Klein wrote of Paul's "singular moment of weirdness" at debate, but 9-11 report supports his claim
Reviewing the May 15 Republican presidential debate in his column in the May 28 edition of Time, Joe Klein wrote that Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) had a "singular moment of weirdness" when he said "that al-Qaeda attacked on Sept. 11 because the U.S. had been messing around in the Middle East, bombing Iraq." Klein made no mention of the 9-11 Commission report's findings -- which Paul has cited in support of his response at the debate -- including that Osama bin Laden's verbal attacks against the United States "found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America's support for their countries' repressive rulers."
Some media figures mischaracterized the response by Paul during the debate, asserting that Paul had "blamed" the United States for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, as Media Matters for America recently noted. In fact, Paul did not blame the United States but, rather, said the attacks were a response to U.S. actions in the Middle East and stressed the importance of understanding the motivations of those who want to attack the United States. From the debate:
PAUL: Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.
We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)
[...]
PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- [bell rings] -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.
[...]
PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.
They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?
During a post-debate interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Paul said that "Americans didn't do anything to cause" 9-11 and added that the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia appealed to bin Laden's followers. And on May 16, Paul released a press release stating :
When Congressman Ron Paul, who has long served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explained how 50 years of American interventionism in the Middle East has helped compromise our national security, [Rudy] Giuliani interrupted saying he had "never heard anything so absurd." This statement is particularly troubling coming from the former mayor who tries to cast himself as a security expert, since Dr. Paul's point comes directly from the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission Report.
In his Time column published online on May 17, Klein rated the GOP candidates based on their performance during the May 15 debate. Klein said that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney lost "because he was slick," former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani won "because he seemed forceful" and Sen. John McCain (AZ) "was a most honorable presence." After mentioning some of the lower tier candidates, Klein ended with Paul, calling his comments regarding 9-11 "weird":
And then there's the libertarian Congressman Ron Paul who seems like your uncle the bartender who has a Big Theory about everything: some of his ideas are brilliant, others weird. He rates a mention because his singular moment of weirdness--proposing that al-Qaeda attacked on Sept. 11 because the U.S. had been messing around in the Middle East, bombing Iraq--offered Giuliani a historic slam dunk. "That's an extraordinary statement," he jumped in when Paul finished, "... that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11." There was explosive applause from the audience.
Yet Klein did not mention the 9-11 Commission report, to which Paul referred on the May 16 edition of CNN's The Situation Room. In Chapter 2, the commission discussed bin Laden's appeal in the Islamic world:
It is the story of eccentric and violent ideas sprouting in the fertile ground of political and social turmoil. It is the story of an organization poised to seize its historical moment. How did Bin Ladin-with his call for the indiscriminate killing of Americans-win thousands of followers and some degree of approval from millions more?
The history, culture, and body of beliefs from which Bin Ladin has shaped and spread his message are largely unknown to many Americans. Seizing on symbols of Islam's past greatness, he promises to restore pride to people who consider themselves the victims of successive foreign masters. He uses cultural and religious allusions to the holy Qur'an and some of its interpreters. He appeals to people disoriented by cyclonic change as they confront modernity and globalization. His rhetoric selectively draws from multiple sources-Islam, history, and the region's political and economic malaise. He also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.
[...]
Many Americans have wondered, "Why do 'they' hate us?" Some also ask, "What can we do to stop these attacks?"
Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands. America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as "your agents." Bin Ladin has stated flatly, "Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you." These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America's support for their countries' repressive rulers.
From the May 16 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
WOLF BLITZER (host): Are you ready to back away from the implication of what you were saying last night? Because certainly when you were given the chance last night, you didn't.
PAUL: No. There's no reason to. I think he's going to have to back away from his statement pretty soon, because I found two very clear quotes in the 9-11 Commission report that says that very thing, that our foreign policy has a very great deal to do with their willingness and desire to commit suicide terrorism. So, I would suggest that he read the 9-11 Commission report.
[...]
PAUL: I blame bad policy. And bad policy can have consequences, unintended. The CIA recognize it. The 9-11 Commission recognize it. So to me, this sounds very logical. I think he needs to back down, and I think he needs to read the report and come back and apologize to me.
Finally an honest man.
Sic'em Paul!
Man, I hope he keeps on this vein. It opens up a whole continient of potential discussion within the Republican party.
Snowballs chance in hell? At this point, irrelivent. I'd count any positive response to him from the rank and file, just that, something positive.
MMFA better be careful here. They're supporting Hillary, yet siding with Paul gives ammunition to those who believe Bill Clinton's policies contributed to 9/11. See http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/impeachment.html
ROn Paul is the only "conservative" running. The rest are a bunch on neo-con hacks.
IF Paul can get enough media he WILL give the Dems a run for there money and I don't really think thats a bad thing. I've been doing a lot of research on Paul hehis ideas cross paths with my own on many things. He's a breath of fresh air and continues to win me over as a supporter.
SO was Paul right or wrong? Also, doesn't what you post sort of imply that Giuliani is a complete moron?
Hey, "moron" in so harsh! Personally, I prefer "challenged" or even "uncomprehending uncaring incompetent liar", but you must choose your own usage from your own sense of style.
Even FOX is starting to see the light!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274174,00.html
"The reaction to the showdown between Rep. Ron Paul and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has been fascinating. Paul suggested that the recent history of U.S. foreign policy endeavors overseas may have had something to do with terrorists' willingness to come to America, live here for several months, then give their lives to kill as many Americans as possible.
Perhaps, Paul suggested, the 15-year presence of the U.S. military forces in Muslim countries may have motivated them. For that, Giuliani excoriated him, calling it an "extraordinary statement," adding, "I don't think I've heard that before."
Let's be blunt. Giuliani was either lying, or he hasn't cracked a book in six years."
The policies of every president of the last century contributed to 9/11.Thecurrent administration has carved out a singular place for itself in allowing these factors to play out, and exploiting the result to the detriment of our country and the world.
Cute web site, though.
Have you figured out how Clinton is to blame for sinking the Titanic yet? Measels? That headache you get when you eat ice cream too fast? You need psychiatric help
You forgot tooth decay, lost socks, and the fall of the Roman Empire.
It's all Clinton's fault!
Yes, but the reason that Rome wasn't built in a day was because of the unions.
If Paul is correct, then it follows that Clinton bears reponsibility for 9/11. After all, the plan that led to 9/11 was hatched during the Clinton administration and the 9/11 pilots were in this country prior to Bush being elected president. Whatever motivated al Qaeda to attack us on 9/11 was in place before Bush took a single action as president.
It makes sense only if you are a propagandist determined to blame everything you possibly can on Democratic President who was actually popular and competent. As opposed to the catastrophe that walks like a man named Bush. Val is right virtually every modern president has contributed to the aggressive foriegn policy that Paul and the 9/11 commission was talking about it was under Eisenhower that we overthrew Mossedegh in Iran. Your obsession with blaming everything on Clinton is pathalogical and boring.
OOOPS that should be Huntington Beach Lefty is right
"It makes sense only if you are a propagandist determined to blame everything you possibly can on Democratic President who was actually popular and competent. As opposed to the catastrophe that walks like a man named Bush."
Clinton was the only president that bin Laden said al Qaeda would send "messages with no words" in retaliation for Clinton's policies vis-a-vis Iraq. That's a fact. See bin Ladin's interview with CNN at http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/binladen/binladenintvw-cnn.pdf
"Val is right virtually every modern president has contributed to the aggressive foriegn policy that Paul and the 9/11 commission was talking about it was under Eisenhower that we overthrew Mossedegh in Iran. Your obsession with blaming everything on Clinton is pathalogical and boring."
I'm only going by what bin Laden said. He bin Laden in 1997 said he was going to send Clinton "messages with no words," and then we had the bombings of our U.S. embassies in 1998, the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, and, of course, 9/11, it seems to me that was a credible threat.
BTW, Mossedegh was not elected in a popular election. Check the record.
“Clinton was the only president that bin Laden said al Qaeda would send "messages with no words" in retaliation for Clinton's policies vis-a-vis Iraq.”
I don’t know what to make of this comment. He said Clinton because Clinton was the president at that time. Right now they send messages to Bush because he is the president now. If Barney the Dinosaur were president, they would send messages to him.
Only if, like Clinton, Barney the Dinosaur was responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children and dramatically increased the number of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.
Bush 43 actually removed troops from Saudi Arabia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm
"Only if, like Clinton, Barney the Dinosaur was responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children and dramatically increased the number of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia."
Read the interview you posted. He talks about a lot of things that America has done in the Middle East. He was going to send a message to Clinton because Clinton was the president at the time. Was he going to send a message to all the other presidents retroactively?
So you were an advocate of removing the sanctions to stop all the death that was occurring in Iraq?
"Bush 43 actually removed troops from Saudi Arabia."
I know, Bush has lot done a lot of things to appease Bin Laden.
You're spelling it incorrectly. You need a "y" instead of a "z."
No, it's spelled correctly.
His spelling is fine. You are just a moron who doesnt read very well. Your silly way of arguing a point is to latch on to some single thing, misinterper it then hold on to it like a drowning man holds on to a floating log. You need to let some reality into your life. Perhaps start with a few small things around the edges if that doesnt put you into shock you can increase the reality dosages. One day MAYBE you can get beyond your delusional fantasies.
At this point, it appears all you have left is name-calling.If you cannot offer a cogent argument, why bother posting here.
Another snivelling con saying WWWAAAHHH only us conservatives get to call names. Did you or did you not tell him that he should spell his name loony instead of loonz. If you dont LIKE mudthrowing stop throwing YOURS. Or keep snivelling like a six year old girl that we treat you the way you treat us, its amusing and shows how pathetic you are.
