Pre-emptive Strike in Iraq

[janeeng]

oooohhh! boo hoo! I should sit in a corner in cry! he refers to me as a dog! but let's see if this waste of life has the BALLS, which I think you have none! can post a picture of yourself, I had no problem!!!!

whine whine!!! ***** *****!!! I have to excuse myself to get a tissue and wipe the tears from my eyes!!!!! hahaha, you pathetic little excuse for a human, YOU LITTLE TROLL!!!!

 

[jimnyc]

And yet another link:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Each page I have found lists 10-20 links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

It doesn't matter to Bry whether or not it is from British Intelligence, American intelligence, former diplomats, former operatives... I guess it won't be believable unless Saddam came out and admitted so himself.

Where there is smoke there is fire.

 

[5stringJeff]

I've read as much history as you, and probably more, and am well aware that America was split into three approximately equally numbered camps - Patriots, Loyalists, and the undecided.
You are right, the French navy did a lot more than the fledgling American Navy in the Revolution. In case you didn't notice, the US Navy was founded in 1775, in the middle of a war - not a lot of time to build warships to fight against England's armada.
As far as the Americans never taking part in anything besides 'guerilla harassment,' I beg to differ. While the French fought alongside us, Americans fought several significant battles that ultimately led to the independence of the colonies.
And if the ones who had the most to gain, both in terms of money and power, fought for independence, then those who had the most to gain by keeping the status quo fought for the Crown. So your whole corrupt-motives theory is a double-edged sword.

And by the way, pal, I don't need my mother to read to me. I have a history degree from West Point - probably more than you will attain to educationally.

Originally posted by Bry
to gop jeff

"State navies and somewhat irregular national navy had been of less consequence than Revolutionary privateers. Esek Hopkins had led a raid in the Bahamas in 1776, John Barry won a name as a gallant commander, and John Paul Jones was one of the most celebrated naval commanders in all US naval history, but their exploits were single incidents. It was the French fleet..."

"The time was one of indecision, and the division of the people was symbolized by the split between Benjamin Franklin and his Loyalist son, William Franklin. The Loyalists were numerous and included small farmers as well as large landowners, royal officeholders, and members of the professions; they were to be found in varying strength in every colony. A large part of the population was more or less neutral, swaying to this side or that or else remaining inert in the struggle, which was to some extent a civil war. So it was to remain to the end. Civil government and administration had fallen apart and had to be patched together locally. In some places the result was bloody strife, as in the partisan raids in the Carolinas and Georgia and the Mohawk valley masacre in New York..."

Look dude, if you want somebody to read to you, call your mother. Otherwise, take responsibility for your own education. In the US, that frequently means reading between the lines. as so much of our history has been rewritten. Pay particular attention to who benefitted from the Revolution, monetarily and in influence. It's clear that it wasn't a popular war, and that "our forefathers" though pretending to speak the will of the people, did so without the mandate of the people. Look up that last bit about the Mohawk Valley masacre in New York. Don't just accept the party line, look for the deeper meanings. The "raids" on the Bahamas were pirate's games. The "people" were never convinced that the war was a good idea, though there were always enough in favor to wage it. And the rebels didn't fight the best trained army in the world. The French did. The American's rarely took part in any manuveur that was anything more than guerilla harassment.

Bry

 

[Bry]

Dear Jimnyc,

I have a certain respect for you, apart from the other posters here that seem to share your ideology. You are the only one that bothers to share links to "information". I found the information supplied in this most recent offering interesting, and no doubt it would support your argument emmensely if a few of the assertions were found to be true. However, upon arriving at the end of the article, I was excited about the prospect of finding a list of sources and dates, but alas I was disappointed. From their introduction appealing to "A wealth of evidence on the public record -- from government reports and congressional testimony to news accounts from major newspapers -- attests to longstanding ties between bin Laden and Saddam going back to 1994." they were unable to elaborate, give dates, or discuss reliablity of sources. I did find at the conclusion of the article, however, this important link to a sponsor:

http://www.gm.com/flash_homepage/

If the truth were half as damning as the assertions suggest, Bush would be plowing full steam ahead with his claims of a direct link between 9/11 and Iraq. The hypothesized money trail alone would be enough. As it is, even insiders are portraying Cheney as a rottweiler with one thing on his mind. Now, I ask you: why is this information squirreled away to the back pages of a tech-sector magazine which counts General Motors among it's sponsors? Why is a tech sector magazine devoting itself to titles like Iraq-Alqaeda links and terrorism? Why is it not on the front pages of The New York Times and The Washington post? Both newspapers were instrumental in marshaling public opinion in support of the war. You suppose they suddenly have lost interest in publishing the very information that would prove them right?

