Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

In the case of Afghanistan this was
an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
than a transparently flawed excuse

I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?

Both of these men had proven track records of operations against the
U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead to be a
threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq now, al
Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was injured and
received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq.

Before the USA invaded
the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
did not control

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips everyone on Bear Creek"


The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with Al-Queda.
Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts with them.
Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers.
Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

In the case of Afghanistan this was
an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
than a transparently flawed excuse

I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?

Both of these men had proven track records of operations against the
U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead to be a
threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq now, al
Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was injured and
received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq.

Before the USA invaded
the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
did not control

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips everyone on Bear Creek"


The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with Al-Queda.
Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts with them.
Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers.
Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too.

Come now--you KNOW that merely having regular contact with various terrorist
groups, providing medical care to one wanted senior AQ member, and then
giving him a new area to operate from, providing money in support of suicide
bombers, etc., does not constitute "support for terrorism", don't you? Just
ask all of those folks with their heads buried in the sand and from whom
continuously emanate muffled, repetitive chants like, "Saddam never even
*met* a terrorist, much less supported any of them", and "Continued work on
biological warfare programs, hiding of WMD equipment, documents, and
WMD-knowledgable personnel, the finding of a type of binary weapon that was
obviously not developed until after the Iran-Iraq War, etc., does not mean
that Saddam was continuing to pursue WMD's..."; they'll assure you that
Saddam *never* supported terrorists...

Ooops...keep forgetting to turn that danged sarcasm switch off...

Brooks


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote in message ...
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

In the case of Afghanistan this was
an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
than a transparently flawed excuse

I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?

Both of these men had proven track records of operations against the
U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead to be a
threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq now, al
Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was injured and
received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq.

Before the USA invaded
the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
did not control

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

When and when, respectively?

....


"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips everyone on Bear Creek"


The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with Al-Queda.
Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts with them.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection. They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.

Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers.
Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too.

--

FF

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
om:

Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

In the case of Afghanistan this was
an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
than a transparently flawed excuse

I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?

Both of these men had proven track records of operations against
the U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead
to be a threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq
now, al Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was
injured and received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq.

Before the USA invaded
the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
did not control

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

When and when, respectively?

...


"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if
it harelips everyone on Bear Creek"


The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with
Al-Queda. Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts
with them.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection.


That they could FIND no connection.
Of course,there also was a lot of Iraqi records BURNED before they
collapsed entirely.

Just like the WMD materiels may be sitting in Syria,moved before the
invasion.

They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.


Just allowing them safe haven and passage is support.
I wonder about that airframe Iraq had for "hijack training"...


Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers.
Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too.


Too many people seem too willing to believe the worst about the US and the
current administration,and not believe about Saddam's dangers.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote in message ...
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
om:

Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
....

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?


When and when, respectively?

IIRC, Abbas was living there openly after an amnesty agreement.

When was Nidal killed?




The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with
Al-Queda. Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts
with them.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection.


That they could FIND no connection.

Agreed. Thanks for the correction.

Of course,there also was a lot of Iraqi records BURNED before they
collapsed entirely.

Just like the WMD materiels may be sitting in Syria,moved before the
invasion.


Or maybe The Romulan Empire is hiding Iraqi corbomite bombs.
Speculation is not evidence.

They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.


Just allowing them safe haven and passage is support.

ISTR that the meeting took place outside of Iraq. Not indicative
of a friendly relationship.

19 Al Quada persons found safe passage in the US in 2001.

None of them Iraqi.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

When and when, respectively?

Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad in August of 2002. There is considerable
mystery surrounding his death. Baghdad initially claimed he died of an illness,
then they claimed suicide. Information leaked out shortly after that he died of
multiple gun shot wounds. CNN had this to say about Nidal after his death;
"Nidal and his group have been blamed for more than 90 terrorist attacks that
killed more than 300 people and wounded 600 others. The attacks struck at
Middle Eastern, European and *U.S. targets.*" (my emphasis). The question
remains; why did Hussain kill Nidal? Lots of speculation, but nothing certain
except that Hussain was haboring a known terrorist.

Abu Abbas was picked up in Bahgdad shortly after the U.S. took control of
Baghdad in April 2003. It was no surprise however and President Bush had even
mentioned Baghdad's harboring of Abbas as proof that Hussain was supporting
terrorism in a speech before the Iraq invasion began.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection. They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.


Great, Iraq and Hussain had nothing to do with 9/11. The point most liberals
fail to understand is the "War on Terrorism" goes beyond al Queada, beyond
Afghanistan and beyond Asia.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

When and when, respectively?

Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad in August of 2002. There is considerable
mystery surrounding his death. Baghdad initially claimed he died of an
illness,
then they claimed suicide. Information leaked out shortly after that he
died of
multiple gun shot wounds. CNN had this to say about Nidal after his death;
"Nidal and his group have been blamed for more than 90 terrorist attacks
that
killed more than 300 people and wounded 600 others. The attacks struck at
Middle Eastern, European and *U.S. targets.*" (my emphasis). The question
remains; why did Hussain kill Nidal? Lots of speculation, but nothing
certain
except that Hussain was haboring a known terrorist.

Abu Abbas was picked up in Bahgdad shortly after the U.S. took control of
Baghdad in April 2003. It was no surprise however and President Bush had
even
mentioned Baghdad's harboring of Abbas as proof that Hussain was
supporting
terrorism in a speech before the Iraq invasion began.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection. They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.


Great, Iraq and Hussain had nothing to do with 9/11. The point most
liberals
fail to understand is the "War on Terrorism" goes beyond al Queada, beyond
Afghanistan and beyond Asia.

Providing your enemy with a cause that will increase the number of
volunteers 10 fold for his army doesn't strike me as a smart idea. We need
to work to win "hearts and minds" thoughout the arab wold rather than hoping
that grabbing them by the balls as this administration has will work. This
doesn't mean that military operations aren't needed, they are, but they need
to be well thought out with an eye to the long term consequenses. Throwing
Saddaam out was the easy part, putting in a government in Iraq that is
friendly to US interests, has the support of its populace and that its
neighbors and the world won't see as US puppet is going to be the hardest.
We won't know if this can be accomplished until long after whoever wins the
next election leaves office.

I'm certainly not voting for the best recruiter Al-Queda ever had in
November





BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

When and when, respectively?

Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad in August of 2002. There is considerable
mystery surrounding his death. Baghdad initially claimed he died of an illness,
then they claimed suicide. Information leaked out shortly after that he died of
multiple gun shot wounds.

It doesn't sound like Baghdad was much of a safe haven for Nidal.

--

FF

From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

As for the loss of forested area, this trend is currently being
reversed, with a programme to buy back land and convert it
back into forest; something not wholly liked by farmers who
regard it as a waste of good arable land. The big problem is
to create an ecological system of some reasonable size out
of patches of scattered woodland

Wonderful. So we cut Belgium some slack on that. But why won't you cut the US
any slack? We have made huge strides in correcting environmental damage and
are continuing to do so, the huge project to restore wetlands in the San
Francisco Bay area and the massive Buffalo Commons plan on the Great Plains
being only two examples of this. Protecting and preserving the environment is
a very old American concern, dating back at least to John Muir, John
Burroughs, Ernest Thompson Seton, and Teddy Roosevelt. Europeans have nothing
to lord over Americans when it comes to nature conservation.

It damages the credibility of your arguments when you relentlessly assume the
worst about America and attribute to us only the basest motives in everything
we do.


Chris Mark

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Because his dimwit father did?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer



To expand on that, I wonder is why Bush supporters think
he is strong on defense.

Even the Project for a New American Century criticized
Bush's defense policy (even asking Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz
to resign!) for all of 2001 up until sep 10, 2001.

Then 9/11 hit despite the warnings of Richard Clarke,
the FBI's John O'Neill (who left to work for the WTC
in Aug 2001), Hart/Rudman report, the April 2001 PDB,
and Janet Reno's prioritizing of terrorism.

So Bush has warning throughout 2001 and *conservative*
criticism on defense and *then* 9/11 hits?

What would you think the natural reaction should be?

Post-9/11 *any* President would be strong on Defense.
Running up the record deficits Bush has, *any* President
could spent their way into a somewhat recovering economy.

I think Team Bush fell asleep at the wheel.

- Bush was more concerned with tax cuts and China.
- Rumsfeld was more concerned with missile defense.
- Ashcroft was more concerned with Christian-based moralizing.
- Rice was more concerned with *not* "policing" the world.
- Cheney was meeting with Kenneth Lay.

9/11 hits and Team Bush has to cover their asses.

Fortunately Team Wolfowitz, Feith and Pearle have a
ready-made war plan to dust off.


