Hussein Was Sure Of Own Survival

[jimnyc]

"BAGHDAD, Nov. 2 -- Saddam Hussein refused to order a counterattack against U.S. troops when war erupted in March because he misjudged the initial ground thrust as a ruse and had been convinced earlier by Russian and French contacts that he could avoid or survive a land invasion, former Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz has told interrogators, according to U.S. officials."

"The former deputy prime minister has described an argument he had with Hussein in 1999, in which the Iraqi president insisted that U.N. Resolution 687, enacted to limit Iraq's armaments, prohibited long-range missiles only if they were armed with weapons of mass destruction.

Aziz said he countered, "No, it's a range limit," and all Iraqi missiles able to fly beyond 150 kilometers (about 93 miles) were banned, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the interrogation reports. Hussein demanded in reply, "No, I want to go ahead," according to the senior official."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...washpost/20031103/ts_washpost/a55022_2003nov2

 

[dijetlo]

You forgot this part Jim...
From your article
>>Aziz..has also said Iraq did not possess stocks of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons on the eve of the war<<
Can we stop looking for them now? I think the Department of Education could probably use the money we're giving Kaye.

 

[jimnyc]

I didn't forget it. That stuff has been being discussed ad nausea as of late, I quoted the 2 parts that were of most interest to me. I always link the articles I discuss so that everyone can read them in their entirety.

I think this shows a further trend of defiance on Saddam's part. He was defiant about the war and article 687 itself.

I'm still not convinced that there are no WMD over there, but it's becoming obvious that there wasn't a huge "stockpile" as some originally thought.

 

[lilcountriegal]

I read that article this morning too Jim.... I think its notable to mention that the whole WMD deal was caused by Saddam himself. In that article, it states that Saddam led EVERYONE to believe that he did, in fact, have prohibited weapons just to make everyone feel threatened by him.

It all boils down to the boy who cried wolf.

 

[Bry]

Yes, and the boy who cried wolf is Bush. "Everyone knows Saddam has WMDs", he said, and the American public believed him. Saddam was bluffing from the beginning (and the boy who cried wolf was not "bluffing", but lying to produce a desired response from the townspeople.) Now, if all we had supporting the existence of WMDs was that Saddam said so, (which isn't even true: in the days before the invasion materialized, he was squealing like a stuck pig that he had nothing.) I'd say we need to seriously revise our intelligence gathering standards. I don't think we had enough to justify the invasion. There was no immediate threat, and we can't go around invading every country that pretends to have WMDs and getting stuck with the bill for reconstruction. Yet the WMDs was the most consistent argument in favor of invasion. Since the start of the war, some officials have even acknowledged that the only reason for paying so much lip service to the WMD argument was because it was thought to have the most impact on public opinion. In other words, they manipulated the information to sway public opinion. They exaggerated the threat in order to call out the American Public. In other words, Bush is the boy who cried wolf.

Just out of curiosity, jim, what theme was it that you wanted to discuss in this thread? You didn't provide any analysis, so it's difficult to discern what it was exactly that you wanted to draw our attention to. Simply that Saddam was being deffiant? no surprise there. That he drew a distinction between WMDs and long range missiles? Yes, but his reasoning seems perfectly clear on that point. If others (namely Israel) can strike him from long range, he should have the capability of striking back. Otherwise, it is a violation of his nation's soveriegnty (ie. not permitting him to fulfill his country's ability to defend itself. I notice we didn't have any qualms about invading a country whose military capability had been severely reduced by our, the UNs, mandates. It turns out, then that he was right.)

 

[jimnyc]

Saddam was bluffing from the beginning (and the boy who cried wolf was not "bluffing", but lying to produce a desired response from the townspeople.)

Can you provide proof that Bush lied about the data that was presented to him?

I don't think we had enough to justify the invasion.

And I think there was more than enough. The thousands upon thousands of dead Iraqi's in mass graves alone is enough. We might not have uncovered them prior to war, but we knew those thousands were dead. "What, no WMD? Ok, continue your killing then"

There was no immediate threat

Can you say the same for the Iraqi citizens?

You can cry foul about the lip service aka sales pitch all day long, but there were still hundreds of good reasons to invade Iraq and rid them of this evil dictator and his regime. Focusing on one element of the pre-war decisions won't change the fact that there were still resolutions broken, citizens being murdered, planes being shot at, bio-weapons missing, terrorist training in progress, elaborate labs being built...

Just out of curiosity, jim, what theme was it that you wanted to discuss in this thread?