As for the sources, which you say I would be quick to reject: which would you say has presented a consistent and unswerving argument for the infamous connection? British Intelligence? We should all be familiar by now with the scandals that that upstanding institution has produced since the war. American Intelligence? Have you been keeping up with the latest tit for tat exchange between Tennet and Bush's administration? This article in TCS which you touted, what do they mean exactly by "government reports and congressional testimony? news accounts from "major newspapers"? Are these the same government reports and congressional testimonies which so many (including the CIA) are now saying were exaggerated and over-emphasized, circumstancial and spotty?

Obviously, I don't know what the truth is. I only know that there is too much we don't know for you to argue that the invasion was justified because we knew of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It is patently obvious that the WMD evidence was over- blown and that by waiting a few weeks to clarify the case and bring the International community on board, we would not have risked anything. To the contrary, we would not be in the impossible situation we now find ourselves with regard to the reconstruction.

Which brings us back to the announced topic of this thread: pre-emptive strikes. Justified? You won't be surprised to learn: not for me. Afganistan provides an excellent case of nothing having been accomplished. Oh, well, the opium trade did get a big shot in the arm, so to speak. There is no difference between Afganistan now and Afganistan under the Soviet Union. There is no security, there are vast tracts over which the central government has not the slightest control or influence. And the war there only served to create a new and more volatile generation of orphans who surely will succumb to the hate and resentment which the American occupation will inevitably engender. Which I suppose leaves us where we started: an irreconcilable difference of opinion and a raggedy e-paper trail of inconclusive articles. It is not all for naught. After all, I was introduced to the exciting world of the Hindustaan times!

Sincerely,
Bry

Originally posted by jimnyc
And yet another link:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Each page I have found lists 10-20 links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

It doesn't matter to Bry whether or not it is from British Intelligence, American intelligence, former diplomats, former operatives... I guess it won't be believable unless Saddam came out and admitted so himself.

Where there is smoke there is fire.

 

[Bry]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
I've read as much history as you, and probably more, and am well aware that America was split into three approximately equally numbered camps - Patriots, Loyalists, and the undecided.
You are right, the French navy did a lot more than the fledgling American Navy in the Revolution. In case you didn't notice, the US Navy was founded in 1775, in the middle of a war - not a lot of time to build warships to fight against England's armada.
As far as the Americans never taking part in anything besides 'guerilla harassment,' I beg to differ. While the French fought alongside us, Americans fought several significant battles that ultimately led to the independence of the colonies.
And if the ones who had the most to gain, both in terms of money and power, fought for independence, then those who had the most to gain by keeping the status quo fought for the Crown. So your whole corrupt-motives theory is a double-edged sword.

And by the way, pal, I don't need my mother to read to me. I have a history degree from West Point - probably more than you will attain to educationally.

I hope you will forgive my defensive reference to your reading skills and to your mother. It only seems in line with the gloating tone most of the posts here assume.

My reading of this exchange is the following: I responded to mtnbike's gross and uncritically nationalistic symplification with my own gross and unnationalistically critical symplification. You came to his defence, and I gave you the argument which necessarily proceeds from my oversymplification. That our founding fathers, to an extent, had good intentions, I do not personally disagree with. That someone would raise the American Revolution as the paradigm example to which all nations should aspire I find insulting and absurd. As a history student at West Point, I'm sure you are familiar not only with the rough data, but also to the perspectivized versions and counter-versions to which these facts are subject in the hands of a "historian". You should be familiar with the old idea of the "historian" as a curator of facts, and you should also be familiar with the more modern acknowledgement that history is inherently perspectival: the trappings of "objectivity" priveledge the historian's analysis with a claim to truth, a claim which more often than not is less than irrefutable. History, in the end, is inseparable from ideology.

This might lead us into fruitful discussions about the use and abuse of the word "terrorist". Who gets defined as terrorist in history depends solely on who is writing the history. It is similar to your well-taken point that in the Revolution, some people would have benefitted from an "American" loss just as some people did benefit from the victory. History is inherently a double edged sword, as you so nicely pointed out.

If you are interested, my own field of study was not history, but philosophy. It's nice to meet you gop_jeff.

Sincerely,
Bry

 

[Man of 1951]

wow i must say, those were quite impressive replies.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Man of 1951
wow i must say, those were quite impressive replies.

Nice job of ass kissing!


Just kidding! Just thought that would be funny since a few jump all over us for agreeing with one another.

 

[Man of 1951]

well either way those were good responses. And ass kissing??? how is that ass kissing? if someone poses a good point, and expresses it respectfully, and appreciating that is called ass kissing, there must be something wrong with this forum.



EVERYONE GO TO: http://www.countercurrents.org\http://www.countercurrents.org
http://www.countercurrents.org
http://www.countercurrents.org
http://www.countercurrents.org
http://www.countercurrents.orghttp:...tercurrents.orghttp://www.countercurrents.org
http://www.countercurrents.org
http://www.countercurrents.org
http://www.countercurrents.org


very good site....very intellectual people write the articles (at least the ones ive read).