http://www.newamericancentury.org/def_natl_sec_025.htm
Aug 14, 2000 Business week. "Bush's Foreign Policy: Like Father,
Like Son?" by Stan Crock - Summary: Daddy Bush might have
gone to war in Iraq in part for oil, but he was not ideological
like W might be. Daddy Bush acted in a way that was strategically
good for America and far more pragmatic than W who might back
policies for moralistic reasons. One key factor is W's
influential advisor (Chalabi's schoolmate) Paul Wolfowitz.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010116.htm
Jan 16, 2001 New American Century Memorandum by Thomas Donnelly
"Gulf War Anniversary." Summary: The need to go into Iraq to
unseat Saddam from power will require a much larger military
force than it did ten years ago, even if the Iraqi army will
likely collapse even more quickly than during the Gulf War.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Ed...l_Jan22_01.pdf
Jan 22, 2001 The Weekly Standard. "Spend More on Defense Now" by
Gary Schmitt and Tom Donnelly. Summary: W has not yet
increased Defense spending within the first few weeks of his
inauguration like Reagan did.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010207.htm
Feb 7, 2001 Washington Post. "Read My Lips, Part II - Shorting the
Military" by Robert Kagan. Summary: Ari Fleischer announces
that Bush will not seek Defense budget increases for FY 2001 or
2002, deferring to the budgets Clinton left behind - This despite
Bush's strong-on-defense campaign run.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/af...tan-030801.htm
Mar 8, 2001 New York Times. "Taking Sides in Afghanistan" by Reuel
Marc Gerecht. Summary: Osama bin Laden, Afghanstan resident
since 1996, may have found a spiritual connection with the
Taliban. Citing long-standing problems beginning with the Clinton
administration, Bush is urged to focus on Afghanistan in light of
the Cole bombing.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Ed...l_Mar12_01.pdf
Mar 12, 2001 The Weekly Standard: Editorial "Clinton's Foreign
Policy" by Robert Kagan and William Kristol. Summary: Bush's
adoption of Clinton's meager Defense budget might have been
motivated by budgetary reasons related to Bush's desire for tax
cuts. Bush's contemplation of easing sanctions on Iraq might be
signal a further weakening of America's resolve.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm
May 14, 2001 The Weekly Standard. "Liberate Iraq" by Reuel Marc
Gerecht. Summary: Discusses the unfinished business the US has
with Saddam. Saddam's tenacity betrays an apparent American
weakness. They fear Bush may take the "French" approach of
diplomacy. There are chances that Bush may fight, but such an
endeavor must be done with the proper resources and cannot be done
on the cheap. There is also an even-handed assessment of Chalabi,
who may or may not be a credible advisor.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010604.htm
Jun 4, 2001 The Weekly Standard: Memorandum. "Defense" by Gary
Schmitt. Summary: Citing the New York Times and The Weekly
Standard, there is concern that the military budget might be
neglected in favor of Bush's tax cuts.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/nato-20010618.htm
Jun 18, 2001: The Washington Post. "A Good Week's Work" by Robert
Kagan. Summary: Bush is quoted as saying "I am not a
unilateralist." when addressing Europe, as he rejected his
counsel to pull troops out of the Balkans. The "no more peace-
keeping" doctrine favored by Rice and Rumsfeld was scuttled.
(Nothing to do with Iraq. Just a reference to the above
discussion about Clinton's decision to go after Milosovic.)

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-070601.htm
Jul 6, 2001 New American Century Memorandum "Iraq" by Tom Donnelly.
Summary: Bush's tough campaign talk regarding the Persian Gulf
may go unrealized. Furthermore, Rumsfeld's defense review may
wipe out 20% of Army combat units, which may require any
occupation of Iraq to pull too many forces from the US, Europe
and Korea.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010712.htm
Jul 12, 2001 New American Century Memorandum "Defense" by William
Kristol and Gary Schmitt. Summary: Bush's defense spending is
being sacrificed for tax cuts and a fear against cutting domestic
spending. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld are asking for more Defense
spending, citing a lack of vision in 1950 when defense spending
was lax just prior to US engagement in Korea.

www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010723.pdf
Jul 23, 2001 The Weekly Standard Editorial. "No Defense" by Robert
Kagan and William Kristol. Summary: Advice to Rumsfeld and
Wolfowitz: resign. Rumsfeld asked for a minimum of $35 billion
for FY 2002 and was given $18 billion by Bush's administration.
There is also concern about replacing the decades-old two-war
standard for a smaller, sleeker, more technologically-dependant
military, which would require a thinning of military resources
in Europe and East Asia. An incursion into Iraq might further
stretch our resources.

www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010730.pdf
Jul 30, 2001 The Weekly Standard. "A Cowering Superpower" by Reuel
Marc Gerecht. Summary: bin Laden's bombing of the Cole and the
tenacity of Saddam Hussein to resist the US might enable
terrorists who might see America as a paper tiger. It also
mentions the threats of al Quaeda "sleepers" and the efficacy of
worldwide CNN terrorist bulletins. It also deeply criticizes
the proposed "smart sanctions" against Iraq.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/nato-20010805.htm
Aug 5, 2001 The New York Times. Allies in America's National
Interest by Jeffrey Gedmin and Gary Schmitt. Summary:
Criticizes Bush's unilateral position on rejecting Kyoto. Says
a long-term consequence may be that other pacts dependant on
international cooperation might suffer, specifically those
regarding Iraq and Iran.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010910.htm
Sep 10, 2001 The Weekly Standard. The Phony Defense Budget War by
Gary Schmitt and Tom Donnelly. Summary: Another critique
against Bush's priority of tax cuts over increasing the military
budget. It also criticizes the renouncing of the standard of
winning two "major theater wars" in favor of a smaller military
which would likely make an occupation of Iraq difficult or
impossible.