You gave up any high ground about name-calling when you did it to Loonz. Your complaint is pretty funny as it is often used by some other hypocritical posters around here, who seem to think they have exclusive franchise on name-calling and/or ridicule.
In the show "Boston Legal" Denny Crane (William Shatner) argues (in satire) that Iraq was Hillary's fault: Bill would never have lied at the deposition, except he was afraid of Hillary. Then he wouldn't have been impeached and Gore would have won in 2000. It totally makes sense, compared to Kevin's argument.
The problem is not that our intelligence was flawed.
The problem is that Bush had men on the ground in early 2003 that told him that the intelligence was flawed, plus lots of other info available that discounted the intelligence, and he still invaded Iraq.
Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Bush did.
That's the poor decision, and that responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of George W Bush. He invaded after the UN Weapons Inspectors had told him that there was almost certainly no imminent or nearly imminent threat from WMD's. He doesn't escape any of that responsibility because others were misled by faulty intelligence.
"The problem is not that our intelligence was flawed."
So it was right?
"The problem is that Bush had men on the ground in early 2003 that told him that the intelligence was flawed, plus lots of other info available that discounted the intelligence, and he still invaded Iraq."
That's a falsehood. What men on the ground in early 2003 said the intelligence was flawed? What, specifically, did they say?
"Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Bush did."
Clinton kept sanctions on Iraq for eight years because he said Iraq had WMD. The UN has reported that those sanctions led to the deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqi children. Which was worse? Invading or killing half a million children? Which led to 9/11?
"That's the poor decision, and that responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of George W Bush. He invaded after the UN Weapons Inspectors had told him that there was almost certainly no imminent or nearly imminent threat from WMD's."
Bush did not say there was an imminent threat. He said there was a gathering threat that needed to be stopped before it became imminent. He was guided by what could be called Richard Clarke's doctrine of preemption.
A lot of it was right. The State Dept intelligence arm said directly in the 2002 NIE that they saw no evidence of large stockpiles or WMD programs in Iraq. Most of the rest of the intelligence was filled with caveats maybe this we might that. Bush LIED and cherry picked what he wanted to hear. He ever created the office of special plans because Rumsfeld said the CIA wasnt comitted to the war on terrorism which meant they werent giving them the intel they wanted to hear. It specifically sent the White House what Chalabis lying defectors were saying WITHOUT the usual CIA backround that said they were liars who couldnt pass a polygraph and whenever their info could be checked out turned out to be garbage. Bush didnt care if it was garbage he was already lying his butt off anyway he only cared that it told him what he wanted to hear.
Thats right Bush didnt SAY it was an immanent threat, he just called it everything right up TO an immanent threat including we cant wait for a mushroom cloud. The problem is that immanent threat is the language international law considers to justify invading another country. In the UN Charter which WE signed making it law. The problem is that it is the only REASONABLE standard. Not someday maybe threat. Not if we arent careful threat because if you just say We are scared of the bad man WWAAHHHHH and invade you get Iraq where every single rational you gave for the invasion turns out to be FALSE. Its as if you didnt like your neighbor you argue all the time. You know he beats his wife so he is a bad guy. So you kick down his door and kill him and his family then tell the judge well he didnt have a gun right then but he had a job and I couldnt take the chance that someday he MIGHT buy a gun and shoot me. So I HAD to shoot him first. Tells how that one works out for ya.
"Bush LIED and cherry picked what he wanted to hear."
Do you have any theories concerning how Bush got Clinton to lie about Iraq's WMD for 8 years?
"It specifically sent the White House what Chalabis lying defectors were saying WITHOUT the usual CIA backround that said they were liars who couldnt pass a polygraph and whenever their info could be checked out turned out to be garbage."
How did Bush get Clinton and Gore to work with Chalabi? See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/809168.stm
"Bush didnt care if it was garbage he was already lying his butt off anyway he only cared that it told him what he wanted to hear."
If that were the case, why didn't Bush plant WMD in Iraq to cover up his lies?
"Thats right Bush didnt SAY it was an immanent threat, he just called it everything right up TO an immanent threat including we cant wait for a mushroom cloud. The problem is that immanent threat is the language international law considers to justify invading another country. In the UN Charter which WE signed making it law."
What's "immanent"? I'm not familiar with that word.
"The problem is that it is the only REASONABLE standard. Not someday maybe threat. Not if we arent careful threat because if you just say We are scared of the bad man WWAAHHHHH and invade you get Iraq where every single rational you gave for the invasion turns out to be FALSE. Its as if you didnt like your neighbor you argue all the time. You know he beats his wife so he is a bad guy. So you kick down his door and kill him and his family then tell the judge well he didnt have a gun right then but he had a job and I couldnt take the chance that someday he MIGHT buy a gun and shoot me. So I HAD to shoot him first. Tells how that one works out for ya."
That's nutty. BTW, not every rationale turned out to be false. See http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/niall.html
“Do you have any theories concerning how Bush got Clinton to lie about Iraq's WMD for 8 years?”
Who said Bush got Clinton to lie about Iraq’s WMDs? Anyway, what did Clinton lie about [concerning Iraq]?
“How did Bush get Clinton and Gore to work with Chalabi?”
Who said Bush got Clinton and Gore to work with Chalabi? Anyway, do you have any info on the Clinton administration using intelligence from Chalabi.
“If that were the case, why didn't Bush plant WMD in Iraq to cover up his lies?”
I think they believed their delusion that they would be greeted as liberators and democracy would take hold in Iraq creating a domino effect in the Middle East. No one in the administration really cared that there was no WMDs because the “greeted as liberators” scenario would overshadow it. It was basically an “ends justify the means” mentality.
Anyway, do you know how many people would have to be involved in order to pull something like that off?
What's "immanent"? I'm not familiar with that word.
Imminent means “about to occur.”
“That's nutty. BTW, not every rationale turned out to be false.”
The rationale was that we had to invade because Saddam was a threat to America which was a lie.
"The rationale was that we had to invade because Saddam was a threat to America which was a lie."
Again, who did Bush get Clinton to lie about the Iraqi threat for eight years? http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/iraqthreat.html
Again, when did anyone say Bush got Clinton to lie? The Clinton administration said that Saddam was a threat if he possessed weapons of mass destruction and weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq making sure that any banned weapons were destroyed and Saddam’s manufacturing capabilities of these banned weapons were diminished.
"Again, when did anyone say Bush got Clinton to lie? The Clinton administration said that Saddam was a threat if he possessed weapons of mass destruction and weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq making sure that any banned weapons were destroyed and Saddam’s manufacturing capabilities of these banned weapons were diminished."
No, the Clinton administration said Saddam HAD WMD. There was no "if" involved. So, how did Bush get Clinton to lie about Saddam's WMD for eight years?
"No, the Clinton administration said Saddam HAD WMD. There was no "if" involved. So, how did Bush get Clinton to lie about Saddam's WMD for eight years?"
The inspections were never completed in Iraq so no one knew if Saddam retained the weapons he purchased from the U.S. in the eighties. They made an assumption that he retained the weapons until it could be verified he did not posses them. I don't think it was based on any particular intelligence they had at the time. Bush on the other hand said he had intelligence that showed Saddam had tons and tons of weapons.
And Bush told Clinton to lie about WMDs in a secret meeting in my backyard in 1969.
"The inspections were never completed in Iraq so no one knew if Saddam retained the weapons he purchased from the U.S. in the eighties. They made an assumption that he retained the weapons until it could be verified he did not posses them. I don't think it was based on any particular intelligence they had at the time. Bush on the other hand said he had intelligence that showed Saddam had tons and tons of weapons."
Where are you getting all this nonsense? Iraq never purchased WMD from the U.S. That's a complete falsehood.
Bush's claims about Saddam's WMD were no different from Clinton's. Infact, Kenneth Pollack, Clinton's top expert on Iraq at the NSC, wrote a "The Threatening Storm" in 2003 in which he made a stronger case concerning Saddam's WMD than the Bush administration made. Pollack's book was written with the imprimatur of the Council on Foreign Relations. Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke, and other Clintonistas sit on CFR's board of directors. Obviously, they believed Saddam had WMD in 2003 or they would not have given Pollack's book their imprimatur.
“Where are you getting all this nonsense? Iraq never purchased WMD from the U.S. That's a complete falsehood.”
He purchased precursors and promised not to convert them to chemical or biological weapons and the U.S. agreed to sell it to him. Then, Saddam ran out of the precursors to make biological and chemical weapons and the U.S. agreed to sell him some more but he had to make sure that the precursors were not used for WMDs this time around. When he ran out of the precursors again, after making WMDs, the U.S. agreed to sell him some more but he had to pinky swear he that he wouldn't make WMDs out of them. Then, when he ran out of the precursors after making WMDs...
"Bush's claims about Saddam's WMD were no different from Clinton's. Infact, Kenneth Pollack, Clinton's top expert on Iraq at the NSC, wrote a "The Threatening Storm" in 2003 in which he made a stronger case concerning Saddam's WMD than the Bush administration made."
You mention Pollack’s name a few weeks back and I told you I didn’t care what he had to say. I didn’t even know who the hėll he was until you mentioned him. During the Bush administration, Saddam suddenly had the capabilities to produce nuclear weapons, Saddam purchased aluminum tubes which could only be for nuclear weapons, Saddam tried to purchased uranium for nuclear weapons, Saddam had UAVs that come here and spray us, Saddam had dual use mobile laboratories, Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda, intelligence from known liars like Chalabi and his associates and Curveball were being used. All of this came from the Bush administration. And I don’t even think that Clinton ever said that Saddam was a threat to America; I think he said Saddam was a threat to his neighbors (I could be wrong though).
