IGX

I distinctly remember (perhaps erroneously) there was concerted efforts to establish an Al Qaeda in Iraq storyline....

I think these were routinely debunked in real time but there were plenty of people in my Bluer than Blue state who bought the storyline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hus ... llegations

On September 21, 2001, Bush was told in the President’s Daily Brief that the intelligence community had no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein’s regime to the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with al Qaeda. This was no surprise. Al Qaeda is a consortium of intensely religious Islamic fundamentalists, whereas Hussein ran a secular government that repressed religious activity in Iraq.

Undeterred, Bush and his people continued to tout the connection. Although the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) determined in February 2002 that “Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful [chemical or biological weapons] knowledge or assistance,” Bush proclaimed one year later, “Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.” And although the CIA concluded in a classified January 2003 report that Hussein “viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat,” Cheney claimed the next day that the Iraqi government “aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.”

I find the GOP's continuing war against reality to be quite entertaining. Politically rewarding as well.

Yes there was an attempt to tie Saddam to some terrorist that had ties to Osama or Al-Qaeda. I recall hearing
that he met with Saddam at some point in time, not too long before 9/11.

What I remember was that the administration was warning that we needed to preemptively strike any potential
terrorists whenever we could.

I bought the WMD story totally and kept expecting to hear out troops find some any day from the beginning of the 2003 war until a year or so later. There were rumors that the weapons were moved to Syria, but I don't know how realistic of a scenaio
that really was.

In my opinion, there is no doubt that Saddam deserved what he got. The unfortunate reality is there are a shitload of Muslim
nutjobs to take his place. I do not think that we can kill them all, but I do not see any acceptable alternative than to attempt to kill as many as we can as fast as we can.

Regardless of whether they had anything to do with 9/11 (they didn't), is there any serious question that Al Quaeda was present in Iraq at the time of the invasion and thereafter?

protobuilder wrote:Regardless of whether they had anything to do with 9/11 (they didn't), is there any serious question that Al Quaeda was present in Iraq at the time of the invasion and thereafter?

Well they are/were in Canada too, and I think that'd be a better country for the US to invade. I for one would like unfettered access to the Canadian wilderness without having to worry about customs.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I distinctly remember (perhaps erroneously) there was concerted efforts to establish an Al Qaeda in Iraq storyline....

I think these were routinely debunked in real time but there were plenty of people in my Bluer than Blue state who bought the storyline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hus ... llegations

Whether it turned out to true or not is in a very real sense irrelevant.

The facts:
1. Saddam subverted the WMD investigation, both actively and passively
2. Saddam wanted the world to believe that he had an active and capable WMD program (even when he claimed he didn't have one).
3. Intelligence services from several western nations believed he still had a capable WMD capacity and a willingness to use it.
4. Blix wasn't able to conclude that there either was or wasn't an active WMD capacity.
5. Saddam was actively subverting the UN sanctions, several western nations were his active partners in this.
6. Nations in the region believed that Saddam was a threat to regional stability.
7. The sanctions weren't working to deter Saddam, only to enhance the suffering of Iraqis.

The Al Queda connection was there. Whether or not Saddam and his regime were actively and effectively supporting materially Al Queda is an entirely different question.

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I distinctly remember (perhaps erroneously) there was concerted efforts to establish an Al Qaeda in Iraq storyline....

I think these were routinely debunked in real time but there were plenty of people in my Bluer than Blue state who bought the storyline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hus ... llegations

Whether it turned out to true or not is in a very real sense irrelevant.

The facts:
1. Saddam subverted the WMD investigation, both actively and passively
2. Saddam wanted the world to believe that he had an active and capable WMD program (even when he claimed he didn't have one).
3. Intelligence services from several western nations believed he still had a capable WMD capacity and a willingness to use it.
4. Blix wasn't able to conclude that there either was or wasn't an active WMD capacity.
5. Saddam was actively subverting the UN sanctions, several western nations were his active partners in this.
6. Nations in the region believed that Saddam was a threat to regional stability.
7. The sanctions weren't working to deter Saddam, only to enhance the suffering of Iraqis.

The Al Queda connection was there. Whether or not Saddam and his regime were actively and effectively supporting materially Al Queda is an entirely different question.

The fact the Bush administration and its collaborators on the other side of the aisle crafted a bullshit storyline to help lube the slide into Iraq is "irrelevant"?

Are you claiming the connection to Saddam WAS there?

al-Qaeda did not have any relationship with Saddam Hussein or his regime. We had to draw up a plan to enter Iraq through the north that was not under the control of his regime. We would then spread south to the areas of our fraternal Sunni brothers. The fraternal brothers of the Ansar al-Islam expressed their willingness to offer assistance to help us achieve this goal.

—Saif al-Ade

Blaidd Drwg wrote:The fact the Bush administration and its collaborators on the other side of the aisle crafted a bullshit storyline to help lube the slide into Iraq is "irrelevant"?

Crafted and reasonably believed are two very different things. Potempkin storylines like Saddam's are critical elements of both war and politics.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Are you claiming the connection to Saddam WAS there?