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Man of 1951
well either way those were good responses. And ass kissing??? how is that ass kissing? if someone poses a good point, and expresses it respectfully, and appreciating that is called ass kissing, there must be something wrong with this forum.

Please tell me you're not THAT dense and you saw the part where I wrote "just kidding".

 

[janeeng]

ah, who you kidding! no you weren't! hahahahahahaha! WUSS!

 

[Man of 1951]

i didn't overlook it, i felt that it was sarcasim after your last sentance....but anyway my bad

.....and thanks for replying to me, but please reply to Bry's excellent post.

 

[NightTrain]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, you and Spilly have the same problem distinguishing between the Iraq / Al Qaeda connection and Iraq / 911.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The burden of proof lies with the administration, not only to show what they say they have, but to make it presentable and predating the war. Prisoner testimonies from prison camps where due process doesn't exist do not count. How can I prove wrong evidence they haven't even presented? This is just another example of you demanding much and providing little.

Actually, the burden of proof lies with you, since you claimed otherwise. To make your accusations requires proof. Let's see it, or admit you're whistling in the dark.

Don't expect any of us to sit back and allow you to make rediculous statements without providing evidence to support your case.

Chimp is a chimp. VP Haliburton is the most powerful man in the world, and I'm doing everything I can to get his ass sent to Leavenworth. These contracts are a CONFLICT OF INTEREST, and Haliburton is not the only contractor in the world that can but out a fire. Haliburton should have been excluded from bidding.

Okay, let's break this out, since you seem to get confused easily with this issue.

A) Cheney no longer works for Haliburton. Hasn't for quite awhile now.

B) War Looming.

C) Saddam likes igniting oil wells, intel says he'll torch them.

D) Oil wells are extremely hard to extinguish, once lit.

E) Resulting smoke would hinder visibility, therefore hindering effectiveness of combat operations.

F) Massive ecological damage from raging oil well fires.

G) Fallout from political posturing from the democrats/greenies because of massive damage to the environment due to a war they were against in any case.

H) Halliburton performed well last time Saddam torched oil wells.

I) Last time Saddam lit oil wells, it took the best company in the world several weeks to extinguish the fires - therefore, the best company in the world at extinguishing oil well fires has the necessary experience to be successful in the task at hand.

Options :

1) Put the bid out to unproven companies internationally that may or may not have experience in the region and exclude Haliburton because the VP worked for that company previously.

2) Direct the internationally recognized leader in this sort of task to extinguish the blazes immediately so as to minimize casualties, pollution and infrastructure damage.

Does this sound like the right choice now? Of course not. Cheney = Haliburton = War = Profits, right?

The proposal in the end wasn't submitted. Bush took it off the table because it was clear that there was too much resistance to the IMMEDIATE use of force.

No.

What happened was France issued a statement PRIOR to the submittal of the proposal that they would veto any use of force. Yes, there was to be a timeline. France knew this, and that's when they adopted their infamous 'No at all costs!' approach. Is 12 years too short? Maybe we should have asked for 40 years? 90 years? Yeah, that would have worked.

Hell, as far as France has been historically concerned, you shouldn't be worried until there's one hundred thousand Nazis goose-stepping their way down main street.

Have you seen the graph by the SIPRI? I'll include it just for you. Perhaps it will open your eyes as to who was profiting from Saddam & Co and you may understand why France and Russia both were in the 'No war at all costs!' camp.

hmm. would you like to elaborate on "bullshit"? why were we in such a hurry NT? Was it the "immediate" threat? Don't ask me to present you with all the occaiones in which the CIA, or the admin., or the ex. inspectors have said: No WMDs in Iraq.

Saddam had to be neutralized ASAP. There were proven links to Al Qaeda, and we didn't move fast enough - hence, the problem now with trying to find the WMDs. Fast? We didn't move fast enough, it moved from a bluff to real ass kicking in short order, but the element of surprise was lost over 3 months prior.

It was thought that the buildup of troops on the border that the presence would be suffient pressure to comply. Didn't happen. Saddam called our bluff, you see the results.

Saddam had ample time to move and hide his WMDs, and he did just that. He even had enough time to bury MiG 25 Foxbats in the desert, that were completely undetected until an Iraqi civilian showed U.S. troops where they were buried.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq was bluffing? Really? I'm sure you have loads of documents that back up your assinine statement, no? Let's see it, Pedro.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

okay.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ns_031001153119
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ns_031001153119
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...a35638_2003oct2

Your first link (and the second one is a repeat, it seems) speculates that Saddam may have been bluffing about WMDs. That's your proof that Saddam was bluffing?

The last link seems to be typical political posturing by democrats. I think everyone is frustrated that the chemical and biological weapons we knew he had haven't been found, and that's unfortunate.