"He purchased precursors and promised not to convert them to chemical or biological weapons and the U.S. agreed to sell it to him. Then, Saddam ran out of the precursors to make biological and chemical weapons and the U.S. agreed to sell him some more but he had to make sure that the precursors were not used for WMDs this time around. When he ran out of the precursors again, after making WMDs, the U.S. agreed to sell him some more but he had to pinky swear he that he wouldn't make WMDs out of them. Then, when he ran out of the precursors after making WMDs..."
Where's the proof to show that Saddam used precursors to make WMD. Earlier you said we sold WMD to Saddam. Now you're saying we sold precursors, which is not the same thing. If U.S. forces found tons of precursors in Iraq after the invasion (which they probably did), and Bush said WMD had been found, would you have accepted that as proof that Saddam had WMD?
"You mention Pollack’s name a few weeks back and I told you I didn’t care what he had to say. I didn’t even know who the hėll he was until you mentioned him."
That you had never heard of Kenneth Pollack shows that you probably lack the knowledge to debate this issue competently. Pollack was a big layer in the Clinton administration's policies vis-a-vis Iraq and the CFR gave their imprimatur to his book. They wouldn't do that with some hack off the street.
"During the Bush administration, Saddam suddenly had the capabilities to produce nuclear weapons, Saddam purchased aluminum tubes which could only be for nuclear weapons, Saddam tried to purchased uranium for nuclear weapons, Saddam had UAVs that come here and spray us, Saddam had dual use mobile laboratories, Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda, intelligence from known liars like Chalabi and his associates and Curveball were being used. All of this came from the Bush administration. And I don’t even think that Clinton ever said that Saddam was a threat to America; I think he said Saddam was a threat to his neighbors (I could be wrong though)."
Now I know you lack the information to debate this issue competently. Here is a page with links to numerous press releases in which Clinton and members of his administration said Saddam was a threat to the U.S. http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/iraqthreat.html
The Clinton administration also talked about the threat posed by Saddam's nuclear program. Here is a link to testimony given by Secretary of Defense William Cohen in July 2000: http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2000/000725wc.pdf
According to Cohen, "I cannot think of a more important issue to address than protecting the American people from the threat posed by states such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq who are seeking to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the long-range missiles to deliver them."
Cohen considered Iraq and the other two members of the axis of evil that Bush explicitly mentioned as a greater threat than al Qaeda.
Ahmed Chalabi is actually a creation of the Clinton administration. You cannot be blamed for not knowing this since the MSM wants to hide that fact. Al Gore met with Chalabi in 2000 and pledged to give him more money. The hypocrite Gore then, before MoveOn.org, criticized Bush for associating with Chalabi. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/americas/809168.stm
Another fact the MSM refuses to share with the American people is that it was the Clinton Justice Department that aid Saddam and bin Laden were working together. This is from the 1998 indictment against bin Laden:
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government ofIraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that onparticular projects, specifically including weapons development, alQaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
"Because Clinton said it, it must therefore be true!" Your a prophet of Bill Clinton? Let me tell you a little secret about Clinton that might save your sanity....he LIED to us, too! There were no WMD after 1998. UNSCOM had cleaned Iraq out. The US administrations kept up the LIE that Saddam was a threat to keep US forces heavily encamped in the middle east and to sell a non-stop Crusade against Islam as the only way to feed the US arm industry. It's all a lie, it always has been a lie. Clinton fed it to us, Bush fed it to us, the next will feed it to us. It's all been one huge killing lie.
“Where's the proof to show that Saddam used precursors to make WMD. Earlier you said we sold WMD to Saddam. Now you're saying we sold precursors, which is not the same thing.”
The Reagan and Bush 41 administrations sold him precursors that were used to manufacturers WMDs. The reason why I said they gave him WMDs was that they continued to sell him these precursors even though they knew what he was doing with them.
US exports chemicals to Iraq
“If U.S. forces found tons of precursors in Iraq after the invasion (which they probably did), and Bush said WMD had been found, would you have accepted that as proof that Saddam had WMD?”I think they found something in Iraq but they were not weapons of mass destruction. What they found was so degraded that it could not be used to kill people in mass. I think David Kay called it the equivalent of bleach.
“That you had never heard of Kenneth Pollack shows that you probably lack the knowledge to debate this issue competently. Pollack was a big layer in the Clinton administration's policies vis-a-vis Iraq and the CFR gave their imprimatur to his book. They wouldn't do that with some hack off the street.”
I bet most people have never heard of him. How many copies of his book were sold? And if he was a big player in the Clinton administration, I would have heard of him.
“Now I know you lack the information to debate this issue competently. Here is a page with links to numerous press releases in which Clinton and members of his administration said Saddam was a threat to the U.S.”
I read the first four articles and nowhere does it say that Iraq is a threat to America. Clinton talks about the threat to regional peace. Another article with Sandy Berger says that “Saddam…has demonstrated the intent to threaten the stability of a region vital to our interests.” He also creates the scenario that if Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction, he could give them to terrorists and the terrorists could use them against us. He says Saddam is likely to do this because he used WMDs in the past.
“According to Cohen, ‘I cannot think of a more important issue to address than protecting the American people from the threat posed by states such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq who are seeking to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the long-range missiles to deliver them.’”
I read the report to see why he thought Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons or for Iraq’s nuclear capabilities and the only reference I found in testimony is that Iraq will almost certainly restart its long-range missile development program if the sanctions come off.
“Ahmed Chalabi is actually a creation of the Clinton administration. You cannot be blamed for not knowing this since the MSM wants to hide that fact. Al Gore met with Chalabi in 2000 and pledged to give him more money. The hypocrite Gore then, before MoveOn.org, criticized Bush for associating with Chalabi.”
I asked you before: What intelligence did the Clinton administration get from Chalabi?
“Another fact the MSM refuses to share with the American people is that it was the Clinton Justice Department that aid Saddam and bin Laden were working together. This is from the 1998 indictment against bin Laden:”
I think I pointed this out to you before. The evidence for that charge was very weak (some people call it was fraudulent) and this was brought out shortly after Clinton’s bombing campaign in Sudan and Afghanistan. Anyway the collusion with Al Qaeda was dismissed by the CIA and resurrected by the Office of Special Plans.
"The Reagan and Bush 41 administrations sold him precursors that were used to manufacturers WMDs. The reason why I said they gave him WMDs was that they continued to sell him these precursors even though they knew what he was doing with them."
Your link does not support your assertion. The U.S. never gave WMD to Iraq.
"I think they found something in Iraq but they were not weapons of mass destruction. What they found was so degraded that it could not be used to kill people in mass. I think David Kay called it the equivalent of bleach."
If you do not consider those WMD, how can you consider precursors WMD?
"I bet most people have never heard of him. How many copies of his book were sold? And if he was a big player in the Clinton administration, I would have heard of him."
Most people, like you, are ignorant. Pollack's book was a bestseller. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11859-2004Nov25?language=printer
"I read the first four articles and nowhere does it say that Iraq is a threat to America. Clinton talks about the threat to regional peace. Another article with Sandy Berger says that “Saddam…has demonstrated the intent to threaten the stability of a region vital to our interests.” He also creates the scenario that if Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction, he could give them to terrorists and the terrorists could use them against us. He says Saddam is likely to do this because he used WMDs in the past."
In most of those press releases, Clinton or a member of his administration says Saddam is a threat to the U.S. For example, Albright, Berger, and Cohen made several references to Iraq being a threat not only to the region but to the U.S. when they participating in a February 1998 town hall meeting. See http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html
"I read the report to see why he thought Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons or for Iraq’s nuclear capabilities and the only reference I found in testimony is that Iraq will almost certainly restart its long-range missile development program if the sanctions come off."
At that time, the U.S. was concerned that the rest of the world was ready to go against sanctions. That is why the State Department issued this fact sheet in August 2000: http://www.usembassy.it/file2000_08/alia/a0080205.htm
“I asked you before: What intelligence did the Clinton administration get from Chalabi?"
What did Bush get from Chalabi? Clinton must have considered Chalabi a valuable asset. How else could one explain the millions of dollars he gave Chalabi and the INC. And can't you admit that Gore was a hypocrite when he criticized Bush for associating with Chalabi when Gore himself met with Chalabi and pledge his support in 2000?
"I think I pointed this out to you before. The evidence for that charge was very weak (some people call it was fraudulent) and this was brought out shortly after Clinton’s bombing campaign in Sudan and Afghanistan. Anyway the collusion with Al Qaeda was dismissed by the CIA and resurrected by the Office of Special Plans."
If the charge was weak, why did Gore, Cohen, Berger, et. al. contiue to say that the intelligence used to justify the bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory was good? All of them swore to this before the 9/11 Commission. This is a fact MMFA conveniently ignores when they say a subsequent indictment dropped the Iraq-al Qaeda connection.
(BTW, the sealed indictment against bin Laden was issued prior to the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa.)
Your link does not support your assertion. The U.S. never gave WMD to Iraq. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
We sold the building blocks of both chemical and biological weapons DIRECTLY TO THEIR MILITARY, knowing how they would be used. It is a difference without a distinction.
What intelligence did BUSH get from Chalabi are you kidding? Virtually everything that found its way into the NYTimes via Judith Miller came directly from Chalabi then was repeated by the administration. His defector network was the supply for defectors I talked about in the original post that the CIA said could never pass a polygraph.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/06/b85754.html
Provided flawed intelligence that took us to war. Secretary of State Colin Powell continues to retract the claims he made before the United Nations two years ago. "It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it," Powell said. The sources were Iraqi exiles connected to Chalabi. One informant codenamed "Curveball" turned out to be the brother of one Chalabi's top aides.“Your link does not support your assertion. The U.S. never gave WMD to Iraq.”