I am stating that there was. Was it substantial and material? I'm not claiming that.

So it's all to the good becuase enough people bought a line of bullshit in the wake of a national tragedy?


I think it's relevant to the question of whether the Iraq Fiasco will impact party politics to inquire as to the hellish pack of lies that underpinned the decision to go.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I think it's relevant to the question of whether the Iraq Fiasco will impact party politics to inquire as to the hellish pack of lies that underpinned the decision to go.

The only problem I have with this is, if "Bush lied," then either he's a genius who duped everyone on the international scene or, he was mistaken, along with everyone else. The latter seems more plausible.

Ultimately, it doesnt matter that much politically b/c the GOP has already suffered politically and continues to do so, regardless of Iraq:

The Republican Party’s ratings now stand at a 20-year low, with just 33 percent of the public holding a favorable view of the party and 58 percent judging it unfavorably, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.

protobuilder wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I think it's relevant to the question of whether the Iraq Fiasco will impact party politics to inquire as to the hellish pack of lies that underpinned the decision to go.

The only problem I have with this is, if "Bush lied," then either he's a genius who duped everyone on the international scene or, he was mistaken, along with everyone else. The latter seems more plausible.

Ultimately, it doesnt matter that much politically b/c the GOP has already suffered politically and continues to do so, regardless of Iraq:

The Republican Party’s ratings now stand at a 20-year low, with just 33 percent of the public holding a favorable view of the party and 58 percent judging it unfavorably, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.

Probably a mix of both. The administration knowingly gamed the story becuase they were stupid enough to believe it would work.

I don't know how much of the GOP'sslide comes from Iraq (i wish they were being held to account along with everyone else) as much as the utterly moronic cast of characters (Palin et al) and anti-personal liberty stances they have taken nationally.

Yes I Have Balls wrote:<null>

By that logic, they are worse than the republicans.
The implication is that they sacrificed all these lives because they lacked the courage to risk their political positions.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I think it's relevant to the question of whether the Iraq Fiasco will impact party politics to inquire as to the hellish pack of lies that underpinned the decision to go.

You know as well as I do that collective memory isn't very long.

protobuilder wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I think it's relevant to the question of whether the Iraq Fiasco will impact party politics to inquire as to the hellish pack of lies that underpinned the decision to go.

The only problem I have with this is, if "Bush lied," then either he's a genius who duped everyone on the international scene or, he was mistaken, along with everyone else. The latter seems more plausible.

Ultimately, it doesnt matter that much politically b/c the GOP has already suffered politically and continues to do so, regardless of Iraq:

The Republican Party’s ratings now stand at a 20-year low, with just 33 percent of the public holding a favorable view of the party and 58 percent judging it unfavorably, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.

Nonsense. They held their own in the last election at the Congressional level, and gained at the state level. Without a few stupid mistakes (i.e. legitimate rape, whatever that is; and a weaker presidential candidate than McCain) the gains would have been greater.

protobuilder wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I think it's relevant to the question of whether the Iraq Fiasco will impact party politics to inquire as to the hellish pack of lies that underpinned the decision to go.

The only problem I have with this is, if "Bush lied," then either he's a genius who duped everyone on the international scene or, he was mistaken, along with everyone else. The latter seems more plausible.

Ultimately, it doesnt matter that much politically b/c the GOP has already suffered politically and continues to do so, regardless of Iraq:

The Republican Party’s ratings now stand at a 20-year low, with just 33 percent of the public holding a favorable view of the party and 58 percent judging it unfavorably, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.

He (Bush) was duped by his Neocon advisors (Wolfowitz, Feith, et al) who took advantage of his startling lack of foreign affairs knowledge.

protobuilder wrote:Regardless of whether they had anything to do with 9/11 (they didn't), is there any serious question that Al Quaeda was present in Iraq at the time of the invasion and thereafter?

The GOP certainly has problems but it will recover from Iraq with no problem.

1). The US public has largely forgotten about Iraq. It's in the news this week due to the anniversary but scan the headlines in another week and you won't see any mention of it.

2). The US public doesn't care about nor follow international politics. Polls show that around half the public believes that Iraq had WMDs, etc. People don't care about dead Iraqis and politicians on both sides of the aisle have done a good job of keeping pictures of dead soldiers off the news. Polls Rape, guns and gay marriage are far more pertinent issues.

3). The current administration hasn't done anything to make people believe they have an alternative. If Obama had demonstrated a stark alternative in policy, they could blame everything on the GOP, fair or not. He hasn't and they can't.

Terry B. wrote:The current administration hasn't done anything to make people believe they have an alternative. If Obama had demonstrated a stark alternative in policy, they could blame everything on the GOP, fair or not. He hasn't and they can't.

This. He has the opportunity with Obamacare-- properly implemented it's capable of delivering lower insurance rates. These could drop labor costs for businesses (possibly having a positive effect on employment, wages, and full time employment) and drop costs paid by employees (which could potentially be more significant than any middle tax cut the administration has proposed).

Or he could continue his focus on subsidizing big pharma.