• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

Yeah, what was it? 212 dead or something close to that back in '83? Or that the embassies in Africa.

The military has been targetted by these zealot "rogues" for two decades prior to 9/11. The response by the American people was always to take a glance and insist that it is a criminal matter. The military constantly accepted one attack after another while the White House looked away. During the 90s, when these fanatics were taking full swings, the White House refused to ackowledge it because it would mean having to criticize a religion other than Christianity. But on 9/11, Americans wanted their revenge. On 9/11, Americans wanted the military to spill blood all over the landscape. All of a sudden these zealots for God mattered.

And now? These same people seem to think there's some international police force at work with the full and complete cooperation of Muslim governments to chase down and arrest the very few. Like I've stated before enough times, there is going to have be an orgy of blood letting across the globe for people to acknowledge that this is largely a war between civilizations. Unfortunately, 9/11 wasn't nearly enough.

When's the last time a newspaper printed a cartoon about Islam? Didn't take much to make the almighty West submissive and obedient did it? While they pretend that this threat is only about a very few mad bombers, our civilization placates and bends our free society rules. Talk about "Islamaphobia." The entire Western media and governments fear Islam's reaction to our freedoms of expression. Just a couple hundred murders and some riots. Maybe Christians should take it as a lesson.
 
Last edited:
any war on terror that failed to address saddam hussein would hardly be a war on terror

the baathist butcher was one of the world leaders in international terrorism for a quarter century

But Prof, you forget.... Bush lied, people died. :roll:
 
Normally I am all about eliminating any terrorist threat; however, Nigeria, is a third world hell hole. At best they have a weak government that has very little control over the actions of a few asorted extremist assholes that live in the sticks.

Hitting Nigeria is a waste of time and money. Lobbing a few crusie missles at some terrorist hideouts may be justifiable; however, Obama lacks the ball-balls to make that kind of decision.
 
It is an Islamic state. It is an Arab state. Just about 100 percent of the population is Islamic. Where's your confusion? Who wants to prevent international sympathy towards of terrorists and their supporters? If people need coerced into identifying an obvious enemy than they were always the enemy anyway. International crocodile tears don't concern me. In fact, they can do as those Sunni Msulims did over Iraq and travel to their deaths if they care that much. But something tells me that criticizing American activity of any kind is usually the goal of the international "sympathizers." If you've noticed, America has a very long history of dismissing global opinion as insignificant. Global opinion didn't lead us to European wars until we chose to intervene. Global opinion didn't keep us out of Vietnam. Global opinion didn't keep us out of Kosovo. Global opinion didn't keep us out of Afghanistan. Global opinion didn't keep us out of Iraq. Why should we start caring now?

America is in this for America. It's only because of our sense of morality and personal national image that the rest of the world benefits. And if you truly think that America is like the rest, than consider that our power could have had us forceably and brutally dominating this world long ago. Allying with Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or China would surely guarantee global domination over the rest instead of this "hands-across-the-western-world" illusion we allow people to believe in.

The whole Middle East is going down. Birth rates are going up. Fresh water is exponentially a concern. And an entire region relies almost entirely upon a natural resource that is drying up. Either they "evolve" and educate properly or become a slaughter ground as they emerse deeper and deeper into Islamic fanaticism. Clock's ticking.

Islamist state would imply a theocratic system. Yemen has a two-party, somewhat ****ed up qasi-democracy.

"Who wants to prevent international sympathy towards of terrorists and their supporters? " You do, the more people support them the more sucessful they are going to be. You should start caring now because its in your interests to do so, the vast majority of those in the Muslim world are distrustful of both the U.S and the Islamists (For example here in Ankara the same people burning american flags are often the same people demonstrating against the AKP) do things right and people will cooperate in rooting out a shared enemy, do things wrong and you become the shared enemy. Simple as that.
 
Islamist state would imply a theocratic system. Yemen has a two-party, somewhat ****ed up qasi-democracy.
Israel is often referred to as a Jewish state, but is not a theocracy.
 
Israel is often referred to as a Jewish state, but is not a theocracy.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_state]Islamic state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Nice hanging link, which I never click on. Care to explain your point?

Based on the definition,Yemen is not an Islamic state. But arguing semantics is pointless, Can we at least agree it is neither a theocracy nor run by Islamists?
 
Last edited:
Based on the definition,Yemen is not an Islamic state. But arguing semantics is pointless, Can we at least agree it is neither a theocracy nor run by Islamists?