The U.S. gave precursor weapons to Iraq which Saddam used to make WMDs. Here’s a few more links here, here and here.
“If you do not consider those WMD, how can you consider precursors WMD?”
"The Reagan and Bush 41 administrations sold him precursors that were used to manufacturers WMDs. The reason why I said they gave him WMDs was that they continued to sell him these precursors even though they knew what he was doing with them."
“Most people, like you, are ignorant. Pollack's book was a bestseller.”
I've heard of Albright, Berger, Clarke, Tenet, Cohen but not Pollack. He's not anyone important.
“In most of those press releases, Clinton or a member of his administration says Saddam is a threat to the U.S. For example, Albright, Berger, and Cohen made several references to Iraq being a threat not only to the region but to the U.S. when they participating in a February 1998 town hall meeting.”
I saw one reference by Berger that says Saddam represents a threat to a vital area to the U.S. if the inspectors were not allowed to do their jobs. Albright and Cohen say weapons of mass destruction are the biggest threat we face in the future. One of them said Saddam possessed the capability to attack the Europe with missiles in 1991 but it was dismantled and we needed to keep him from regaining that capability. Cohen mentions that Saddam has been contained for seven years and that we could contain him for another seven years or more and allow the Iraqis to determine if they want to overthrow him in response to someone asking about invading Iraq. It looks like all of them were saying that Iraq represents a threat if the inspectors were not allowed to do their jobs and it could not be verified that Saddam did not have banned weapons which no one disagrees with.
“At that time, the U.S. was concerned that the rest of the world was ready to go against sanctions. That is why the State Department issued this fact sheet in August 2000:”
It doesn’t really matter. Cohen was making an assumption. The world would have noticed if Saddam was attempting to do something like that. And In his testimony, he doesn’t say why he thought Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons or mention what Iraq’s nuclear capabilities are.
Anyway, the sanction needed to come off. They were only hurting the Iraqis.
“What did Bush get from Chalabi? Clinton must have considered Chalabi a valuable asset. How else could one explain the millions of dollars he gave Chalabi and the INC. And can't you admit that Gore was a hypocrite when he criticized Bush for associating with Chalabi when Gore himself met with Chalabi and pledge his support in 2000?”
What intelligence did Clinton get from Chalabi, Curveball or Chalabi’s guy who backed up what curveball was saying?
“If the charge was weak, why did Gore, Cohen, Berger, et. al. contiue to say that the intelligence used to justify the bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory was good? All of them swore to this before the 9/11 Commission. This is a fact MMFA conveniently ignores when they say a subsequent indictment dropped the Iraq-al Qaeda connection.”
You have to ask them or read Red King’s posts. The CIA said the evidence was weak and some called it fraudulent and this was revealed shortly after the bombings. The collusion with Al Qaeda was dismissed by the CIA and resurrected by the Office of Special Plans. And just because something is in an indictment it doesn’t make it true.
"(BTW, the sealed indictment against bin Laden was issued prior to the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa.)"
I don't think so.
"I've heard of Albright, Berger, Clarke, Tenet, Cohen but not Pollack. He's not anyone important."
He was a major player at the NSC. There are a lot of important people that you have never heard of. I guess you're just going to ignore the fact that Pollack's book was on the bestseller list.
Here is the evidence he not only USED the precursers for WMDs but that we KNEW he would
http://foi.missouri.edu/evolvingissues/iraqgate.html
Nevertheless, a great deal of dual-use equipment and technology made its way to Iraq from the U.S. throughout the 1980s. Commerce Departments records, disclosed as a result of Iraqgate investigations, confirmed this. The investigations revealed that exports had been approved for military recipients and others involved in military research and development, including the Iraqi Air Force, Iraq’s Ministry of Defense, the Saad General Establishment (missile research), the State Organization for Technical Industries (military production), and al-Qaqaa Stater Establishment (explosives and propellants research and production). 1 Further evidence of this became available after the Persian Gulf war, when U.N. teams inspecting Iraqi sites found U.S. dual-use technology, along with that of other western countries, at facilities involved in Iraq’s nuclear weapons programs.2
See that part that says The investigations revealed that exports had been approved for military recipients and others involved in military research and development
Clinton made a lot of claims that turned out not to be true. So what? HE DIDNT INVADE IRAQ based on those claims. He was wrong. Bush is a liar. Actually call Clinton a liar if you want. I was never a huge Clinton supporter. Just hold Bush accountable for HIS LIES that took us to war.
"Here is the evidence he not only USED the precursers for WMDs but that we KNEW he would
http://foi.missouri.edu/evolvingissues/iraqgate.html"
Your link does not support your claim.
"Clinton made a lot of claims that turned out not to be true. So what? HE DIDNT INVADE IRAQ based on those claims. He was wrong. Bush is a liar. Actually call Clinton a liar if you want. I was never a huge Clinton supporter. Just hold Bush accountable for HIS LIES that took us to war."
If both Clinton and Bush lied or both told the truth. It cannot be either/or. The argument that Clinton was wrong and Bush lied is an odd one. For that to be the case, Saddam would have had to have snookered Clinton for eight years. However, Bush becomes president and, in a matter of months, figures out that Saddam actually had no WMD. He then fooled Congress and the American people into backing an invasion of Iraq. I guess you liberals will have to rethink your assessment of Clinton as brilliant and Bush as stupid.
Of course it does what part of "The investigations revealed that exports had been approved for military recipients and others involved in military research and development" DON'T you understand?
Yes it can as I have already explained several times. What Clinton claimed were broad statements of belief, which were wrong, if thats all Bush had done I wouldnt be calling him a liar. Instead he made up a postion of the IAEA that never existed on Sept 7, 2002 when in a press conference with Tony Blair he said "When the inspectors were in Iraq, when they were finally denied access (1998) an IAEA report came out saying Iraq was six months from a (nuclear) weapon. That is an out and out lie. The IAEA's actual position in 98 was that they had destroyed Iraqs nuclear program in 91 and seen no evidence it had been reconstituted. THAT is a lie, its not a mistake of intelligence its not a broad statement of belief. When he kept saying that the Aluminum tubes could ONLY be used as gas centrifuges when those tubes had been studied by OUR experts in the field and they UNANIMOUSLY said they were unlikely to be used that way at ALL much less could only be used that way and it was much more likely they were to be used for rocket bodies like Iraq claimed. That is a LIE. Now cough up examples of Clinton making specific claims like that which were bald faced lies and you will have a point until then if you are at all reasonable it is YOU that ought to rethink your position.
Another fact the MSM refuses to share with the American people is that it was the Clinton Justice Department that aid Saddam and bin Laden were working together. This is from the 1998 indictment against bin Laden:
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government ofIraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that onparticular projects, specifically including weapons development, alQaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
The Clinton Administration was wrong. Their intelligence told them that Al Qaeda and Iraq had a stronger relationship than what they actually had.
Deeper investigation, personal interviews and specific documentation examined after the invasion proved that there was no collaborative relationship.
As I have said before, Clinton didn't invade Iraq based upon those flawed findings. Bush did invade, and he not only had that same flawed intelligence but he also had additional info that disproved much of that flawed intelligence, yet he still invaded, and that's why Bush is culpable for the flawed invasion!
"The Clinton Administration was wrong. Their intelligence told them that Al Qaeda and Iraq had a stronger relationship than what they actually had.
"Deeper investigation, personal interviews and specific documentation examined after the invasion proved that there was no collaborative relationship."
If that's the case, why didn't the Clinton administration admit that they were wrong about al Qaeda and Iraq working together? Instead, Gore, Cohen, Berger, et. al. told the 9/11 Commission that the intelligence regarding the bombing of al Shifa was good. Of course, without the al Qaeda-Iraq, the bombing of al Shifa could not be justified.
"As I have said before, Clinton didn't invade Iraq based upon those flawed findings. Bush did invade, and he not only had that same flawed intelligence but he also had additional info that disproved much of that flawed intelligence, yet he still invaded, and that's why Bush is culpable for the flawed invasion!"
And, as I noted before, Clinton's assertion that Iraq had WMD led to the deaths of 500,000+ Iraqi children. Why can't you assign culpability to Clinton?
Because the investigations he is talking about took place AFTER Clinton left office. The Senate investigation for instance or the investigation Clinton started after the Cole was hit to look into this specifically near the end of his term. The one Clarke specifically talked about when after 9/11 Bush started talking about Iraq. Clarke told him that we looked into it after the Cole and there was no such relationship.
Iraq never purchased WMD from the U.S. That's a complete falsehood. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes they did you just NEVER know what you are talking about
http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/chembio.html
On February 9, 1994, Chairman Donald W. Riegle, Jr. disclosed on the U.S. Senate floor that the U.S. government actually licensed the export of deadly microorganisms to Iraq. It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program.
What Bush claimed was absolutly different than what Clinton claimed. Clinton made broad statements of belief. Bush said an IAEA report claimed something that was the polar opposite of what it really claimed. In fact an IAEA report claiming what Bush said it claimed doesnt exist. Bush made it up, pulled it directly out of his ass. Also he lied straight out about the aluminum tubes that is flat out. You NEVER know what you are talking about all you ever do is repeat whatever some rightwing screechmonkey TOLD you to think.
