October 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

Stats

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 04/2004

« Iraqi Red Crescent thanksgiving | Main | Fascinating bit of coverage »

November 26, 2005

Comments

ny patriot

"If there is a final nail to be driven into the coffin of terrorism in Iraq it will be at the trial of Saddam Hussein."

Tom - put down the glass of Kool-Aid and step away from the table. Saddam wasn't/isn't a terrorist, just as much as Idi Amin or Pol Pot or any of the other twisted dimented dictators of the 20th century were. He was a brutal, egomaniacal tyrant who ruled over his country with a sadistic manner that makes the Western world shudder. He was NOT, however, a terrorist.

The Bushies have dilluted the line between that which is a terrorist (Osama) and that which is a dictator (Saddam.) There are bad evil men all over the world; in Darfur, in Guatemala, in Mozambique, etc. who committ horrible despicable crimes against those who they are supposed to rule over and govern. These men have always existed throughout history and, guess what, will still be around long after you and I are fodder for worms. But that doesn't make them terrorists.

So please - don't be a revisionist and try to reteach me what I've already learned from history.

Tom Bowler

I hope you'll forgive me if I don't bother trying to prove to you that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism and provided safe haven for terrorists. It's pretty well documented. You may ignore it if you like. That's your choice. But it leads me to think you choose to believe only those facts that fit your prejudices. You do a marvelous job of parrotting the party line, but it's unconvincing. Saying that you've "already learned from history" is not nearly so persuasive as demonstrating it with a few facts.

Ol' BC

Well said, Tom. More and more facts are surfacing all the time, although many don't appear in the media. All that really needs to be said about Saddam is....Ramsey Clark. He only seems to appear in anti-American and anti-freedom issues.

ny patriot

what facts?

the 9/11 commission - a bipartisan committee WITHOUT A PARTY LINE - made it very clear that Saddam had no links whatsoever to do with 9/11.
What other terrorist activity are you linking Saddam with? It is well documneted that Iraq, under Saddam, was a very secular community that the fundamentalist Arab terrorists that have now besieged the country only entered after the invasion - not before.

If you want to argue the facts, then present them. Otherwise you're the one parrotting a president who bases his actions on assumptions rather than on facts.

Tom Bowler

Here's George Tenet.

Regarding Senator Bayh's question of Iraqi links to al- Qa'ida, Senators could draw from the following points for unclassified discussions:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al- Qa'ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al- Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent US military action.

Sincerely,
[signed:] John McLaughlin (For)

George J. Tenet
Director of Central Intelligence"

I wouldn't put much reliance on the 9/11 commission. To suggest there's no partisanship there is naive to say the least.

THOMAS KEAN: Well, first of all, this is a staff report. It's not the report of the commission or the commissioners as yet. But the staff in their investigation has found that, yes, there were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there.

LEE HAMILTON: I don't think there's any doubt but that there were some contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden's people. But our finding relates to a collaborative effort, the lack of evidence for a collaborative effort to attack the United States. We're not saying that there were no contacts of any kind or description.

ny patriot

Yeah Tom... the 9/11 commission was one gigantic Democratic conspriacy.

Just because the commission didn't come up with the answers that you would have preferred you immediately discount it's validity with the flippant remark "I wouldn't put much reliance on the 9/11 commission." What report DO you rely upon then? Testimony from the head of the CIA whose job, career, and reputation is on the line? I'm not questioning what Tenet had to say but his motivations can be suspect becuase of the self-risk.

Libertarian leanings ... yeah right ... Bush Apologist more apt my friend.

Tom Bowler

So Pat, did you miss the bit about Clinton Administration national security advisor Sandy Berger pleading guilty to stuffing classified documents into his pants and then destroying them as part of his preparation for testimony before the 9/11 Commission? Don't you get just a tad nervous about things like that? Or are you convinced they're all really just wonderful people because... Because of what? What is it that makes you think that?

The comments to this entry are closed.