I can't agree, because I don't know enough about Yemen and am not interested at this time in doing any research on it. Carry on.
 
Based on the definition,Yemen is not an Islamic state. But arguing semantics is pointless, Can we at least agree it is neither a theocracy nor run by Islamists?

Does it matter?

Can we agree that there are terrorist training camps there, and that those camps are legitimate targets?
 
Does it matter?

Can we agree that there are terrorist training camps there, and that those camps are legitimate targets?

Well yes it does matter in that if Yemen was an Islamic State then we would have legitimate reasons for distrusting them in taking out these camps themselves. The fact it isnt means that we dont.
 
Yemen, Republic of

Constitution adopted 16th May 1991 and amended 29th September 1994. Article 1 declares Yemen an �Arab Islamic State�. Article 2 declares Islam official state religion. Article 3 states that �Islamic shari�a shall be the source of all legislation�.� Article 23 states that inheritance is regulated by shari�a. Article 26 states that �the family is the basis of society and its pillars are religion, custom and love of the homeland�.�� Article 31 states that women �have rights and duties, which are guaranteed and assigned by shari�a and stipulated by law�.


Yemen is an Islamic state.

Will Obama address the Yemen natural gas tanker that is scheduled to come to Boston Harbor?

Menino wants to block Yemen tankers - The Boston Globe


Mayor Thomas M. Menino said yesterday he will ask Boston’s lawyers to see whether the city can block Yemeni tankers from delivering liquefied natural gas into Boston Harbor, calling such deliveries “wrong.’’

“We’re in extraordinary times that call for extraordinary measures to ensure the safety of our city,’’ the mayor said in an interview. “They cannot be coming into a harbor like Boston, where there is less than 50 feet between the tankers and residential areas.’’

Menino and several other public officials said they would press for the tankers’ cargo - destined for an LNG terminal in Everett as soon as next month - to instead be unloaded away from the city, in light of the failed Christmas Day attempt by a Nigerian man, who trained in Yemen, to blow up a US airliner over Detroit.

House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, who had called the plan to bring in the tankers “a matter of grave concern,’’ said yesterday he would contact the state’s top public safety official - Kevin M. Burke, the secretary of the Executive Office of Public Safety - to look for ways to halt the deliveries.

The Globe reported yesterday that shipments of liquefied natural gas from Yemen are scheduled to arrive for the first time in Boston as early as February. Coast Guard officials are reviewing the plan and said yesterday they have not yet decided whether the shipments will be allowed to enter the harbor and dock at the LNG terminal in Everett.
 
Well, this is your opinion and I assume it is based on your experiences. I have another and I assure you that it is based on my experiences. Nothing we have done since 9/11 should have cost so much and most of the dead would still be alive had they done things correctly. But the path was always going to be our destination. It was only a matter of time.

Iraq never had to be our destination. We never, ever had to invade and occupy that country. The rest I agree with. But it was foolish and only helped our enemies to invade Iraq.


Who said we own the Middle East? Last I checked we paid trillions of dollars for oil over the last 70 or so years. And until somebody finds a way to replace oil with something else, oil is the answer to all the world's oil based needs.

If you're willing to invade for oil, you're treating it like something you're entitled to. If I understand your comment concerning the oil, you seem to be saying it is something we have to kill for.

Iraq hasn't hurt us. We can always come home (which we are proving to do). Afghanistan will always be across the Atlantic, which makes it more of a European problem than ours. But I don't know what you mean about punching Fay Wray instead of King Kong. I know what you are saying, but I believe you are wrong. We have beat Al-Queda to a pulp in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Afghanistan and Iraq is not the only battle grounds. Beyond the military deployments to address dug in areas, the CIA and local governmnents have been active too. Their banking systems have been wrecked. Aside from Saddam Hussein, how have we not addressed King Kong? Hussein was merely a 12 year pain in the ass we ended. Need I remind you that even Bin Laden mentioned our mission to maintain the dictator as a justification for 9/11? He was right about that one.

I mean are we supposed to be Americans or Europeans? I, for one, am tired of belonging to a camp that seeks the Cold War and prior imperialisms as prescription for global order.

What we need to get through our think skulls is that nation building is pointless and stupid. Killing our enemies does not mean that we have to stick around to take care of those who won't even take care of themselves.

Iraq wasn't really a battleground. Not really against Al Qaeda. Most of who we fought we're Iraqis and a foreign element, small in number, who mostly had no ties to Al Qaeda or any terrorist organization prior to Iraq. So, they were just people we added to our plate that wouldn't have likely been there other wise. That alone has to hurt.