"Yes they did you just NEVER know what you are talking about
http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/chembio.html"
Your link does not support your assertion. It does not say that the U.S. sold WMD to Iraq. It said the U.S. provided Iraq with dual-use materials. "Dual" means two. There is no proof that the materials were used to make WMD. Those materials were still in Iraq when we invaded. If you believe those materials are indeed WMD, then WMD were found in Iraq after the invasion.
"On February 9, 1994, Chairman Donald W. Riegle, Jr. disclosed on the U.S. Senate floor that the U.S. government actually licensed the export of deadly microorganisms to Iraq. It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."
Microorganisms are not WMD. If they were, then you could say we sold WMD to Iraq. And, again, Iraq had microorganisms when we invaded. If you belief microorganisms are WMD, then you must also belief WMD were found in Iraq.
"What Bush claimed was absolutly different than what Clinton claimed. Clinton made broad statements of belief. Bush said an IAEA report claimed something that was the polar opposite of what it really claimed. In fact an IAEA report claiming what Bush said it claimed doesnt exist. Bush made it up, pulled it directly out of his ass. Also he lied straight out about the aluminum tubes that is flat out. You NEVER know what you are talking about all you ever do is repeat whatever some rightwing screechmonkey TOLD you to think."
Clinton was adamant for eight years that Saddam had WMD. See http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/iraqthreat.html
A nonpartisan says you're wrong when you say Bush lied about the aluminum tubes. See http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html
It appears that much of what you believe is based on misleading information from MoveOn and other extreme left-wng groups.
Again you are trying to make a distinction without a difference since I already showed you that we sold them DIRECTLY to the Iraqi military development they ARE NOT dual use. The military development people do NOT have a dual use for those micro-organisms. IF they had sold them to a hospital you would have a point, they didnt you dont. And NO they werent still there when Kay and Dulfer looked for them the UN inspectors found and destroyed them long BEFORE the invasion.
No I got my information from the New York Times which quoted the scientists themselves and officials which said this information had gone to Bush a year before the claims are made. It doesnt matter that this website is correct that a couple of guys in the CIA were saying that the EXPERTS were telling the administration otherwise. When the EXPERTS IN THE FIELD are saying the were UNLIKELY to be used that way it doesnt matter that a couple of young field agents in the CIA think otherwise its a LIE to continue to say they can ONLY be used for gas centrifuges. Had they been saying they IGHT be used that way it would be diffferent but whatever the Annenberg spin which doesnt address what the scientists said is, saying that is the only way they could be used is a LIE when told differently by the best experts in the field.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?ei=5090&en=2e1cdcc5b66e0332&ex=1254456000&pagewanted=all&position=
But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.
The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government
At the Energy Department, those examining the tubes included scientists who had spent decades designing and working on centrifuges, and intelligence officers steeped in the tricky business of tracking the nuclear ambitions of America's enemies. They included Dr. Jon A. Kreykes, head of Oak Ridge's national security advanced technology group; Dr. Duane F. Starr, an expert on nuclear proliferation threats; and Dr. Edward Von Halle, a retired Oak Ridge nuclear expert. Dr. Houston G. Wood III, a professor of engineering at the University of Virginia who had helped design the 40-foot American centrifuge, advised the team and consulted with Dr. Zippe.
On questions about nuclear centrifuges, this was unambiguously the A-Team of the intelligence community, many experts say.
cont
In fact, the team could find no centrifuge machines "deployed in a production environment" that used such narrow tubes. Their walls were three times too thick for "favorable use" in a centrifuge, the team wrote. They were also anodized, meaning they had a special coating to protect them from weather. Anodized tubes, the team pointed out, are "not consistent" with a uranium centrifuge because the coating can produce bad reactions with uranium gas.
(Condaleeza Rice lying for the Bush administration later claimed the anodyzed coating that would have had to be removed PROVED they were for gas centrifuges)
They did not state what Energy Department experts had noted - that many common industrial items, even aluminum cans, were made to specifications as good or better than the tubes sought by Iraq. Nor did the reports acknowledge a significant error in Joe's claim - that the tubes "matched" those used in a Zippe centrifuge.
The tubes sought by Iraq had a wall thickness of 3.3 millimeters. When Energy Department experts checked with Dr. Zippe, a step Joe did not take, they learned that the walls of Zippe tubes did not exceed 1.1 millimeters, a substantial difference.
When rocket engineers at the Defense Department were approached by the C.I.A. and asked to compare the Iraqi tubes with American ones, the engineers said the tubes ''were perfectly usable for rockets.'' The agency analysts did not appear pleased. One rocket engineer complained to Senate investigators that the analysts had ''an agenda'' and were trying ''to bias us'' into agreeing that the Iraqi tubes were not fit for rockets. In interviews, agency officials denied any such effort.
We've been over this a dozen times. You are simply repeating a mindless frankly dumb talking point FIRST what Clinton did was make broad statements of belief, if that all Bush had done I wouldnt be calling him a liar. BUSH made up reports that didnt exist, he kept saying the aluminum tubes could only be used as gas centrifuges long AFTER the GC scientists refuted the claim UNANIMOUSLY.
Working with Chalabi is one thing believing his lies is another. The CIA basically cut ties with him but he was still an Iraqi political figure making him useful. Its embarassing to have to explain such simple things to you. Your post is childish.
Good thing I mispelled imminent so you dont have to deal with anther refutation of your worthless propaganda. I am not visiting your rightwing propaganda anti/Clinton site. The major arguments about Iraq that they were working with al Queda, had anything to do with 9/11 or had WMDS have all disappeared into the fairy dust from whence they came.
I'm going to attach this reply to Kevin's nonsense to Solon's post.
Kevin,
Almost everyone was misled by the flawed intelligence until late 2002.
Bush used that flawed intelligence as a justification to invade, and then he invaded when he had clear evidence, not just guesswork from our intelligence people, that there were no WMD's.
No one else did that. Clinton didn't invade, even if he supported regime change in Iraq. Clinton didn't invade, even if he said that Iraq had WMD's and he was wrong.
Bush was wrong, and he was the one who invaded. He had actual men on the ground, the UN Weapons Inspectors among others, who told him that the intelligence, the conventional wisdom, was wrong, and he chose to invade.
That's what we're scolding him for. Almost everyone was misled by the intelligence. Bush is the one who invaded, idiot! That's why he's getting blamed for invading based upon flawed intelligence. The other people who relied upon the flawed intelligence didn't invade, you numbskull!
"That's what we're scolding him for. Almost everyone was misled by the intelligence. Bush is the one who invaded, idiot! That's why he's getting blamed for invading based upon flawed intelligence. The other people who relied upon the flawed intelligence didn't invade, you numbskull!"
At some point during your name-calling, did it occur to you that the invasion took place 18 months AFTER 9/11. This thread is about what led up to 9/11.
"The major arguments about Iraq that they were working with al Queda, had anything to do with 9/11 or had WMDS have all disappeared into the fairy dust from whence they came. "
It was the Clinton administration that argued that al Qaeda and Iraq were working together. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism and there was a multi-administration, bipartisan belief that Saddam had WMD and was defying the UN. That is why he was removed from power--9/11 had nothing to do with it.
Clintons belief was BEFORE the inspectors were back in Iraq and new intelligence was coming in to put all the old assumptions in doubt. Clinton also didnt think it rose to a threat level that justified invasion. IF it had nothing to do with 9/11 why didnt Bush tout invasion BEFORE 9/11? Clinton has some blame here for being wrong about Iraq your points which keep going around in circles dont justify an invasion.
The thread for those sanctions go back so many years. How Sadam was given weapons and support by the US and others, and then when he became too much of a loose cannon, was seen as a threat. I agree with you that the sanctions harmed many innocent Iraqis. I think it was a bad policy.
You said that Bush was "guided by what could be called Richard Clarke's doctrine of preemption"
Are you saying that Bush was listening to Richard Clarke?
No, I said Bush was "guided by what could be called Richard Clarke's doctrine of preemption."
Calrke gave a speech in October 1998 in which he said the U.S. reserved for itself the right to strike first before it is hit. Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 was a preemptive strike.
You can read Clarke's speech here. See esp. the penultimate paragraph: http://usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/whouse/archive/1998/october/wh191013.htm
“No, I said Bush was ‘guided by what could be called Richard Clarke's doctrine of preemption.’”
When the Bush administration started talking about Iraq right after 9/11, he thought they had gone badshỉt crazy. And he was talking about countries that posed a threat to America.
“Calrke gave a speech in October 1998 in which he said the U.S. reserved for itself the right to strike first before it is hit. Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 was a preemptive strike.”
No it wasn’t. The Clinton administration pulled the inspectors and bombed suspected weapons site and manufacturing sites because of Saddam’s obstruction of the inspections.
"When the Bush administration started talking about Iraq right after 9/11, he thought they had gone badshỉt crazy. And he was talking about countries that posed a threat to America."
Here's what Clarke said in that speech:
"I frequently get accused of wasting the taxpayers' money on an extravagant program of chem-bio defense that is unnecessary, that is a pork barrel, that is an overreaction to one incident by a religious cult in Japan. Let me try to tell those who say that, why they are wrong. There are two lists that I want to talk about. One is the list of state sponsors of terrorism that the Secretary of State issues every year, by law. You know who is on that list. It is a public document.
"There is another list that the Director of Central Intelligence issues on a classified basis every year, and that is the list of states that have chemical or biological weapons. There is almost a one-for-one copy of the terrorist state sponsors list resident within the list of states that have chemical and biological weapons. What does it mean to be a state sponsor of terrorism? It means that you have trained, equipped, financed, provided sanctuary to, provided leadership for, provided intelligence to, and armed terrorist groups.