Taken from your link : "Kay, who heads the CIA's 1,400-person Iraq Survey Group, said the team had "discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment" that Iraq had hidden. He said he believes "there was an intent . . . to continue production at some point in time." Among the evidence unearthed was a network of laboratories and safe houses, a laboratory complex hidden in a prison and evidence of a program for ballistic and land-attack missiles with ranges prohibited by the United Nations"

And do you doubt he owned and used WMDs in the past?

This still doesn't prove your case that Iraq was bluffing - you certainly sounded confident in your assessment. The articles you provided say themselves that 'Iraq may have been bluffing'.

The evidence isn't conclusive, on either side, but there is an investigation into the PROBABILITY.

Agreed. I'm happy to see you've backed up from your original stance.

The czechs don't stand by shit. My sources are AP. But as with all of your rebuttals, you're okay with simply announcing that other people's source's are invalid and then burrying your head in the sand.

I'm still waiting to see your AP sources. Don't think I won't change my mind, if it seems like you're correct in this matter, I'll be the first to give you an Attaboy and admit here in this thread that I was wrong. I have no problem with that, in fact, I'd be grateful to you for setting me straight.

If I were you, I wouldn't be so confident in the reception the Iraqis have given their new found status without electricity, water, phones, jobs, economy, food. And that hotbed is NOT going to support a democracy, not now, not ever.

You neglected to answer, I'd still like to know why they aren't going to support a democracy. Are they intellectually inferior?

You have already demonstrated that your only viable tactic is to demand everything and give nothing, but the onus of proof is on you and yours.

I don't think so. You came here, guns blazing, and called everyone here idiots. You made statements and the burden of proof is on you to back them up. I'm under no obligation to back up your claims, it's up to you to lend credence to your statements.

 

[Bry]

NT,

Thanks for the response! What took you so long?

getting to it...

Actually, the burden of proof lies with you, since you claimed otherwise. To make your accusations requires proof. Let's see it, or admit you're whistling in the dark.

Don't expect any of us to sit back and allow you to make rediculous statements without providing evidence to support your case.

My accusation was the following: the administration has repeatedly referred to mountains of information that support their stated justifications for going to war. If it is true that they had such information, they are obligated to show it. Instead, they are trying desperately to come up with information after the fact in order to justify an action they have allready taken. Of course I can't prove the non-existence of something. That is logically impossible.

Cheney left Haliburton (after a ruinous stewardship) specifically to be available for the election campaign of 2000. He maintains his stock options. Now, I don't really care how much faith you have in Haliburton's qualifications for putting out fires (though you certainly put together a good argument). It constitutes a grave conflict of interest which to my mind is unacceptable. You'll notice, as I posted elsewhere on these boards, that Halliburton's original contract was for 500 million, but that has now been extended to 1.4 billion. But hey, once you get your foot in the door, it's gravy train, baby! Another example of conflict of interest: Lady Bird Johnson was one of the biggest stock holders in Bell helicopters during Vietnam, and that stinks just as bad. But Haliburton is not the only example of how rediculous the budget and contract awards have been. Worldcom got the contract for the wireless communications network and they've NEVER buit a wireless network, not to mention the lawsuits that have yet to be settled for unlawful business practices. One story I saw indicated that one company wanted 15 million just to fix up a cement factory. They gave the contract to locals who did the job for 80,000. There are alot of complaints coming in about the contract process. I'll be sure to try to keep you updated. In any case, it would seem in the President's best interest to keep his face as clean as possible, but he just goes right out and hooks up his buddies anyway.

What happened was France issued a statement PRIOR to the submittal of the proposal that they would veto any use of force. Yes, there was to be a timeline. France knew this, and that's when they adopted their infamous 'No at all costs!' approach. Is 12 years too short? Maybe we should have asked for 40 years? 90 years? Yeah, that would have worked.

That's not how I see it. It took me a while to find, because I couldn't remember the exact time frame that this was an issue, but here is a report accounting the veto and the French reasons.

"President Jacques Chirac said Monday that France will vote against the U.S.-backed resolution giving Saddam Hussein until March 17 to disarm."

and

"The latest (U.N. weapons) inspectors' report confirms that there is no need to change" the inspection program, Chirac said.

France will not support military action until the inspectors explicitly tell the Security Council that they cannot reach their objective of certifying that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction, he said.


"Nothing indicates that this path (of inspections) leads to a dead end," Chirac said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-10-france-iraq-chirac_x.htm

That's not a no at all costs, that's a no ultimatum at all costs. France's opinion was the inspector's needed more time. The inspectors' views was that they need more time. Only the US was in a hurry. What I said about the rush to pull the trigger once troops were in place was speculation, but it's a pretty solid speculation whether or not you agree with it.

Have you seen the graph by the SIPRI? I'll include it just for you. Perhaps it will open your eyes as to who was profiting from Saddam & Co and you may understand why France and Russia both were in the 'No war at all costs!' camp.

