I try not to overthink situations, it spoils the moment. :D

You continue to come up with statements that have a certain meaning beyond what you ever intended…

You tried to diss happy by calling for a “Sieg Heil!!”

Of course, that translates as “Hail Victory”…kind of ironic under the circumstances, wouldn’t you agree?

Bush knew that this rogue Al-Qaeda element, Abu Musab al Zarqawi was working with Kurds against Saddam in the north.

That was the one kernal of truth to their claim that “AL QAEDA IS IN IRAQ!!!”

Yeah. If you count independent Kurdistan as “Iraq” and al Zarqawi who wanted to kill Saddam as “Al Qaeda,” then yes it is technically true.

Obviously, Bush wanted him there just so he could make that claim.

Pre-invasion, al Qaeda was an enemy of the (Iraqi) state.

So one can conclude from the reports, that Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war. :)

I suggest that in that moment they crossed over into a treasonous act.

Georgie and Karl learned Hitler’s lesson well.

Conclusion 1: … Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa’ida to provide material or operational support. Debriefings of key leaders of the former Iraqi regime indicate that Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al Qa’ida in particular… Debriefings also indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qa’ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin. (p. 105)

Conclusion 5:… Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. (p. 109)

Damn, this is good.

This is going to be the Bush scandal du jour tomorrow . . .

Among the many authorities and experts who point out the enmity between religious jihadists like Bin Laden and Marxist Ba’athists like Saddam and Hafez al Sadr of Syria is the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Their long awaited Phase II analysing pre-war intel (you know, the one stone-walled by Pat “Old Rubberstamp” Roberts) says this:

[Bin] Ladin generally opposed collaboration [with Baghdad]. (p. 65)

According to debriefs of multiple detainees — including Saddam Hussein and former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz — and capture documents, Saddam did not trust al-Qa’ida or any other radical Islamist group and did not want to cooperate with them. (p. 67)

Aziz underscored Saddam’s distrust of Islamic extremists like bin Ladin, stating that when the Iraqi regime started to see evidence that Wahabists had come to Iraq, “the Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq and threatening offenders with execution.” (p. 67)

Another senior Iraqi official stated that Saddam did not like bin Ladin because he called Saddam an “unbeliever.” (p.73)

What?! You didn’t hear this on Fox News?!

I am shocked . . .

Thanks for the link to the “Millennium Challenge”, and the interesting points about strategy. The comment at end re invasion of France in 1940 is also important… know your enemy.

Re the 2003 invasion, The “coalition” failed to secure some very dangerous explosives.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al_qa_qaa-explosives.htm“The explosives consist mainly of 195 metric tons of HMX that had been under IAEA sealand and 141 tons of RDX. Also missing were almost six tons of PETN….Aside from the specific nuclear risk posed by HMX, all of the explosives could be used to produce bombs strong enough to collapse buildings or shatter airplanes.Further, if these materials are available to the Iraqi insurgency, they consitute an enormous stock for the road-side bombs and other attacks that have hindred reconstruction and stabilzation efforts, in addition to posing significant danger to coalition troops and Iraqi security forces.”

Hitler writes in Mein Kampf (James Murphy translation, page 134):

“All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily;

and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie,

since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.

For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.”

So now that the Republicans big lie is falling apart, NOW can we impeach the Hitler loving SOBs?

I don’t recall reading this anywhere WSClark, could you point me to a document where it shows Saddam Hussein spoke his views on this matter.

Saddam Hussein and Iraq were mortal enemies of bin Laden and al Qaeda. Osama hated Saddam even more than he hated the US because Hussein was a secular Muslim that violated many of the Qu’rans commandments, especially those dealing with women and alcohol.

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 or the people that committed those acts.

Iraq was a detour on the road of the War on Terror(ism.)

Posted by: brian | June 21, 2007 at 03:31 PM

Well, actually no…I’ll search the SOU addresses and show where Bush stated that it would be a long process.

Week Ending Friday, February 1, 2002 SOU:”Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch; yet, it must be and it will be waged on our watch. We can’t stop short. If we stop now, leaving terror camps intact and terrorist states unchecked, our sense of security would befalse and temporary. History has called America and our allies toaction, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom’s fight”

Week Ending Friday, January 31, 2003 Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union

January 28, 2003″Our war against terror is a contest of will in which perseverance is power. In the ruins of two towers, at the western wall of the Pentagon,on a field in Pennsylvania, this Nation made a pledge, and we renew that pledge tonight: Whatever the duration of this struggle and whatever the difficulties, we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men; free people will set the course of history.”

Week Ending Friday, January 23, 2004 Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union

January 20, 2004

“America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace, a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling:This great Republic will lead the cause of freedom.”

Week Ending Friday, February 4, 2005 Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union

February 2, 2005″Recently an Iraqi interpreter said to a reporter, “Tell America notto abandon us.” He and all Iraqis can be certain: While our militarystrategy is adapting to circumstances, our commitment remains firm and unchanging. We are standing for the freedom of our Iraqi friends, and freedom in Iraq will make America safer for generations to come. We willnot set an artificial timetable for leaving Iraq, because that would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out. We are in Iraq to achieve a result, a country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself. And when that result is achieved, our men and womenserving in Iraq will return home with the honor they have earned.”

I can post 2006 and 2007 if you wish, but I think you get the picture of what was said and promised.

You may be right, a waste of time, but still worth a try. Sometimes he does answer appropriately

it really isn’t worth your effort. no matter what you say or how much sense you make, if republican doesn’t like the answer (if it doesn’t fit in with typical “pro-Bush” mentality) he will make whatever base attempt he can to cloud the issue so that the real meaning of your answer gets torn apart and noone can make heads or tails of it, thereby allowing him to declare himself “right” and you “wrong” among a host of other things…

i think the other posters on here may have the right idea….

“The goal was always and still is the Democratization of Iraq as originally outlined by President Clinton’s bill that he signed into law.” OK, fair enough

3. My reference to poor understanding, etc. was with regard to America’s. We thought we could run in and make Iraq a democracy in no time, without realistically considering the sharp divides in Iraqi culture and the effect that would have.

My reason for the questions was to attempt to pull out of Republican some serious answers to questions that have really not been answered by him. A waste of time, what?

Bush would have never received authorization to invade Iraq had these facts been on the table in 2003.

Hussein was a two-bit tin pot dictator that was no threat to the United States or his neighbors. The rationale for war was WMD. There were none.

All of the talk of Clinton’s desire for regime change was during a period when Saddam refused UN inspections. In the absence of inspections, it was logical to conclude that Hussein had resumed his WMD program.

The inspectors returned to Iraq in late 2002 and left only after Bush announced an imminent invasion. Had they continued their work, they would have proven what we know now – Saddam was a paper tiger.

The War on Iraq was sold on the basis of the threat to America and Iraq’s WMD, and allegations of connections to al Qaeda.

There was no threat.

There was no WMD.

There was no connection to al Qaeda.

Bush had all this information prior to the invasion and he continued with his plans despite the evidence.

Had the UN inspector stayed in country for another month, Saddam would have been exposed for the fraudulent military power that he claimed to be.

And 3545 American soldiers would still be alive.