Second, last I heard from the CIA, Al Qaeda was as strong as ever, and that Iraq had motivated many to join. Again, something that hurts more than it helps.

Al Qaeda can't beat us anywhere. They can't win in any battle. But as you know, this means nothing. What they can do is make us look bad, hurt our credibility, bleed us. And that has been done, though mostly by Bush instead of them. I think that is what Scheuer meant by calling Iraq a Christmas gift for OBL.

And there was never anything in Iraq but nation building. Nothing there was really any serious threat to us. All Iraq did was add problems without doing anything to fight our enemies.
 
I think that is what Scheuer meant by calling Iraq a Christmas gift for OBL.

Scheuer also said that in the war on radical Islam we need to wage a ruthless unapologetic war. He also said that if our current course is not altered, which we see no signs of it being changed, then we have no choice but to "proceed with relentless, brutal, and, yes, blood-soaked offensive military actions until we have annihilated the Islamists who threaten us, or so mutilate their forces, supporting populations, and physical infrastructure that they recognize continued war-making on their part is futile."- Imperial Hubris, p. 85.

It seems we have passed the point of no return on that one.
 
Scheuer also said that in the war on radical Islam we need to wage a ruthless unapologetic war. He also said that if our current course is not altered, which we see no signs of it being changed, then we have no choice but to "proceed with relentless, brutal, and, yes, blood-soaked offensive military actions until we have annihilated the Islamists who threaten us, or so mutilate their forces, supporting populations, and physical infrastructure that they recognize continued war-making on their part is futile."- Imperial Hubris, p. 85.

It seems we have passed the point of no return on that one.

Yes, he did. But he also said to be smart, and to discuss if this is a war we want. He suggested a debate we never had.

Later, I'll break my copy out and make sure I quote the next response accurately before I go on. ;)
 
Iraq never had to be our destination. We never, ever had to invade and occupy that country. The rest I agree with. But it was foolish and only helped our enemies to invade Iraq.

Iraq was our destination. And once there, the "never, ever" whining just becomes deadly to US troops, undermines the President's ability to wage war, and Happy New Year, JD3.

Scheuer wrong on several counts, if OBL's purpose or goal was to get US troops in country, he certainly didn't think it would be Iraq. Wouldn't Obama's surge of 30,000 more troops bringing our total to 100,000 in Afghanistan and expanding the war into Pakistan be OBL's Christmas gift, wouldn't more and more US troops in the Afghan quagmire have been his goal? His entire Fatwa, his declaration of war was based on Iraq to begin with, he abhorred the thought of Iraq being invaded, occupied, and used as a launching pad for further 'invasions' by the infidels.

But I'll bet you lunch...Boo...that you support Obama's surge into Afghanistan. Correct?

Scheuer also head of the CIA's OBL desk between 1996-1999. The years OBL was sneaking 19 terrorists into the US, training right under our very noses, and then attacked on 9-11. The travel by these terrorists back and forth, the many instances of departments that missed information, everyone on this site should realize Scheuer is one of the main culprits as far as our complete miss on 9-11. Scheuer isn't qualified to run a fever after this colossal incompetence, he should be railroaded out of America, asked not to return. His hindsight now, I really don't know why anyone would take him seriously.

Michael F. Scheuer, who from 1996 to 1999 led the Central Intelligence Agency unit that tracked Mr. bin Laden, said the State Department documents reflected a keen awareness of the danger posed by Mr. bin Laden's relocation. "The analytical side of the State Department had it exactly right - that's genius analysis," he said in an interview when told of the declassified documents. But Mr. Scheuer, who wrote a book in 2004 titled "Imperial Hubris," under the pseudonym "Anonymous," that was highly critical of American counterterrorism strategies, said many officials in the C.I.A.'s operational side thought they would have a better chance to kill Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan than they did in Sudan because the Sudan government protected him.

Wrote the book under the pseudonym, "Anonymous?" Now, there's a man who is proud of his accomplishments and thus writing a book about it!:cool:

This genius analysis...that we would have a better chance in Afghanistan than in the Sudan? Because the Sudanese government was protecting him? Were not the Taliban protecting him as well? Seems to me..in hindsight..that Osama was out of the frying pan and into the fire, why would we think it would be easier to go into Afghansitan and kill him? Isn't Afghanistan rather than the Sudan the historical location of insurgencies and tribal chaos that saw the Soviets and British defeated, is was easier to kill him in Afghanistan? And...do you still feel this was genius analysis?