I have seen it, and i think it is an affront to anyone who looks for objectivity in reporting. Notice that it is a graph of weapons imported by Iraq between 1973 and 2002. Of course a very significant portion of that time span comes before the embargos in 1990. Any weapons imported by Iraq prior to 1990, of course would be legal. Now, are you trying to impress me with a statistic of what everyone knows Russia and France were doing before 1990? Hey, now that we're in 2003, they could change their graph to include one more year! But it wouldn't change what the graph shows: nothing. Oh, wait, that tiny little one % the US sold Iraq? That must be the illegal biological weapons which Cheney oversaw the sale of back in the Reagan years.

Saddam had to be neutralized ASAP. There were proven links to Al Qaeda, and we didn't move fast enough - hence, the problem now with trying to find the WMDs. Fast? We didn't move fast enough, it moved from a bluff to real ass kicking in short order, but the element of surprise was lost over 3 months prior.

It was thought that the buildup of troops on the border that the presence would be suffient pressure to comply. Didn't happen. Saddam called our bluff, you see the results.

Saddam had ample time to move and hide his WMDs, and he did just that. He even had enough time to bury MiG 25 Foxbats in the desert, that were completely undetected until an Iraqi civilian showed U.S. troops where they were buried.

I don't believe Saddam had to be neutralized ASAP. There may be links to Al Qaeda (I'm still not convinced by the links thoughtfull provided by Jimnyc for reasons I've given elsewhere) but I do not believe there was a direct link to 9/11. If there WAS evidence of such a tie, the administration needs to show it, and their frantic searching now isn't helping convince me of the evidence they used to justify the pre-emptive strike to begin with. Saddam didn't think the troop buildup was a bluff. He was making frantic public displays of dismantling missiles in the weeks before the invasion began. But you'll have a hard time convincing me that if he had had WMD that he wouldn't have taken an ideal opportunity to use them against US troops, instead of burrying them in the sand. Remember, your argument is that he's a mad man willing to use Chemical weapons against his own people. I'm just saying if that's the case, he certainly wouldn't have hesitated to use them against a US invasion. What do suppose he would have to gain by hiding them? Do you suppose after all was said and done, he would just walk out and say "see I told you so" and the world would welcome him back into the international community with open arms? Dubious, to say the least.

And do you doubt he owned and used WMDs in the past?

No. We already know we sold him WMD's in the past. That's part of why the whole situation stinks. We sold them specifically so that he could use them against Iran. There too, we made the decision (again) to interfere in matters that don't concern us.

As for whether or not iraq was bluffing, as I said, it was speculation, just like your hypothesis that he hid his weapons.

I'm still waiting to see your AP sources. Don't think I won't change my mind, if it seems like you're correct in this matter, I'll be the first to give you an Attaboy and admit here in this thread that I was wrong. I have no problem with that, in fact, I'd be grateful to you for setting me straight.

I haven't relocated the original stories. Here's one from the Washington Post: " Some of the vice president's most outlandish statements have come in interviews on NBC's "Meet the Press." In three appearances dating back to December 2001, Cheney has said there is information suggesting that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague months before the attack, a story that the FBI, the CIA and the Czech government all say is fictional (Atta was in the United States at the time of the alleged meeting). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8032-2003Sep26.html

Here's another. Like I said, it's all over the place. "On the thoroughly discredited report that the lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001, Cheney said, "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet either in terms of confirming it or denying it." In fact, the report has been disavowed by Czech intelligence, and American intelligence found that Atta was on the East Coast of the United States at the time of the alleged meeting.
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/6926953.htm

You neglected to answer, I'd still like to know why they aren't going to support a democracy. Are they intellectually inferior?

I don't believe that supporting a democracy is a matter of intelligence. To the contrary, very intelligent people, including some of our most valued presidents were even wary of the downfalls of the system we have. Jones gave a very powerful quote from Lincoln on the Fascist America thread which is all too clear. I would argue that we ourselves do not live in a democracy, and that corporate America carries far too much influence for us to say that the power is with the people. In any case, I do not believe Democracy is possible there because there are too many factions that simply cannot get along. Between the shiites, the suunies, and the kurds, there is simply not enough to agree on for the formation of a unified democracy. While I was perhaps hasty in claiming that it would never be possible, I see nothing there to make me think that it is.

Once again, thanks for the thoughtful response.

 

[NightTrain]

I'll break this down, since there's going to be an awful lot of information in my response to your post.

This first post deals with the Czech report. I'll only include legitimate news services - and a request for you in the future - please don't include Molly Ivans, that chick makes me ill.

