehow screwed up and
forget to address the point.

I find it good practice to focus Internet conversations by snipping the bulk
of parts I am not responding to. All of your verbage is still there in your
original post for the whole world to read and respond to if they wish, there is
no need for me to repeat every word.

There is another reason,
too--the US public law signed into law by the previous administration that
stated the US objective for Iraq, due to a number of reasons, would be
"regime change".

(sarcasm off) This is an interesting point! What law? Seriously; are
you saying that Clinton "made" Bush attack Iraq? Or even that he set foreign
policy that the Bush administration was powerless to change or ignore?

Vaughn

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

I seem to recall that other Arab countries (countries that this
administration has not attacked) have done that much and worse. And
according
to an NBC article, even the present administration did not always deem
Al
Zarqawi important enough to go after, even after 911: "But NBC News
has
learned
that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances
to
wipe out
his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself - but never
pulled the
trigger." (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/ )

OFCS, don't act as if the pre-9/11 environment that led to our not
"going
for broke" to tag Al Zarqawi has any real meaning in regards to this
discussion. You wanted reasons why Saddam merited attention--you got
them
(and then you just snipped them away without attribution\

One entry found for attribution.
Main Entry: at·tri·bu·tion
Pronunciation: "a-tr&-'byü-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act of attributing; especially : the ascribing of a work (as of
literature or art) to a particular author or artist
2 : an ascribed quality, character, or right
- at·tri·bu·tion·al /-sh(&-)n&l/ adjective

Oh, goody--when argumentively bankrupt, resort to the dictionary as a source
for a nitpick. About what I'd expect from an unacknowledged snipper. My
Websters includes the following definition of "attribute": "to regard or
explain as arising or resulting from a source". You failed to ackowledge a
"source" (the arguments presented to you that you snipped). Sounds close
enogh to me--but you can insert "acknowledgement" in there if it will keep
you from getting your panties all twisted up.


..do you always do
that with arguments you find difficult to answer?).

If you really mean "attribution" then I wish to acknowledge that they
are
your arguments. If you mean "address"; I have no obligation to address
every
argument posed by every poster, if we all did that, the Internet would be
a
ponderous place. If I fail to address one of your arguments, 1) I
accept it,
or 2) didn't follow it, or 3) think it is beside the point or an
unnecessary
distraction, or 4) Find it so insubstantial as to not be worthy of
comment' or
5) Simply trying to focus the discussion, or 6) Perhaps I somehow screwed
up and
forget to address the point.

Well, here you go; another chance to "address" those points:

Who gave Al Zarqawi refuge? Who gave Abu Nidal refuge for a decade or so?
Abu Abbas? Who delighted in butchering civilians? Who planned and actions
that targeted US leaders (outside a time of war)? Answers: Saddam, Saddam,
Saddam *and* OBL, and Saddam *and* OBL.

No, contrary to your assertion, the White House has apparently not been
looking very hard for linkage between Saddam and AQ. There were some reports
that senior AQ personnel visited Iraq, as guests of one of the Iraqi
intelligence organizations, pre-war, traveling from Sudan. Then there is the
whole Al Zarqawi issue. But we have seen precious little indicating that the
WH has been diligently searching for further evidence.

While you express an opinion that you'd like to see Al Zarqawi in a body
bag, you don't seem to be very concerned over his reportedly being given
refuge in Iraq by Saddam--why is that?



I find it good practice to focus Internet conversations by snipping the
bulk
of parts I am not responding to. All of your verbage is still there in
your
original post for the whole world to read and respond to if they wish,
there is
no need for me to repeat every word.

Justr avoid them--OK.


There is another reason,
too--the US public law signed into law by the previous administration
that
stated the US objective for Iraq, due to a number of reasons, would be
"regime change".

(sarcasm off) This is an interesting point! What law? Seriously;
are
you saying that Clinton "made" Bush attack Iraq? Or even that he set
foreign
policy that the Bush administration was powerless to change or ignore?

PL 105-338, "The Iraqi Liberation Act", was indeed signed into law by
Clinton. "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote
the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Clinton
signed it into law in 1998, after it was passed by the House 360-38, and by
unanimous consent in the Senate. The goal was clearly stated.

Brooks


Vaughn

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Who gave Al Zarqawi refuge? Who gave Abu Nidal refuge for a decade or so?
Abu Abbas? Who delighted in butchering civilians? Who planned and actions
that targeted US leaders (outside a time of war)? Answers: Saddam, Saddam,
Saddam *and* OBL, and Saddam *and* OBL.

All apparently true, and as I DID say earlier, no worse than other Arab
countries with which the present administration is not at war.

No, contrary to your assertion, the White House has apparently not been
looking very hard for linkage between Saddam and AQ.
There were some reports
that senior AQ personnel visited Iraq, as guests of one of the Iraqi
intelligence organizations, pre-war, traveling from Sudan.

There is probaby a very good reason why you did not hear much about thoes
allegations.

Then there is the
whole Al Zarqawi issue. But we have seen precious little indicating that the
WH has been diligently searching for further evidence.

As I previously noted...

While you express an opinion that you'd like to see Al Zarqawi in a body
bag, you don't seem to be very concerned over his reportedly being given
refuge in Iraq by Saddam--why is that?

Again, something I previously addressed.