"The thinking was that he was in Afghanistan, and he was dangerous, but because he was there, we had a better chance to kill him," Mr. Scheuer said. "But at the end of the day, we settled for the worst possibility - he was there and we didn't do anything.

That's right you didn't do anything. And when someone finally did, you became critical and blamed everyone else. Why not shred your citizen papers and go live in Afghanistan yourself, you're the danger to this nation. easier to kill in Afghanistan...yeah...how'd that work out Mike? Easier to kill in the mountainous Afghan Pakistan border regions that these Cats have been living in for centuries?

Brilliant. I remember reading another article by Scheuer, I'll try to find it, I brought it up with JD...er....Boo quite some time ago. Scheuer was claiming Iraq had given al-Qaeda access to the Arabian Peninsula. Yemen, Saudi Arabia, where the Cole was bombed, where embassies were attacked..long before Iraq was invaded by W. This Scheuer couldn't manage a bowel movement after a night of heavy drinking, he isn't qualified to walk my dog.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/international/asia/17osama.html?_r=1
 
Iraq was our destination. And once there, the "never, ever" whining just becomes deadly to US troops, undermines the President's ability to wage war, and Happy New Year, JD3.

Scheuer wrong on several counts, if OBL's purpose or goal was to get US troops in country, he certainly didn't think it would be Iraq. Wouldn't Obama's surge of 30,000 more troops bringing our total to 100,000 in Afghanistan and expanding the war into Pakistan be OBL's Christmas gift, wouldn't more and more US troops in the Afghan quagmire have been his goal? His entire Fatwa, his declaration of war was based on Iraq to begin with, he abhorred the thought of Iraq being invaded, occupied, and used as a launching pad for further 'invasions' by the infidels.

But I'll bet you lunch...Boo...that you support Obama's surge into Afghanistan. Correct?

telling the truth hurts more than putting them needlessly in harms way? I doubt that.

And you're right. OBL did not think it would be Iraq. He wanted it to be Afghanistan. That didn't pan out well. However, as Scheuer noted, Bush gave him a second bite at the apple with Iraq. It was foolish.

Now, as for iraq and Afghanistan, Afghanistan made since. You can not find anywhere where I opposed Bush in Afghanistan. Now, was it real smart? No. Nation building is a huge problem, but OBL was in Afghanistan. So, it made some sense. Obama is right to focus there. But, no I don't support the surge there. It is the same problem of trying to nation build instead of practically addressing the problems.

Scheuer also head of the CIA's OBL desk between 1996-1999. The years OBL was sneaking 19 terrorists into the US, training right under our very noses, and then attacked on 9-11. The travel by these terrorists back and forth, the many instances of departments that missed information, everyone on this site should realize Scheuer is one of the main culprits as far as our complete miss on 9-11. Scheuer isn't qualified to run a fever after this colossal incompetence, he should be railroaded out of America, asked not to return. His hindsight now, I really don't know why anyone would take him seriously.

I think you misunderstand his job. He criticized Clinton for a reason. He did not make command decisions, but we did know such an attack was coming. The information and warnings were given. ANd if the FBI and CIA had talked to each other, 9/11 might well have been prevented. Remember, the conclusions about pre-9/11 were not that invading or killing anyone would have prevented 9/11, but that merely allowing agencies to share information might well have.

Wrote the book under the pseudonym, "Anonymous?" Now, there's a man who is proud of his accomplishments and thus writing a book about it!:cool:

This genius analysis...that we would have a better chance in Afghanistan than in the Sudan? Because the Sudanese government was protecting him? Were not the Taliban protecting him as well? Seems to me..in hindsight..that Osama was out of the frying pan and into the fire, why would we think it would be easier to go into Afghansitan and kill him? Isn't Afghanistan rather than the Sudan the historical location of insurgencies and tribal chaos that saw the Soviets and British defeated, is was easier to kill him in Afghanistan? And...do you still feel this was genius analysis?

He was an active agent at the time. He could not give his name. He later resigned because he felt so strongly about this and has spoken publicly repeatedly.

That's right you didn't do anything. And when someone finally did, you became critical and blamed everyone else. Why not shred your citizen papers and go live in Afghanistan yourself, you're the danger to this nation. easier to kill in Afghanistan...yeah...how'd that work out Mike? Easier to kill in the mountainous Afghan Pakistan border regions that these Cats have been living in for centuries?