PRAGUE, Czech Republic (CNN) -- Suspected terrorist hijacker Mohammed Atta contacted an Iraqi agent to discuss a terror attack on the Radio Free Europe building in the Czech capital, Prague, Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman told CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/11/09/inv.czech.atta/

Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross said last year he took issue with U.S. press reports that the meeting did not take place. "I believe the counterintelligence services more than journalists," Mr. Gross told a Prague newspaper.
Mr. Gross told reporters last year that Atta visited Prague twice in 2000 and then met al-Ani, who was expelled from the country on April 22, 2001, for intelligence activities.
U.S. officials said Czech intelligence is 70 percent certain the meeting took place at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague.
The Bush administration made no reference to any Prague meeting in the months leading up to the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.
The intelligence community released information indicating that an al Qaeda "associate," Abu Zarqawi, ran a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq with the support of Iraqi intelligence.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030729-093909-9839r.htm

The Czech envoy to the UN has confirmed that an Iraqi agent met with suspected Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, in the latest rebuke to widespread U.S. media reports dismissing the Prague encounter as a fabrication.

"The meeting took place," Hynek Kmonicek, a former deputy foreign minister, told The Prague Post flatly in a New York City interview.

Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross announced last fall that Atta and Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a second consul at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague, had conversed at least once, in April 2001. Gross would not rule out other encounters.

The controversial meeting became known as "the Prague connection" and was mentioned frequently as a possible pretext for renewed hostilities between the United States and Iraq.

Al-Ani was expelled from the Czech Republic April 22, 2001 -- less than a month after the conversation -- for "engaging in activities beyond his diplomatic duties," a phrase usually reserved for allegations of spying or terrorist-related activities.

http://www.praguepost.com/P02/2002/20605/news1a.php



And, finally, here's another one by Ken Adelman (a favorite writer of mine) :


My occasional breakfast-mate, CNN's Bob Novak, gets it right most of the time.

But last week, he got it all wrong on the most important issue facing our national security.

Shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross shocked the world by saying: "We can confirm now that during his trip to the Czech Republic" in April 2001 (his second such trip there), Sept. 11 terrorist ringleader Mohamed Atta "did have a contact with an officer of the Iraqi intelligence, Mr. Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani."

But recent reports in The Washington Post and its sister publication Newsweek called that assessment into question. This prompted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to profess "I don’t know" when Novak asked him whether or not Atta flew to Prague to meet with an Iraqi agent before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Novak then used Rumsfeld’s remarks to justify his own longstanding opposition to the United States attacking Saddam Hussein and removing him from power [see "A Must Meeting for the Attack-Iraq Crowd," Washington Post, May 13].

But in doing so, the ace reporter got it all wrong.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53349,00.html

 

[Bry]

Jeez, NT, props for coming up with an article from 2001. Do you keep all that stuff on file or something?

What can I say? Your first two articles are a bit dated. From what I've read, the Czech intellligence backed off even the 70% they'd previously said, and that the informant who identified Atta from a photo was thought to lack credibility. But good information, anyway.

As for the Adelman bit, Adelman is to Bry what Molly Ivans is to NT. And that was a pretty dirty trick, there, packing me off to FOX. I feel so dirty! Reading that sort of explains why the American public, especially those that get their information from FOX, are so badly misinformed. But if he's your man, it's good enough for me. He certainly puts up a sharp argument.

That's all I'm going to say for now. Maybe I'll come back to it tomorrow if I have time.

 

[NightTrain]

I included the 2001 CNN article because it supports the rest, and CNN is a respected news outlet. The PraguePost article was released today.

I say again, the Czechs stand behind their report.

 

[NightTrain]

As for France's 'No at all costs!' bit... here are some articles from immediately prior to commencement of hostilities :


French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Monday that France cannot accept a second U.N. resolution that includes an ultimatum or resorts to automatic use of force to disarm Iraq. Speaking to Europe-1 radio, de Villepin reiterated France's threat to use its veto in the Security Council to block a resolution that paves the way to war.

Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed the French proposal, saying "it's difficult to take the French seriously." (LOL)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-france-iraq_x.htm

But even nine votes wouldn't be enough. French President Jacques Chirac declared that his country would veto any resolution that opened the way to war. The Russians also said they would vote against the proposal as it was currently worded.

If the United Nations fails to act, Fleischer said in Washington, "that means the United Nations will not be the international body that disarms Saddam Hussein. Another international body will disarm Saddam Hussein. So this will remain an international action, it's just the United Nations will have chosen to put itself on the sidelines."

But France and Russia seemed undeterred, saying Monday they would oppose the U.S.-backed resolution.

"No matter what the circumstances, France will vote 'no,' " Chirac said in a televised interview in France Monday. "There is no cause for war to achieve the objective that we fixed -- the disarmament of Iraq."

http://www.examiner.com/headlines/default.jsp?story=n.diplomacy.0311w

"In the event that hostilities ensue and the Iraqi people are freed from the cloak of a brutal dictatorship that tortures, that kills, people of Iraq will know who to thank," said Fleischer. "That will be a moral issue."