"Now if these state sponsors of terrorism have done all of that, do we want to bet the security of our people here at home that those state sponsors will not go the additional step of providing terrorist groups with the chemical and biological weapons that are already in the inventory of the state sponsors of terrorism? I don't want to. The president doesn't want to. And I'm glad to see that the majority of the U.S. Congress does not want to because they have been voting consistently since the president made his proposal in May for the funds that the president has asked for."
Iraq was on both of those lists, so, yes, Clarke was referring to Iraq.
"No it wasn’t. The Clinton administration pulled the inspectors and bombed suspected weapons site and manufacturing sites because of Saddam’s obstruction of the inspections."
Wrong. Operation Desert Fox wasa preemptive strike. Here's what Clinton said on December 16, 1998:
"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. "And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
Here's Madeleine Albright after the strike on December 17, 1998:
"We are now dealing with a threat, I think, that is probably harder for some to understand because it is a threat of the future rather than a present threat or a present act, such as a border crossing, a border aggression. Here, as the President described in his statement yesterday, we are concerned about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's ability to have, develop, deploy weapons of mass destruction and the threat that that poses to the neighbors, to the stability of the Middle East and, therefore, ultimately to ourselves. So it's the same country, but a different situation."
Both Clinton and Albright said Operation Desert Storm was directed at a threat of the future, which, by definition, meant it was a preemptive strike.
"Iraq was on both of those lists, so, yes, Clarke was referring to Iraq."
I agree with what Clarke said. Where in his speech does he say invade Iraq?
"Both Clinton and Albright said Operation Desert Storm was directed at a threat of the future, which, by definition, meant it was a preemptive strike."
Saddam was threat if he possessed weapons of mass destruction. No one on the left or right disputes this. If Saddam possessed no weapons, he did not pose a threat to anyone. That's why Desert Fox’s only objective was to diminish his weapons capabilities (the same as the weapons inspectors’ objective) and not an invasion to remove him from office. It was the same thinking behind Desert Storm. It was only to repel Saddam from Kuwait and not an invasion to remove him.
"I agree with what Clarke said. Where in his speech does he say invade Iraq?"
Clarke said the U.S. reserved for itself the righ to strike first. That's the doctrine of preemption. Iraq was on both lists Clarke mentioned (i.e., state sponsor of terrorism and possessor of WMD). After 9/11, the scenario that Clarke mentioned about a state sponsor of terrorism handing off WMD to terrorists became a much greater concern.
"Saddam was threat if he possessed weapons of mass destruction. No one on the left or right disputes this."
There's that "if" again. The Clinton administration did not use the word "if" regarding Saddam's WMD. That flat out said Saddam had WMD. Here is what was written in a January 8, 2001 press release:
"The United States will continue to press Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition of lifting economic sanctions, even after the end of the Clinton administration January 20, current U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said."
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010801.htm
“Clarke said the U.S. reserved for itself the right to strike first. That's the doctrine of preemption. Iraq was on both lists Clarke mentioned (i.e., state sponsor of terrorism and possessor of WMD). After 9/11, the scenario that Clarke mentioned about a state sponsor of terrorism handing off WMD to terrorists became a much greater concern.”
And yet when the Bush administration started talking about Iraq, he thought they had gone batshỉt crazy.
"The United States will continue to press Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition of lifting economic sanctions, even after the end of the Clinton administration January 20, current U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said."
They were talking about weapons from the eighties that were not verified as being destroyed. They wanted this verification but could not get it because Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors back in after Desert Fox.
"And yet when the Bush administration started talking about Iraq, he thought they had gone batshỉt crazy."
Then he must have thought the Clinton admiistration was also crazy. They left office in January 2001 still talking about Iraq. Here are several press releases:
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010801.htm
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010903.htm
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1011102.htm
I have been unable to find a single press release from January 2001 that dealth with al Qaeda. I think this is a strong indication of what the Clinton administration considered a priority.
"They were talking about weapons from the eighties that were not verified as being destroyed. They wanted this verification but could not get it because Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors back in after Desert Fox."
Not true. The Clinton administration believed Saddam was producing NEW WMD.
“Then he must have thought the Clinton admiistration was also crazy. They left office in January 2001 still talking about Iraq. Here are several press releases:”
I'm talking about Clarke (the guy who you said advocated preemption). When talk in the Bush administration turned to Iraq after 9/11, he thought they had gone batshỉt crazy and he resigned.
“Not true. The Clinton administration believed Saddam was producing NEW WMD.”
When did they say he had “NEW WMD”?
"I'm talking about Clarke (the guy who you said advocated preemption). When talk in the Bush administration turned to Iraq after 9/11, he thought they had gone batshỉt crazy and he resigned."
When and where did Clarke say that? I've read his book. It's not in there.
On page 234 of "Against All Enemies," Clarke writes:
"I had completed the review of the organizational options for homeland defense and critical infrastructure protection that Rice had asked me to conduct. There was agreement to create a separate, senior White House position for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security, outside of the NSC Staff. Condi Rice and Steve Hadley assumed that I would continue on the NSC focusing on terrorism and asked whom I had in mind for the new job that would be created outside the NSC. I requested that I be given that assignment, to the apparent surprise of Condi Rice and Steve Hadley."
If Clarke was demoted, he requested the demotion.
On page 239 of Against All Enemies, Clarke writes the following:
"Roger Cressey, my deputy at the NSC Staff, came to me in early October, after the time that I had intended to switch from the terrorism job to Critical Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security. The switch had been delayed by September 11."
In a footnote on page 240, Clarke writes:
"Cressey and I did spend over a year working on the cyber security problem, producing Bush's National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, and then quit the Administration altogether."
Nothing there confirms your assertion. I would like to think that Clarke resigned because he failed to stop numerous attacks on this country. I think we can all agree that Clarke was a failure under both Clinton and Bush. Clarke himself told the 9/11 Commission that he let Americans down.
“When and where did Clarke say that? I've read his book. It's not in there.”
In his 60 Minutes interview, Clarke said in the days after 9/11, Rumsfeld talked about striking Iraq even though Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. The preemption guy was so surprised that he initially thought Rumsfeld was joking.
“If Clarke was demoted, he requested the demotion.”
All throughout his book Clarke seemed so revolted that the Bush administration was not taking the threat posed by Al Qaeda seriously before 9/11, he requested to be demoted. After 9/11 and his transfer, he thought the Bush administration would take the threat from Al Qaeda seriously and work on destroying the organization but instead they chose to focus on Iraq. I don’t think he could stand being in the administration anymore.
You're forgetting the fact that the U.S. went to Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 and took away the terrorist refuge there. Iraq came a year and a half later.
You're forgetting the fact that the U.S. went to Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 and took away the terrorist refuge there. Iraq came a year and a half later.
I think there are still many terrorists in Afghanistan; the Taliban which provided a safe haven for bin Laden seems revived; and Zawahiri and bin Laden still haven’t been brought to justice for their part in the 9/11 attacks. Resources were being diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq long before Bush invaded Iraq. And Rand beers who replaced Wayne Downing who replaced Richard Clarke resigned because of the focus on Iraq in the Bush administration and not Al Qaeda. I'm sure you read this in Clarke's book.
"I think there are still many terrorists in Afghanistan; the Taliban which provided a safe haven for bin Laden seems revived;"
Really? When did they resume power in Afghanistan? I missed that.
"and Zawahiri and bin Laden still haven’t been brought to justice for their part in the 9/11 attacks."
Most reports place them in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.
"Resources were being diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq long before Bush invaded Iraq."
How so? We have had troops in Afghanistan continuously since the fall of 2001.
"And Rand beers who replaced Wayne Downing who replaced Richard Clarke resigned because of the focus on Iraq in the Bush administration and not Al Qaeda. I'm sure you read this in Clarke's book."
Beers was a registered Democrat who joined John Kerry's campaign. His motive appears to have been political.
And don't put too much stock in what Richard Clarke wrote in his book. It's full of inaccuracies and contradictions. See http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/clarke.html
“Really? When did they resume power in Afghanistan? I missed that.”
When did I say they regained power in Afghanistan?
“Most reports place them in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.”
It doesn't matter. We went to Afghanistan to get them and we didn't get them.
“How so? We have had troops in Afghanistan continuously since the fall of 2001.”
I didn't say that no troops were not in Afghanistan. I said "Resources were being diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq long before Bush invaded Iraq."
“Beers was a registered Democrat who joined John Kerry's campaign.”
That’s great.
“His motive appears to have been political.”
I don't think so.
“And don't put too much stock in what Richard Clarke wrote in his book. It's full of inaccuracies and contradictions.”
Why were you quoting from a book filled with inaccuracies and contradictions?
"When did I say they regained power in Afghanistan?"
You said they were revived. Do you know the meaning of that word?
"It doesn't matter. We went to Afghanistan to get them and we didn't get them."
You're argument was that we diverted resources from Afghanistan. Again. most reports place them in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.
"I didn't say that no troops were not in Afghanistan. I said "Resources were being diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq long before Bush invaded Iraq."
Not true. See http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/correct-record/documents/20061005.html
“His motive appears to have been political.”
"Why were you quoting from a book filled with inaccuracies and contradictions?"I don't believe I quoted from Clarke's book to support any argument I was making concerning th lead up to 9/11. I don't find him credible. He has been caught in too many lies. See Louis Freeh's book and http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/clarke.html
The question is do YOU know what the word revived means here is a clue it DOESNT mean regained power. More like came back to life.
Your link does NOT dispute what Loonz claimed. It only argues that AFTER the invasion of Iraq resources increased in Afghanistan, if fact BEFORE the Iraqi invasion resources WERE being diverted from Afghanistan so NO he wasnt wrong
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-28-troop-shifts_x.htm
WASHINGTON — In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered.