Brilliant. I remember reading another article by Scheuer, I'll try to find it, I brought it up with JD...er....Boo quite some time ago. Scheuer was claiming Iraq had given al-Qaeda access to the Arabian Peninsula. Yemen, Saudi Arabia, where the Cole was bombed, where embassies were attacked..long before Iraq was invaded by W. This Scheuer couldn't manage a bowel movement after a night of heavy drinking, he isn't qualified to walk my dog.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/international/asia/17osama.html?_r=1

I don't follow your point. Was Scheuer given the power to make decisions one who to kill? Largely you don't seem to understand the role analysts and decision makers.
 
However, as Scheuer noted, Bush gave him a second bite at the apple with Iraq. It was foolish.
With all the whining OBL does about the presence of infidels in Muslim lands how much does he really enjoy, how much of a "gift" is it, having infidel armies crusading all over Iraq and Afghanistan implementing Western style governance and civil society?
 
Last edited:
With all the whining OBL does about the presence of infidels in Muslim lands how much does he really enjoy, how much of a "gift" is it, having infidel armies crusading all over Iraq and Afghanistan implementing Western style governance and civil society?

They were doing that without him having the ability to hurt us near as much. By invading, we prove him right in his claims of what we would do, and he had give us a bad taste in our mouth. Without this, things would have continued with him only able to something sporadically. If he is successful, and makes it uncomfortable enough, he gains much more than he ever would had we not come over.
 
Charles Martel sounds like Oldschool.

And about OBL and Bush's gift. . .the fact remains that there is now a constitutional republic of sorts in Iraq where there wasn't one before. Same in Afghanistan. The very antithesis of what OBL desires. I don't any reason to believe that he sees it as a gift even if he has been able to see more Americans killed. As the days go on the roots of civil society only grow stronger; something OBL is likely never going to be able to remove in Iraq. Scheuer's argument on this front is weak.
 
Last edited:
Charles Martel sounds like Oldschool.

And about OBL and Bush's gift. . .the fact remains that there is now a constitutional republic of sorts in Iraq where there wasn't one before. Same in Afghanistan. The very antithesis of what OBL desires. I don't any reason to believe that he sees it as a gift even if he has been able to see more Americans killed. As the days go on the roots of civil society only grow stronger; something OBL is likely never going to be able to remove in Iraq. Scheuer's argument on this front is weak.

This isn't magic. It doesn't change the harm done, or justify the cost someone else paid. Many overestimate how much democracy matters to OBL (who wanted Saddam out as much as we did) and his side. And overestimate just how much freedom and improvement the Iraq people are actually seeing.

So, while I wish them well, that will be up to the Iraqis, who have to deal with the pain we brought them and hopefully make something out of all the destruction, eventually.
 
This isn't magic. It doesn't change the harm done, or justify the cost someone else paid. Many overestimate how much democracy matters to OBL (who wanted Saddam out as much as we did) and his side. And overestimate just how much freedom and improvement the Iraq people are actually seeing.

So, while I wish them well, that will be up to the Iraqis, who have to deal with the pain we brought them and hopefully make something out of all the destruction, eventually.

Just a few "minor" points that you either forgot about or simply want to ignore. Now I could go on but why?

Kay on Today: "It Was Absolutely Prudent to Go to War Against Saddam"

This is David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey group

The Today Show

Kay: "It wasn't only the US who came to that conclusion. The French, Germans, and UN all thought Saddam had WMDs." It was inaccurate in terms of the reality we found on the ground now, but it was accurate in terms of the intelligence at the time.

Saddam was a DESTABILIZING element in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Saddam did have a history of AGGRESSION against his neighbors (who were probably the happiest to see him go and who really in the end cooperated with the coalition).
Saddam did give SANCTUARY TO TERRORISTS...both Abu Abas and Abu Nidal.
Saddam did MUTILATE his people. Cut their ears off and pulled their tongues out.
Saddam did TORTURE his people who opposed the Baath party and his tyranny.
Saddam did MURDER his people as we now know from the mass graves.
Saddam did Gas his own people as is well documented by the horror experienced by the Kurds Saddam did MURDER his people as we now know from the mass graves.
Saddam did OPPRESS those faiths who differed with his Sunni pals. He wasn't the paragon of secular behavior that his appeasers make him out to be.
Saddam represented the worst of ISLAMO/FASCISM and supported terrorists in Palestine
Saddam ATTACKED Israel with scud missiles in the Gulf War just on principle and continued to be a significant obstacle to rational thought among Arabs regarding a rational solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
It is not a coincidence that the recent peace initiative has come on the heels of his removal.
Saddam was a first class fascist just like Hitler and he had to go. The world is better off.
Saddam did provide funding for suicide bomber families
Saddam was indicted by the Clinton Justice Department along with Bin Laden
Saddam was on the terror watch list throughout the 90’s
Saddam Hussein received billions in the oil for food scandal and used it to fund terrorism
Saddam Hussein violated every UN resolution and then failed to abide by 1441
Saddam Hussein helped create the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998


Putin Says Russia Warned U.S. on Saddam, Russia warned the United States on several occasions that Iraq's Saddam Hussein planned "terrorist attacks" on its soil, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.