French President Jacques Chirac, the most determined opponent of authorizing war, seemed to kill the chance the U.S-backed ultimatum would pass, saying his country, which has veto power in the Security Council, would vote against any resolution leading to war."

"No matter what the circumstances we will vote 'no,'" Chirac said in a televised interview.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/11/iraq/main543481.shtml

The consequences of France's decision to veto a second resolution under all circumstances are still reverberating around the world.

Asked by the BBC on Wednesday night whether such a resolution would even be put before the Security Council and voted on, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dramatically changed tack.

He said: "I did not expect to see one permanent member of the United Nations saying whatever the circumstances that country would veto a second resolution."

For the first time, because of the threat of veto, he entertained the idea that it might not be tabled at all.

The reason is not hard to see.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2845245.stm

 

[NightTrain]

I have seen it, and i think it is an affront to anyone who looks for objectivity in reporting. Notice that it is a graph of weapons imported by Iraq between 1973 and 2002. Of course a very significant portion of that time span comes before the embargos in 1990. Any weapons imported by Iraq prior to 1990, of course would be legal. Now, are you trying to impress me with a statistic of what everyone knows Russia and France were doing before 1990? Hey, now that we're in 2003, they could change their graph to include one more year! But it wouldn't change what the graph shows: nothing. Oh, wait, that tiny little one % the US sold Iraq? That must be the illegal biological weapons which Cheney oversaw the sale of back in the Reagan years.

The reason it goes back to 1973 is because that's the year young Saddam took the reins of power. It ended in 2002 because Saddam isn't around for a full year in 2003.

Illegal bio weapons we sold Iraq? Nope. Didn't happen. The only sources I can find that support your statement are on such fine sites as conspiracyplanet.com, monkeyfist.com and militarycorruption.com. Not one mention in any reputable news agency that I can find.

I don't believe Saddam had to be neutralized ASAP. There may be links to Al Qaeda (I'm still not convinced by the links thoughtfull provided by Jimnyc for reasons I've given elsewhere) but I do not believe there was a direct link to 9/11. If there WAS evidence of such a tie, the administration needs to show it, and their frantic searching now isn't helping convince me of the evidence they used to justify the pre-emptive strike to begin with. Saddam didn't think the troop buildup was a bluff. He was making frantic public displays of dismantling missiles in the weeks before the invasion began. But you'll have a hard time convincing me that if he had had WMD that he wouldn't have taken an ideal opportunity to use them against US troops, instead of burrying them in the sand. Remember, your argument is that he's a mad man willing to use Chemical weapons against his own people. I'm just saying if that's the case, he certainly wouldn't have hesitated to use them against a US invasion. What do suppose he would have to gain by hiding them? Do you suppose after all was said and done, he would just walk out and say "see I told you so" and the world would welcome him back into the international community with open arms? Dubious, to say the least.

Firstly, let's explore the Iraq / Al Qaeda links :

Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml


(AP) Documents discovered in the bombed out headquarters of Iraq's intelligence service provide evidence of a direct link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network, a newspaper reported Sunday.

Papers found Saturday by journalists working for the Sunday Telegraph reveal that an al Qaeda envoy met with officials in Baghdad in March 1998, the newspaper reported.
One document, dated Sept. 25, 2001, from Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri to Saddam's palace, was based on a briefing from the French ambassador in Baghdad and covered talks between presidents Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush.

Separately, The Sunday Times reported that its own journalists had found documents in the Iraqi foreign ministry that indicate that France gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials.

The newspaper said the documents reveal that Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private transatlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/30/iraq/main551632.shtml

Actually, I believe that Saddam's military got all of the messages that were being beamed into Iraq that told them in no uncertain terms that if Chem or Bio weapons were used, they would be held personally responsible. They also were told to lay down their weapons and go home & not to fight. A great deal of them did just that, and I think the message to disobey orders to use WMDs went unheeded.

I'm quite sure that the order had been given - remember Baghdad Bob's remarks on camera (not that he's anyone you want substantiating your arguments) to the effect that 'unconventional' methods would be used to retake Baghdad International Airport?

I don't believe that supporting a democracy is a matter of intelligence. To the contrary, very intelligent people, including some of our most valued presidents were even wary of the downfalls of the system we have. Jones gave a very powerful quote from Lincoln on the Fascist America thread which is all too clear. I would argue that we ourselves do not live in a democracy, and that corporate America carries far too much influence for us to say that the power is with the people. In any case, I do not believe Democracy is possible there because there are too many factions that simply cannot get along. Between the shiites, the suunies, and the kurds, there is simply not enough to agree on for the formation of a unified democracy. While I was perhaps hasty in claiming that it would never be possible, I see nothing there to make me think that it is.

I disagree, once again. ( I know, I'm really a bastard!)

Take a look at the population of America. We've got representation for every race, religion & political beliefs. And yet, we all get along, for the most part. Sure, there's a few idiots running around, (Al Sharpton, anyone?), but by and large, they're ignored except for their entertainment value.