That there is more to this than just WMD. Saddam was a murderer and a liar. Murderer's need to be stopped and hopefully apprehended. He lied to strengthen his position and it came back to bite him in the ass! But, none of that changes the facts laid out previously.

You didn't provide any analysis, so it's difficult to discern what it was exactly that you wanted to draw our attention to.

I didn't think I needed to, I thought it spoke for itself. It read to me, yet again, that Saddam was a lying scumbag who was hell bent on spreading fear and would break resolutions quicker than the blink of an eye.

That he drew a distinction between WMDs and long range missiles? Yes, but his reasoning seems perfectly clear on that point.

And resolution 687 was even clearer, no weapons that had a range over 150km. One of his top advisors pointed this out to him and he was still defiant. No reasoning is acceptable to break a resolution enacted by the international community.

If others (namely Israel) can strike him from long range, he should have the capability of striking back.

No, he lost that right with the resolutions. He showed the entire world that he wasn't responsible enough to command those responsibilities in a civilized manner.

Otherwise, it is a violation of his nation's soveriegnty (ie. not permitting him to fulfill his country's ability to defend itself.

And his sovereignty was overruled by the international community. He was slowly having his grasp on the country taken away, and I might add that it worked quite effectively.

I notice we didn't have any qualms about invading a country whose military capability had been severely reduced by our, the UNs, mandates. It turns out, then that he was right.)

So, should we have had a 6 month moratorium to allow him to rebuild his defenses before we invaded, to give him a fair shake?

And he wasn't right, not even the Iraqi's that are currently rebelling against the US military want Saddam back.

 

[eric]

Bry let me start by saying that I agree that the WMD argument was pumped up to sway public opinion. Notice that I said pumped up not made up. Sadam did posses WMD that everyone, including the UN and EU, agreed on. That said, in my humble opinion I do believe there were a multitude of reasons for the invasion, some more palatable than others. Being realistic, major policy decisions are rarely based on one or two factors alone but rather a combination of many factors. Herein the problem lies, most of our population does not poses the necessary skills to take all factors considered and procure good judgments. For god sake many people do not know who Colin Powell is! So it is understandable to make one emotional issue the focal point for public consumption.

I'd say we need to seriously revise our intelligence gathering standards

Could not agree with you more on this issue! Time to take the wasted money from many of our social programs and start putting it to good use. We can mostly thank our left leaning friends for continually cutting the Intel/military budgets. While we are at it, why not thank the brilliant person who who decided that the CIA cannot hire outside contractors who have a criminal record.

That he drew a distinction between WMDs and long-range missiles? Yes, but his reasoning seems perfectly clear on that point. If others (namely Israel) can strike him from long range, he should have the capability of striking back

No, he forfeited those rights by his previous actions against his neighbors. Following your logic, since the US possesses Nuclear weapons, should not every nation posses them to defend themselves from us. I hope you do not think this to be so!

I notice we didn't have any qualms about invading a country whose military capability had been severely reduced by our, the UNs, mandates. It turns out, then that he was right.

Lets not take cheap shots Bry; during Desert Storm we invaded Iraq when it was the 5th ranked military in the world, so don’t insinuate any cowardly premise on our part. Lest we also forget that the cease-fire agreements that we signed at the conclusion of Desert Storm were based on the absolute compliance with UN Resolutions, which I think we can all agree he violated time and time again, thereby bestowing the legal right upon us to resume hostilities.

 

[lilcountriegal]

(which isn't even true: in the days before the invasion materialized, he was squealing like a stuck pig that he had nothing.)

Please see: (from Jim's link)

"Hussein was unwilling to reveal that his cupboard was essentially bare, these detainees said, according to accounts from officials.

In separate interviews with The Post, several former high-ranking Iraqi generals not held in detention offered similar views. Hussein "had an inferiority complex," said Maj. Gen. Walid Mohammed Taiee, 62, chief of army logistics as the war approached earlier this year. "From a military point of view, if you did have a special weapon, you should keep it secret to achieve tactical surprise. . . . But he wanted the whole region to look at him as a grand leader. And during the period when the Americans were massing troops in Kuwait, he wanted to deter the prospect of war."

The only consistent pattern we've gotten -- 100 percent consistent -- is that each commander says, 'My unit didn't have WMD, but the one to my right or left did,' " said the senior U.S. official involved. This has led some American interrogators to theorize that Hussein may have bluffed not only neighboring governments and the United States, but his own restive generals"


If he was "squealing like a stuck pig" that he had nothing, why did his generals not even know that there were no WMD? Each believing the unit next to theirs had them.