"After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues," he told reporters.
The Kremlin leader, who was speaking in the Kazakh capital, said Russian intelligence services had many times received information that Saddam's special forces were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States "and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets."


Mohammed Atta trained in Iraq. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is in Iraq, Hamas, Hezbollah and Fatah, FUNDED From IRAQ, Al Qaeda Terrorist Camp in Iraq, but apparently Saddam was simply a VICTIM Of the West's Imperialism, right and not a terrorist?

By NILES LATHEM

September 8, 2004 --

WASHINGTON — France, Russia and China supplied Saddam Hussein with missiles, arms, defense technology and spare parts before — and after — the start of the Iraq war, an explosive new book claims.

In the book, Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz cites a slew of illegal covert arms deals between Saddam and several countries that opposed the U.S. invasion in the months before and after the start of war in March 2003.

The book, "Treachery: How America's Friends and Foes Are Secretly Arming Our Enemies," cites secret Pentagon and CIA reports and interviews with top U.S. defense and intelligence officials.

Gertz claims that many of the weapons sold to Iraq in this critical time frame — and in violation of U.N. embargoes — were used by Ba'athist terrorists against U.S. forces after the fall of Saddam.
 
Misinformation. Most thought Saddam had some left over wmds, not that he was growing and gathering as Bush claimed. And Atta did not train in Iraq.

German intelligence officials say they have evidence that the suspected ringleader of the 11 September terrorist attacks trained in Afghanistan in 1999 and 2000, according to a US newspaper report.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Atta 'trained in Afghanistan'

The Habbush letter, or Habbush memo, is a handwritten message dated July 1, 2001, which appeared to show a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq's Saddam Hussein government. It purports to be a direct communication between the head of Iraqi Intelligence, General Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, to Saddam Hussein, outlining mission training which Mohammed Atta, one of the organizers of the September 11 attacks, supposedly received in Iraq. The letter also claims that Hussein accepted a shipment from Niger, an apparent reference to an alleged uranium acquisition attempt that U.S. President George W. Bush cited in his January 2003 State of the Union address.

The letter has been widely considered a fabrication since it was first made public in December 2003. In 2008 journalist Ron Suskind claimed that the White House ordered the CIA to create the forgery. Two of Suskind's sources denied having knowledge of anyone in their chain of command ordering the forging the letter[1]. Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi alleged that the Pentagon was behind the forgery. The controversy that erupted as a result of Suskind's allegations has so far led to an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee.[2]

(snip)

Doubts

Investigative journalist Michael Isikoff spoke with current and former US officials, including an Iraqi document expert who was at that time reviewing thousands of Operation Iraqi Freedom documents, all of whom deemed the letter a probable fabrication.[9] "The problem with this, say U.S. law enforcement officials, is that the FBI has compiled a highly detailed time line for Atta's movements throughout the spring and summer of 2001 based on a mountain of documentary evidence, including airline records, ATM withdrawals and hotel receipts. Those records show Atta crisscrossing the United States during this period—making only one overseas trip, an 11-day visit to Spain that didn't begin until six days after the date of the Iraqi memo."

Isikoff continued: "Ironically, even the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi, which has been vocal in claiming ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, was dismissive of the new Telegraph story. 'The memo is clearly nonsense,' an INC spokesman told Newsweek."

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habbush_letter]Habbush letter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


As for Kay:

On 23 January 2004, the head of the ISG, David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. "I don't think they existed," commented Kay. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties." In a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kay criticized the pre-war WMD intelligence and the agencies that produced it, saying "It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing." [1] Sometime earlier, CIA director George Tenet had asked David Kay to delay his departure: "If you resign now, it will appear that we don't know what we're doing. That the wheels are coming off."[1]

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group]Iraq Survey Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

As for your list. Saddam had been neutered for years. He was not a treat at the time of the invasion. Nor was he doing anything that would justify the cost.
 
Back
Top Bottom