I would venture to say we've got a more diverse cross section of people than Iraq does, by quite a large amount. If we can do it, so can they. And we'll be there to provide guidance if and when they begin to slip.

 

[Bry]

Hey, NT. Thank you very much for these excellent responses! It looks like you put alot of work into them, but maybe this just comes easy for you. I have to admit that a lot of what you have said is forcing me to alter my positions. Slightly. And appologies for taking my time in responding. I've actually lost weight since I started posting on the board! I needed to pay a little more attention to things like eating and sleeping.

To go back to the evidence for the meeting in Czechoslovakia, I had some trouble following it all. Apparently there were more than one? I'm not even sure what is being confirmed by the Czech government or denied. Obviously, if they are now going to stand by the initial intelligence reports, then that changes things, but I haven't seen much of it in the news, other than your reference to the Prague paper. I sure would like to know conclusively! I'm not going to bother with posting more articles that support my side here, as apparently they are just contradictory, and I prefer to wait for something more definitive if it ever comes. I'm sure you'll let me know.

Ditto with the France thing, although your posts here are very convincing. That France and Russia both had economic interests to protect, I already knew, and I have never suggested their motives were all altruistic. To the contrary. But I see in some sources that they state France's "no" as less than definitive. That France wanted to prevent an invasion, I am convinced of. But right now, I think we're seeing (in addition to further links between Iraq and Al Qaeda), a confirmation that the UN inspectors were having a significant impact on Iraq's ability to produce WMDs. I have even seen one story that suggests that one theory is that Saddam's scientists were actually lying to him, and that they had abandoned the progam but were lying to keep him happy. I think France's statement, regardless of the spin, or quotes from his television address was that they would not support the use of force under the circumstances and the inspectors needed to be allowed to continue their work. Take it or leave it, that's where I stand. I understand your position, I understand your reasons, and I am grateful for your very complete presentation.

I'm seeing too now the reports on some sharing of information from Paris to Baghdad, which raises some difficult questions as well. As for the other information that is coming out now about connections between al Qaeda and Iraq, I think it may be called conclusive. There certainly were connections between al Qaeda and Iraq. The connection included training and perhaps money as well, which makes sense. His deals with Sadam were deals with the devil as far as I'm concerned, even though it was clearly a relationship of convenience for both.

However, I do not condone the justifying of a war after the fact. I do not buy the phrase which has become so popular: "where there is smoke, there is fire." When you are trying to justify a war, you'd better damn well have more than smoke. As I have said before, concerning the justification of the war, the evidence presented must come from before the war. It must be the same information that the administration was looking at before the war started. There are even reports now that Blair may have known conclusively before the war that there were no readily deployable weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that strikes me as damning given the case he sold to his people.

LONDON, Oct. 5 Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) conceded privately that Iraq (news - web sites) did not have the quickly deployable weapons of mass destruction that the British government cited as justification for war, former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook asserted today.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...yt/exministersaysblairknewiraqhadnobannedarms

I for one am convinced that this war was scripted a long time ago, and it was just a matter of selling it to the people by whatever means necessary. I am also partial to some of the conspiracy theories I'm seeing, especially with regard to Cheney (though I wouldn't dare offend you by making real mention of that in this debate. You have earned too much respect for that, and I humbly retract my previous assertion that Cheney made deals to procur chemical weapons for Iraq.) I have found an article which gives a fantastic account of America's part in the Iran-Iraq war and which stunned me. That, in conjuntion with the Iran Contra scandal, the approval of the sale of "dual use" equipment to Iraq after arbitrarily removing Iraq from the list of terrorist supporting nations is stunning in itself. The article is very tedious and it comes from a source I'm sure you will object to, but the article is very well documented. Take it or leave it. http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle1214.html

All in all, if this administration doesn't start stepping a little more carefully, they are in for some real trouble. (just my opinion, of course.

As for whether or not Iraq is fertile ground for democracy, I can only say I hope you are right. Some of the stuff I read in I can't remember which thread about the Good News in the Small stories, or something like that, well it is good news, and I am only too willing to embrace it. It would, at the very least, prove wrong some of the popular characterizations of menacing Muslim zealots incapable of compromise which I think the various administrations of the US have long been selling us.

-Bry

 

[NightTrain]

Another excellent post, thank you.

Yep, there were two meetings that the Czechs were aware of between Atta & the Iraqi diplomat. The Czechs are actually a little miffed that a few journalists here in the USA are questioning their report, when they expected kudos for handing us that little bombshell on a silver platter.

The Paris / Baghdad information sharing was another bombshell, you really don't hear too much about it, but you can bet your last dollar that every government in the world perked up and reviewed their policies regarding what they told the French. That sort of behavior is a major faux paz, Pierre!

It's been a merry debate, Bry. Salut!