I know its a long article Bry, but just because it doesnt support your views, take the time and read it... it really is a good read.

If others (namely Israel) can strike him from long range, he should have the capability of striking back

I do agree with that. I believe any country has the right to defend its own soil. The problem with "tit-for-tat" is, where and how to draw that line. "I want it because he/she has it" doesnt work in every instance. Some countries have nuclear capabilities and have had them for years... those countries do not launch nukes into other countries just because the feeling strikes them. Giving Saddam long range missiles (pick a kind, any kind) is like waving a T-Bone steak in front of a tiger.

 

[dijetlo]

>>there were still hundreds of good reasons to invade Iraq<<

The whole "he was a bad guy" argument has a large inconsistency. If we invaded him because "he was a bad guy" we must then ask, was he the worst guy. The most inhumane despot on the planet (uh uh, not even a semi-finalist). Some of the worst dictators are racking up the unmarked grave count at a pace that would make Qusai Hussein blush.
I have a lot of respect for the opposing posters on this board, so I'm just going to say this one time and you guys can agree or disagree with me as you like.
We went to Iraq for a number of reasons, no doubt. It wasn't the WMDs', and it obviously wasn't to get the worst dictator on the planet (he doesn't live in Iraq). As a citizen, I have the right to know why we went to war, hell, I have a duty to find out why. Can any of you honestly tell me that you would have supported an invasion of Iraq based on the argument that Hussein is a bad man. If so, why Iraq and not Rhwanda (where a 21st century "Killing Field" is being played out)?

 

[jimnyc]

The whole "he was a bad guy" argument has a large inconsistency. If we invaded him because "he was a bad guy" we must then ask, was he the worst guy. The most inhumane despot on the planet (uh uh, not even a semi-finalist). Some of the worst dictators are racking up the unmarked grave count at a pace that would make Qusai Hussein blush.

And were these others violating UN resolutions for the past 12 years? Are any of them firing on US warplanes or surveillance planes? Do the others have terrorist training camps on their soil, especially of those that were involved in 9/11? Have the others used chemical weapons on their own citizens?

I think your desire to make the invasion based on one thing only is a little bit of over simplification. As I've already stated, there were MANY factors involved in the decision.

Whether or not there are other countries that can benefit from "regime" change or not really has nothing to do with Iraq. Each case would be separate, and none of them will make the decision about Iraq any more wrong or right.

 

[dijetlo]

Thanks jim, you made several good points in your post;

>>And were these others violating UN resolutions for the past 12 years?<<
The mitigating information on this point is Hussein did ask the UN to re-admit the inspectors before the commencement of hostilities, and Bush stated the US would attack regardless of the presence of UN inspectors.

I found a good rebuttal for this one (at least I think so)
>>Are any of them firing on US warplanes or surveillance planes?<<
China

>> Do the others have terrorist training camps on their soil, especially of those that were involved in 9/11?<<
Your going to have to post a link to this one, I'm not aware of what your talking about.

>> Have the others used chemical weapons on their own citizens?<<
I don't think this one is germaine either, since he did not have the chemicals your speaking of at the outset of the invasion.

 

[jimnyc]

>> Do the others have terrorist training camps on their soil, especially of those that were involved in 9/11?<<

"The independent Iraqi weekly Al-Yawm Al-Aakher reveals details on the training of Al-Qa'ida members operating under the orders of Saddam's Presidential Palace two months before the September 11 attacks."

Taken from previous post in this forum, but the article has since expired.

There a lots of arguments as to whether or not there was a true Qaeda/Iraq link. I won't argue that they trained with the actual attackers of 9/11, but I'm convinced they were dealing with Al Qaeda.

I don't think this one is germaine either, since he did not have the chemicals your speaking of at the outset of the invasion.

There was, and still is to this day, plenty of chemical weapons amongst the missing. The original numbers were supplied by Iraq themselves. The chemicals were there when inspectors left in 1998 and haven't been accounted for since. Given his history with chemical weapons, I believe it was safe to assume that not only did he have them, but that he would use them as well.

 

[spillmind]

having these weapons 'at one time' is very VERY different than having weapons as we speak and an imminent threat.

haven't we gone over this a kagillion times?