Those were just two of the tradeoffs required because of what the Pentagon and CIA acknowledge is a shortage of key personnel to fight the war on terrorism. The question of how much those shifts prevented progress against al-Qaeda and other terrorists is putting the Bush administration on the defensive.
You are not being honest. You are using Clinton and Clarke as deflections. "Being guided by" would mean he was listening to Clarke, and obviously Bush was not listening to Clarke and lost the focus on Bin Laden.
Your intellectual dishonesty leads one in endless circles of blaming others for the mistakes of the guy on "your team." Well, many of us here have loved ones who have paid the price of that kind of stupidity.
"
You are not being honest. You are using Clinton and Clarke as deflections. "Being guided by" would mean he was listening to Clarke, and obviously Bush was not listening to Clarke and lost the focus on Bin Laden."
Everything I have written here is true. Most has been supported by documents I have linked to. You may not like the facts, but that does not give you the right to dismiss them as "dishonest." Given that Clarke failed to prevent the bombings of our embassies in Africa (even after getting a heads up from a disgruntled al Qaeda member in advance), the bombing of the USS Cole, and 9/11, why should anyone listen to him? He was a complete failure.
"Your intellectual dishonesty leads one in endless circles of blaming others for the mistakes of the guy on "your team." Well, many of us here have loved ones who have paid the price of that kind of stupidity."
Bin Laden and al Qaeda planned 9/11 years before it occurred. The 9/11 pilots were in the U.S. before Bush was even elected president. Please share with us what mistakes Bush made in the first eight months of his presidency that motivated al Qaeda to attack us on 9/11. I think it's clear that the mistakes (e.g., Clinton killing 500,000 Iraqi children, dramatically increasing the number of troops on Saudi soil, Operation Desert Fox, etc.) had much more to do with 9/11 than anything Bush did in eight months.
Your dishonesty revolves around your assertions about the invasion of Iraq. Most everyone was misled by the flawed intelligence, but only Bush invaded Iraq, and he is rightfully scolded for that choice.
Your dishonesty also revolves around your commentary about WMD's in general.
Before Clinton was ever in office, the US government gave him the ability to use WMD's against his own people and against his neighboring enemies. We gave him that ability.
The sanctions that were applied during the 90's certainly hurt many innocent Iraqi's. The alternatives were considered to be worse. What Bush did was ten times worse than any sanctions in terms of overall damage and difficulties both in Iraq and here in the USA and in the world at large.
You have been dishonest and disingenuous throughout this discussion, using facts in a deceitful way and distorting reality, while ignoring relevant facts provided to you.
"Your dishonesty revolves around your assertions about the invasion of Iraq. Most everyone was misled by the flawed intelligence, but only Bush invaded Iraq, and he is rightfully scolded for that choice."
And exactly how was I being dishonest in that regard?
"Your dishonesty also revolves around your commentary about WMD's in general.
"Before Clinton was ever in office, the US government gave him the ability to use WMD's against his own people and against his neighboring enemies. We gave him that ability."
There is no proof to back up your assertion. Saddam used chemical weapons (mustard gas and VX) against the Kurds. VX is produced from chlorine and two other chemicals. Where's the proof that we gave Saddam chemicals that we knew he would use against his enemies?
"The sanctions that were applied during the 90's certainly hurt many innocent Iraqi's. The alternatives were considered to be worse. What Bush did was ten times worse than any sanctions in terms of overall damage and difficulties both in Iraq and here in the USA and in the world at large."
Sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children under five. Bin Laden also used the sanctions against Iraq as a justification for sending Clinton "messages with no words" (i.e., terrorist attacks). How can you say what Bush has done is ten times worse? Where are the 5 million dead Iraqi children under 5? Where's are thr 30,000 Americans killed in a terrorist attack?
"You have been dishonest and disingenuous throughout this discussion, using facts in a deceitful way and distorting reality, while ignoring relevant facts provided to you."
I back up my assertions with facts. You have not done the same. It is you who has been dishonest.
"Kevin" you really don't get it do you? You keep trying to prove that Clinton should get more blame for 9/11 than Bush. You are perhaps sincere in your beliefs but sincerity is overrated. This isn't some team sport where each side tries to score points for their team.
People are dying because of this horrible occupation. That is not in dispute at all. Anyone who is open to the facts will admit that Sadam and Bin Laden were not working together. Only Dick Cheney is still trying to promote that lie.
The topic for discussion is the reasons for 9/11. As Ron Paul said, it is because the US and other Western powers have been meddling in the Middle East ever since oil was discovered there. Clinton was much more focused on Bin Laden than Bush was, and this is in the records. You simply try to filter that out by dismissing anyone who refutes your talking points.
You just want to win an argument, not get at the truth.
You think no children were killed in the war? The Johns Hopkins study shows 600,000 excess deaths since the invasion--and that was a year ago.
I don't think that. Even if the JH study is correct, far more Iraqis died under Clinton's sanctions. The UN reported that over 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died as a result of sanctions. It did not deal with older children or adults. The JH figure of 600,000 includes Iraqis of all ages. Also, of those 600,000, again if that is an accurate number, the vast majority were not killed by our troops.
Ah, so if Bush only kills 50% of Clinton's total and US troops only kill 25% of Iraqis, that makes it all right then? How many millions must die total before we can call it mass murder?
The JH study has long been debunked.
The JH study has long been debunked.
Then it should be relatively easy for you to postlinks to document your claim. Such a claim, of course, is useless unless supported by a study that generates different estimates and discloses the methodology used to determine them.
Here is a link to the original study (Pdf)
Here is an interview with the principle author Gilbert Burnham in which some of the criticisms are addressed.
Here is an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education that discusses reasons the study may have been dismissedas "pure politics":
And this article by Jim Giles discusses some of the concerns other experts in the field of epidemiology have with the methodology. Note, however that even the most sceptical critic observes: "the paper contains the best data yet on the mortality rate in Iraq." Furthermore all of the experts contacted said that "none of their doubts fatally undermined the study."
In short, while there may be legitimate questions, there is no debunking. Leatherhelmet, on the other hand, well we all know your record.
No it hasnt it has NEVER been debunked. It has been sneered at by rightwingers who dont like what it says the methodology is solid and has never been close to refuted
"The problem is not that our intelligence was flawed."
So it was right?
No, the intelligence was flawed. But the problem with Bush invading Iraq is NOT that the intelligence was flawed, since many people saw that flawed intelligence but only Bush invaded. Are you really this stupid, Kevin?
"The problem is that Bush had men on the ground in early 2003 that told him that the intelligence was flawed, plus lots of other info available that discounted the intelligence, and he still invaded Iraq."
That's a falsehood. What men on the ground in early 2003 said the intelligence was flawed? What, specifically, did they say?
Are you really this stupid? We had a guy who worked for Saddam tell us in late 2002 that he didn't have WMD's. Saddam himself told us that in late 2002. The UN Weapons Inspectors were on the ground for months before Bush invaded, countering the intelligence. Intelligence is guessing about the facts. The inspectors found out the truth, and the truth disproved the intelligence. That's why the intelligence was flawed, you imbecile!
"Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Bush did."
Clinton kept sanctions on Iraq for eight years because he said Iraq had WMD. The UN has reported that those sanctions led to the deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqi children. Which was worse? Invading or killing half a million children? Which led to 9/11?
As I said, Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Clinton's actions may be subject to criticism, but he didn't invade Iraq. Bush did. Therefore, Clinton seeing the flawed intelligence didn't make Bush make the terribly flawed decision to invade Iraq! You are really dense, aren't you? 9/11 is not the topic here. Your defense of Bush because he used flawed intelligence as his basis for invading Iraq is the topic. 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, remember?
"That's the poor decision, and that responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of George W Bush. He invaded after the UN Weapons Inspectors had told him that there was almost certainly no imminent or nearly imminent threat from WMD's."
Bush did not say there was an imminent threat. He said there was a gathering threat that needed to be stopped before it became imminent. He was guided by what could be called Richard Clarke's doctrine of preemption.
I didn't say that Bush said there was an imminent threat. Do you see invisible quotation marks in my post above? If so, you are delusional as well as moronic! There was not a gathering threat, since the intelligence that said there was a gathering threat was wrong, you numbskull! Bush had info from men on the ground in early 2003 that disproved the intelligence! What part of simple explanations baffle you?
They did. One million Iraqis dead in a US/UK 12-year seige, complete with weekly bombings. Clinton did that. Seen it with me own two eyes, me did.
Joe Klein is a weird writer.
Well, he is a liberal and a Bush basher. Most of those folks are weird.
Well thats according to YOU since you are a moron and a wingnut I will take it with a grain of salt since most of those people are just plain ignorant.
Name-calling is no substitute for a cogent arguemnt. Doing so only exposes the weakness of your argument.
I am not making an argument. I am returning serve. Keep snivelling that after YOU say liberals are wierd we call YOU names WWAAHHHH only us wingnuts get to call people names its not fair for you liberals to call us names back. Man up or STFU
You should all read the text of the 9-11 commission regarding Iraq, Middle East interventions by the US and 9-11.
Everything that Paul said has already been written in the commission.
Great job Paul.
Rudy Giuliani has made a lot of hay by stating (sic) "I was there on the ground on 9/11". As I stated two days ago in this forum, he gained much of that exposure on the streets because he did not follow competent advice to move the NYC Command & Control Center out of the World Trade Center buildings.
In my opinion, that lack of security savvy moves him way down on the list of candidates with executive and critical decision making capabilities. But, then again, GW has set the bar pretty low on this front.
Given the horrofic scope of 9/11 and the attendant exposure he garnered, we are now left with the Media and Giuliani "Blow Back", to wit he sees himself as a seasoned "combat" veteran and presidential material.