(sarcasm off) This is an interesting point! What law? Seriously;
are
you saying that Clinton "made" Bush attack Iraq? Or even that he set
foreign
policy that the Bush administration was powerless to change or ignore?

PL 105-338, "The Iraqi Liberation Act", was indeed signed into law by
Clinton. "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote
the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Clinton
signed it into law in 1998, after it was passed by the House 360-38, and by
unanimous consent in the Senate. The goal was clearly stated.


Thanks for the info. But I notice that you ignored my questions about the
import of PL 105-338 to the present administration after berating me for simply
not addressing each and every of your points. Please don't bother now, this
exchange has gone long enough.



Vaughn

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Who gave Al Zarqawi refuge? Who gave Abu Nidal refuge for a decade or
so?
Abu Abbas? Who delighted in butchering civilians? Who planned and
actions
that targeted US leaders (outside a time of war)? Answers: Saddam,
Saddam,
Saddam *and* OBL, and Saddam *and* OBL.

All apparently true, and as I DID say earlier, no worse than other
Arab
countries with which the present administration is not at war.

Can you name any Arab country currently, or over the past year, providing
knowing refuge to an individual who we have expressed a desire to take into
custody over the 9-11 affair (and Al Zarqawi was a key leader in AQ before
that attack)? Any?


No, contrary to your assertion, the White House has apparently not been
looking very hard for linkage between Saddam and AQ.
There were some reports
that senior AQ personnel visited Iraq, as guests of one of the Iraqi
intelligence organizations, pre-war, traveling from Sudan.

There is probaby a very good reason why you did not hear much about
thoes
allegations.

Then there is the
whole Al Zarqawi issue. But we have seen precious little indicating that
the
WH has been diligently searching for further evidence.

As I previously noted...

While you express an opinion that you'd like to see Al Zarqawi in a body
bag, you don't seem to be very concerned over his reportedly being given
refuge in Iraq by Saddam--why is that?

Again, something I previously addressed.


(sarcasm off) This is an interesting point! What law?
Seriously;
are
you saying that Clinton "made" Bush attack Iraq? Or even that he set
foreign
policy that the Bush administration was powerless to change or ignore?

PL 105-338, "The Iraqi Liberation Act", was indeed signed into law by
Clinton. "It should be the policy of the United States to support
efforts to
remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
promote
the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
Clinton
signed it into law in 1998, after it was passed by the House 360-38, and
by
unanimous consent in the Senate. The goal was clearly stated.


Thanks for the info. But I notice that you ignored my questions
about the
import of PL 105-338 to the present administration after berating me for
simply
not addressing each and every of your points. Please don't bother now,
this
exchange has gone long enough.

No, I left it intact (not snipping away without "acknowledgement"--are you
all warm and fuzzy now?) and answered the relevant question. You obviously
were unaware of the very existance of the ILA, so I kind of figured you's
perhaps rethink those questions once you checked into it. But since you have
not...

No, Clinton did not "make" Bush attack Iraq. He did however sign into law
the act that made "regime change" our stated goal. That law did remain in
effect, amended in sorts I guess by the later congressional approval for
Bush to used armed force to acheive it.

Brooks




Vaughn

So, are you still trying to claim that "There was no link between OBL and
Iraq?"

No?

O.K. then- how would *you* characterize the Iraq-OBVL linkages then?

Steve Swartz

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

I seem to recall that other Arab countries (countries that this
administration has not attacked) have done that much and worse. And
according
to an NBC article, even the present administration did not always deem
Al
Zarqawi important enough to go after, even after 911: "But NBC News
has
learned
that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances
to
wipe out
his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself - but never
pulled the
trigger." (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/ )

OFCS, don't act as if the pre-9/11 environment that led to our not
"going
for broke" to tag Al Zarqawi has any real meaning in regards to this
discussion. You wanted reasons why Saddam merited attention--you got
them
(and then you just snipped them away without attribution\

One entry found for attribution.
Main Entry: at·tri·bu·tion
Pronunciation: "a-tr&-'byü-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act of attributing; especially : the ascribing of a work (as of
literature or art) to a particular author or artist
2 : an ascribed quality, character, or right
- at·tri·bu·tion·al /-sh(&-)n&l/ adjective

..do you always do
that with arguments you find difficult to answer?).

If you really mean "attribution" then I wish to acknowledge that they
are
your arguments. If you mean "address"; I have no obligation to address
every
argument posed by every poster, if we all did that, the Internet would be
a
ponderous place. If I fail to address one of your arguments, 1) I
accept it,
or 2) didn't follow it, or 3) think it is beside the point or an
unnecessary
distraction, or 4) Find it so insubstantial as to not be worthy of
comment' or
5) Simply trying to focus the discussion, or 6) Perhaps I somehow screwed
up and
forget to address the point.

I find it good practice to focus Internet conversations by snipping the
bulk
of parts I am not responding to. All of your verbage is still there in
your
original post for the whole world to read and respond to if they wish,
there is
no need for me to repeat every word.

There is another reason,
too--the US public law signed into law by the previous administration
that
stated the US objective for Iraq, due to a number of reasons, would be
"regime change".

(sarcasm off) This is an interesting point! What law? Seriously;
are
you saying that Clinton "made" Bush attack Iraq? Or even that he set
foreign
policy that the Bush administration was powerless to change or ignore?

Vaughn