 

[dijetlo]

>>"The independent Iraqi weekly Al-Yawm Al-Aakher reveals details on the training of Al-Qa'ida members operating under the orders of Saddam's Presidential Palace two months before the September 11 attacks."<<

The source article is no longer available? How old is this story? Does the fact that the president of the United States has (recently) publicly stated there is no evidence of a connection between Hussein and 9-11 even make an impression on you? Your argument here is smoke, if there was anything to it the story wouldn't be unavailable from the internet, it would be on every TV station and every paper. Jim, your a stalwart, I have to give you that but the leadership has moved on.

>> plenty of chemical weapons amongst the missing. <<
Your argument is singularly bereft of supporting evidence. Seven months into the occupation and you still have nothing but unsubstantiated rumors from dubious sources. We were told they could be launched in 15 minutes, and two hundred and ten days later we can't even find the factory that was supposedly producing this stuff (and Colin Powell had pictures, he took them to the UNSC, if you recall). Time to pull the plug on that fantasy Jim, Iraq had no WMDs' so WMD related arguments for their invasion are not applicable.

 

[jimnyc]

having these weapons 'at one time' is very VERY different than having weapons as we speak and an imminent threat.

Just because these chemical weren't found doesn't mean they don't exist. Do you have documentation showing the Anthrax and nerve agents that were missing now being accounted for?

The source article is no longer available? How old is this story? Does the fact that the president of the United States has (recently) publicly stated there is no evidence of a connection between Hussein and 9-11 even make an impression on you? Your argument here is smoke, if there was anything to it the story wouldn't be unavailable from the internet, it would be on every TV station and every paper. Jim, your a stalwart, I have to give you that but the leadership has moved on.

The story was about 3 weeks ago. I noticed you conveniently left out he part in your reply where I stated "I won't argue that they trained with the actual attackers of 9/11". I wasn't trying to make any connection with 9/11, more like an Al Qaeda-Iraq connection. And the leadership HAS NOT moved on with regards to this issue. They stated they didn't believe Iraq had a link with 9/11. There is PLENTY of documentation showing a relationship between the 2 and I've yet to see it be discounted. All we have to go on now is intelligence and the word of quite a few Iraqi's that saw it themselves, some of them high ranking.

Your argument is singularly bereft of supporting evidence. Seven months into the occupation and you still have nothing but unsubstantiated rumors from dubious sources.

How do you figure this was a rumor? Even Blix himself stated the chemicals were unaccounted for!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/14/iraq.tracker.update/

Do you have something to offer to show that these chemicals have been accounted for?

We were told they could be launched in 15 minutes, and two hundred and ten days later we can't even find the factory that was supposedly producing this stuff (and Colin Powell had pictures, he took them to the UNSC, if you recall).

I think you are a bit confused and read incorrectly! I never said they had long range weapons, or any airborne weapons for that fact! I said they had previously documented both Anthrax and VX gas and neither has been fully accounted for to date. Here's more information:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2590265.stm

Time to pull the plug on that fantasy Jim, Iraq had no WMDs' so WMD related arguments for their invasion are not applicable.

Before being so quick to ridicule my comments, try reading next time. They DID have the chemicals and they still are NOT accounted for.

 

[UVoted4GoreLOL]

It seems as if a lot of people are forgetting that Iraq did have WMD's ~ we gave it to them. Also, we aren't fighting Iraqi Regulars ~ the actual war with Iraq has been over for some time ~ we are facing a jihad that is attempting to do what they did to us in Somalia ~ bloody our nose so we will leave; not going to happen. If we pull out of Iraq now, we will bring the jihad back to US soil with us & how many people out there want that to happen?

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
J
>>The story was about 3 weeks ago. I noticed you conveniently left out he part in your reply where I stated "I won't argue that they trained with the actual attackers of 9/11". I wasn't trying to make any connection with 9/11, more like an Al Qaeda-Iraq connection. And the leadership HAS NOT moved on with regards to this issue.<<

I stand corrected, the connection you spoke of was not Hussein/ 9-11 but Al-Queda/Hussein. With this in mind, you are also correct the administration has not moved on.
>> They stated they didn't believe Iraq had a link with 9/11. There is PLENTY of documentation showing a relationship between the 2 and I've yet to see it be discounted.<<
That is because nobody can produce it, which makes it very hard to evaluate. The fact that they wont produce their evidence only makes it suspect, so if they have proof where is it?
I can only go back and ask you again, if your article were true, would it be out of print 3 weeks after it appeared on the internet? Wouldn't we be hearing more about the training grounds in the palace?

>> All we have to go on now is intelligence and the word of quite a few Iraqi's that saw it themselves, some of them high ranking.<<
And the documents such an undertaking would create as well as the satelite imagery, electronic intelligence gathered before and during the war. We should really have a lot of evidence if you think about it. His palaces were constantly being photographed by satellite as possible WMD sites. We need to be careful about listening to "a few Iraqis", are they the same ones (the INC) who told us about Husseins Nuclear program.

>>How do you figure this was a rumor? Even Blix himself stated the chemicals were unaccounted for!<<
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/14/iraq.tracker.update/
add this date, from your article >> Friday, February 14, 2003 <<
and I wonder why you think it is still germaine?

>> They DID have the chemicals<<
Not when we invaded thier country and at the time, that was the reason for the invasion. We went to the UN with our little tale and they decline to give us international sanction for our invasion

 

[jimnyc]

add this date, from your article >> Friday, February 14, 2003
and I wonder why you think it is still germaine?<<

The date doesn't matter. Have these chemicals been accounted for to date? He used chemical weapons in the past, it's naive to think he wouldn't use them again. The weapons couldn't even be accounted for when inspectors were in Iraq in 2001, even though they were asked repetitively for proof of their whereabouts or destruction. Should we have just hoped for the best? Should we have assumed he changed his ways and wouldn't use them again? I'm not sure why you say this information isn't germane.

>> All we have to go on now is intelligence and the word of quite a few Iraqi's that saw it themselves, some of them high ranking.<<
And the documents such an undertaking would create as well as the satelite imagery, electronic intelligence gathered before and during the war. We should really have a lot of evidence if you think about it. His palaces were constantly being photographed by satellite as possible WMD sites. We need to be careful about listening to "a few Iraqis", are they the same ones (the INC) who told us about Husseins Nuclear program.

My comments were about Al Qaeda being in Iraq, not about WMD. Quie a few detectors told their stories about Al Qaeda meetings. I'm really not sure how you got WMD out of my reply, but I apologize if I wasn't clear enough for you.

>> They DID have the chemicals<<
Not when we invaded thier country and at the time, that was the reason for the invasion. We went to the UN with our little tale and they decline to give us international sanction for our invasion

Do you have information that the rest of us don't? The chemicals I have spoken of and linked to have not been accounted for, even now! Did you even read the article, or did you give up after reading the date? The Iraqi's themselves admitted they had these chemicals in 1998 (Anthrax and VX). There was plenty of documentation. Inspectors were then tossed out before everything could be destroyed. They came back in 2001. They repetitively asked for the whereabouts or proof that they were destroyed. To this date neither has been given. This has been in every update, from every inspector.

That is because nobody can produce it, which makes it very hard to evaluate. The fact that they wont produce their evidence only makes it suspect, so if they have proof where is it?

You replied with this when I stated that there was plenty of documentation to support an Iraqi-Al Qaeda connection. These people who defected and reported this (and detainees) saw this with their own eyes. Maybe they aren't credible in your eyes, but what proof do you expect them to offer? Read the following article:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

 

[Bry]

jejeje. You wouldn't happen to have any links that provide evidence of us having given WMDs to Iraq, would you?

The actual war against Iraq has been declared over, but that's not the same as being over. Even the US government tries to claim that many attacks are being organized by Saddam himself. You bring up the Somalia example, which is a good one for showing what happens when you bloody the USs nose a bit. (and some here are so fond of quipping about the French tendency to wave the white flag...) As for the jihad following us back if we leave, that's speculation at best. There have been many years now of proclaimed jihad, and that has resulted in one attack on US soil. In any case, I agree that we can't back out now, but with the very justification that it's our ethical responsibility to rebuild what we destroyed. It's a shame it's being done in such a way as to benefit a few cronies with political connections.

Welcome to the board.


As for the other posts on this very interesting thread, no WMDs have been found and very few in the government or involved in the search are maintaining much hope of finding any. At this point, with as much evidence as has been accumulated against the hypothetical existence of said weapons, it seems to me that it would be most reasonable to assume that there aren't any until some are actually found. In the mean time, as eric acknowledges, we are left with the idea that the WMD argument was thoroughly inflated, and used in a highly objectional way to sway public opinion. And without public support, the war doesn't happen.

The connection beweent Iraq and Al Qaeda is fairly well documented, at least what I have seen from what NT was able to come up with in a now old and cold thread in this forum titled "pre-emptive strikes", I believe started by Spillmind. And the vinculation between Iraq and "terrorist groups" apart from Al Qaeda are indiscutible. As for whether or not this constitutes a valid justification for war is another question. Essentially, from jim's argument, an invasion of Iraq would have been justified from the day the first Gulf War ended, simply because Saddam never complied fully with the letter of the cease fire, or the subsequent UN resolutions. He may be right from a legal point of view, though I don't see anyone getting around the fact that the UN did not support the war, therefore any use of UN resolutions to justify the war seems a moot point.

The inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the actual chronological order of events is that 1. human rights interests had nothing to do with this invasion. Saddam gassed his population very shortly after the first gulf war, and we responded with, well, we didn't respond. 2. Iraq had been tracking on radar our planes patrolling Iraq from day one after the first war, and fired on our planes on occasion, and none of those events drew any stronger action than to take out the offending missile battery. 3. Weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998 convinced that there still existed WMDs. We waited for five years to act on that knowledge, and during that time, we evidently were completely unable to improve our understanding of their weapons programs. Five years later we waltz in holding up the WMD threat as reason number one for invasion, and are surrised to find that shit changes in five years. I am convinced that WMDs had nothing to do with the decision, as much as the gov't sold the idea to the American public. 4. The only difference between 2003 and 2001 when Bush took office is 9/11, and the administration acknowledges that there is no hard evidence of an Iraq 9/11 connection. I can only conclude that the administration took advantage of a passionate American public in the wake of 9/11 to wage a war for unannounced and completely ulterior motives.

And to countrie, for whom I'm developing quite an attachment, I did read the article in its entirety before posting. It is interesting, but it is not all-encompassing. It does not pretend to reproduce the history of this engagement in its entirety. I remember perfectly that in the days before the war, the Iraqis announced to the world that they had no WMDs. Then, once the war was begun, they again changed their tune, obviously with the hope of scaring the American invasion force. There is nothing in that article that contradicts my reading, not even the misinformation of his generals, who I can only think were not sitting around watching CNN in the days leading up to the war, and in any case may have been convinced that Saddam was lying (once again) to the world. I always read the articles referenced by the posts I'm responding to, thanks for your concern.

eric, I find at a time when record numbers of Americans are sinking below the poverty line, and the "recovery" of the American economy is largely jobless (meaning the workers there are are having to work twice as hard...) your comments about cutting social programs to support intelligence programs is offensive. Just a difference of opinion, I suppose. And this comment: "So it is understandable to make one emotional issue the focal point for public consumption." is downright unamerican. No, I don't think anyone should be permitted to posess nuclear weapons, not us, not anyone.

 

[dijetlo]

>> Have these chemicals been accounted for to date?<<
They were destroyed by Hussein while the inspectors were absent. It gave him the option of claiming he both had and didn't have the capability. He also felt he could develop an active bio or chem program fast enough to defend himself from the Iranians or Syrians. At least, this is what the released members of his administration are claiming.
>> Should we have just hoped for the best? <<
We should have found out before we acted. "They make me nervous" is not sufficient reason to attack another country and take on the kinds of responsibilities we're shouldering in Iraq.
>> Al Qaeda being in Iraq, not about WMD.<<
Terrorist training camps are routinely located via sattelite imagery. We were talking about the al-queda camp you mentioned, weren't we?
>>Do you have information that the rest of us don't? <<
No, I simply acknowledge what every else knows. We've controlled Iraq seven months and we have found nothing to substantiate our pre-war claims. Your asking me to prove a negative, at what point would you say that the failure to locate any evidence would lead a rational person to assume the negative has been proven?
>>Maybe they aren't credible in your eyes, but what proof do you expect them to offer? Read the following article:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...03/033jgqyi.asp<<

Interesting article, I'm sure you think the mainstream press should be repeating it, here's why there not:
>>according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush,<<
Confidential administration sources supplied the first "connection" in the article. This is not proof, it is spin. On a side note, don't you think GWB needs to find this guy and muzzle him? This is the second peice of supposedly "classified" intell he has revealed. (Unless their are two seperate leakers.)
The only strength of their argument lies in a letter from the CIA Chief, from October 2002. A period of time during which the CIA was being pressured by the Bush administration for Intel to support the war. >> many agency analysts remained skeptical about links<< The analysts are the ones who write the reports. If they were skeptical, who wasn't skeptical and over-rode the interpretation. Could it be the political appointees in the defence department who got the same raw data and wrote their own conclusions (That's what the analysts told the Senate hearing).
They have not been able to demonstrate this connection with documentation or evidence in post war Iraq. The weeklystandard prints this kind of stuff all the time. Proof requires independant verification, and the weeklystandard is unable to provide this.