He did a great disservice to public debate with the same reckless disregard he demonstrated when leaving the Command & Control Center at the WTC buildings. Fox is not going to interrupt the resulting media sound bite by culling the truth from this smear of Ron Paul. This behavior, by the way, exemplifies the difference between a Politician (Rudy) and a Statesman (Ron Paul).
The Honorable Ron Paul now faces a petition of bannishment from future debates by the head of the Michigan Republican Party for telling a truth which was first supported CIA and 911 Commission.
As American citizens it is our want to believe our country is always on the moral high ground in our dealings with other nations. As a Vietnam Veteran, I have come to know that we are not always squeaky clean. And the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
If we were to have a military draft today, as we did in the sixties, many more people would be motivated to seek answers and, likely, publicly protestinging the Bush/Cheney Preemptive Iraq War policy. Sadly most of us don't want to hear about blow back or the "back story" as it just complicates our drive to the Acme. As Jack Nicholson said in A FEW GOOD MEN, "Truth - You want the truth (Mr Giuliani and Hannity)? You can't handle the truth."
Cheap shot at a good and honest man. Very disheartening.
Hey Paul; stop confusing me with the facts!
Ron Paul 2008! The only statesman in the field!!
Video: U.S. Policy On Israel Key Motive for 9/11 Attacks "After he was captured in Pakistan in early 2003, he told his interrogators that although he had developed no special complaint about America in his years here, he [ Khalid Shaikh Mohammed ] felt strongly that U.S. support of Israel was wrong and could be corrected by attacking the United States," reports Los Angeles Times writer Terry McDermott.
The man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel
Bin Laden said that he was inspired with the idea of attacking the U.S. skyscrapers when he saw Israeli aircraft bombing tower blocks in Lebanon in 1982.
"As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me to punish the unjust the same way... to destroy towers in America so that it can taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women," said bin Laden.
http://www.aljazeera.com/email1.asp
Ron Paul hit a chord with both conservatives and liberals. He smells of sincerity. I guess I shouldn't be amazed at the attempts to ban and/or marginalize the guy.
It's maybe just a sour note, but I feel compelled to type it: If any of the good folks who I know read these pages regularly, are drawn to think Mr. Paul does something smart, when he invokes the 'terrorist's reasons' for attacking the U.S. on September 11, 2001 (and I assume that's what he did, because admittedly, I did not see the debate and I have not read completely his comments, or the context they were made in)... if indeed it is the 'terrorist's reasons' for 9/11 being invoked by Mr. Paul, I can assure you brothers and sisters, that is not a very smart thing for a presidential candidate to do... amidst all the horror and all the grief that resulted from the attacks of 9/11, there is no sane place for anything that even resembles 'compassion' or 'sympathy' for the attackers... and that is why I type this sour note, brothers and sisters, to remind you, that invoking the 'terrorist's reasons' (which you may not think to be expressing 'compassion' or 'sympathy' for the attackers) does indeed resemble (if only remotely, and if only to the horrified and grief-stricken) 'compassion' and 'sympathy'... and while I would ward all my brothers and sisters away from even seeming to feel those things about the attackers of 9/11, I could only say to Mr. Paul, that such an appearance is a disasterous thing, for a presidential candidate... and I wouldn't want to hear all the rational distinctions that would seem to make it a good idea, for a presidential candidate to invoke the 'terrorist's reasons' for attacking the U.S. on 9/11, because reason does not do well against horror and grief... horror and grief still felt in abundance, at the attacks of September 11, 2001.
And I'd add also, to those who understand well enough what I might mean when I say, that in Mr. Paul we may be looking at a living and breathing 'straw man', for the Republican candidates to knock down. I figure the more sharp of the regular readers of these pages to know well what that means... I figure my Brothers and Sisters to know well, when they are being played.
Okay Dem02020, I'll admit I'm not sure what you are talking about. Are you saying that Ron Paul got into this race to be some sort of spoiler or foil for the other candidates. I am from Texas and have followed Ron Paul for a while now and know him to be a very sincere and committed guy. He has written extensively on the Iraq occupation and has very strong feelings about it. I also fail to see why telling the truth about our last 50-60 years of suspect foreign policy is a bad thing for anyone - presidential candidate or not. We are not kids who need to be coddled or protected from the truth. Well, maybe some are - the kind that need authoritarian blowhards to tell them what to think and how to feel. But that's a low percentage (maybe that 28 percent crowd). Please elucidate for me further.
Dem, I would like a response because I'm not sure you are being real or sarcastic somehow. Your use of the single apostrope (') surrounding some phrases instead of the quote (") mark is confusing. I am not clear on the content of your post. Thanks.
The truth is never a bad idea and it's about time someone brave enough to speak the truth. THere is nothing the Paul said that was innaccurate. If it loses him the elecion so be it. I respect a man that speaks the truth without pandering. The problem with this country is that no has even tried to think about the conditions that lead up to 9/11. We need to beware of our actions as a country least they lead to the fostering of hate around the world. I am just as pissed about 9/11 as most folks, but to say we should just ignore FACTS is ridiculous. If he loses for what he said so be it, but at the end of the they he might still be able to tally up a vote from me as opposed to most f the candidates up there.
Dem02020,being honest about the motives is not "showing sympathy" with the terrorists. Why on this topic is motive suddenly off topic? When a police detective talks about a motive for a crime, do you accuse him of having "sympathy" with the criminal?!? NO, you don't. So don't pull this crap with people who are sick and tired of being lied to and manipulated about why we were attacked on 9/11! I am sick and tired of having my security threatened by lying politicians and that is why I like hearing Ron PAul talking about the facts. He needs to start mentioning the MAIN MOTIVE: US support of Israel. And Media Matters should start working "for America" instead of turing a blind eye to the crimes Israel commits. MSM is playing along with the Israel agenda by not being honest about the main motive for the 9/11 attacks.You think we should have accepted lies about why blacks like Nat Turner used terrorism?
Klein, you are a schmuck. What the hell is wrong with the people in this country? Wake up people, your country is being destroyed in front of your eyes.
Who can I write to so I can point this out. Ron Paul is awesome.
I guess the Nazis were right when they told the world they were no killing jews, just moving them for their own protection.
Al Quaeda was born of wahhabism and the teachings of Qutb and Mawdudi. It is the conquest of the world by conversion to Islam.
Convert or die. It is has nothing to do with our foreign policy, it has to do with our culture standing in the way of their conquest.
Those who believe that we were attacked because of our foreign policy are fools. Al Quaeda continues to attack France, Germany and Spain despite their foreign policy of staying out of Iraq.
“I guess the Nazis were right when they told the world they were no killing jews, just moving them for their own protection.”
Huh?
“Al Quaeda was born of wahhabism and the teachings of Qutb and Mawdudi. It is the conquest of the world by conversion to Islam.”
Al Qaeda was spawned from Zawahiri and his mentor was Sayyid Qutb. Zawahiri's goal was to start Islamic revolutions throughout the Middle East and overthrow the “corrupt” leaders there.
“Convert or die. It is has nothing to do with our foreign policy, it has to do with our culture standing in the way of their conquest.”
When did Zawahiri or Bin Laden say their policy was “convert or die?”
“Those who believe that we were attacked because of our foreign policy are fools. Al Quaeda continues to attack France, Germany and Spain despite their foreign policy of staying out of Iraq.”
It has everything to do with Bush’s foreign policy. A group in France who claim to be Al Qaeda says they will attack France because they believe the new president will be Bush’s new Tony Blair/bỉtch. Two guys were going to blow-up targets in Germany to train for attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. And Spain was attacked by fundamentalists when they had troops in Iraq.
"When did Zawahiri or Bin Laden say their policy was “convert or die?”"Exactly loonz, they haven't said this. Those that claim "it is has nothing to do with our foreign policy" and claim that they insist we "convert or die" must resort to lies and fabrication to backup their claim. For example, the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9-11" fabricated a fatwa quote about "until America converts to Islam" in order to push the lie that the al-Qeada insists we "convert or die." And here is the kicker, NO ONE in mainstream media (I haven't seen a single pundit or reporter) told the American people that "The Path to 9-11" fabricated a fatwa quote about "until America converts to Islam." That includes Media Matters which did do stories on "The Path to 9-11" but did not point out this fabrication.
The Islamo-fascist-radical-fundamentalist-extremist meme is a test of the American people. How many are that stupid that they believe it? We'll see; the Republicans and the media are in love with it.
The first answer Scheuer gives: Unqualified Support for Israel
Rep. William Delahunt: "They don't hate us, according to you, because of our values but because of our policies in the Middle East. Is that correct?"
Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief: "And their impact. Yes, sir."Rep. William Delahunt: "And their impact. What policies in particular?"Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief: "Unqualified Support for Israel"
"The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people." - Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief
Let me get this straight. We are occupying Iraq and supporting Israel occupying Palestine to protect the natives in those nations...from this plot to take over the world...which we seem to be doing with bases in an amazing number of countries...against tiny liitle terrorist cells with no power at all to take over a local country, much less the US....who will take over the world if we don't slam a Marine brigade down on them in their home province and make them love us or else?
And they hate us because we were nice to them and invaded their country and shot at them and dropped some bombs and gave them the tough love that they needed and they're just plain ungrateful radicals who can't realize Americans only kill to help people, right?
Nah, US policy couldn't have anything to do with people wanting to attack us. Those 2,000,000+ dead Iraqis just don't exist, right. All a figment of some liberal's imagination. Hatred for the great walled ghetto that is now Palestine, funded by US cash subsidies and free guns for the guards? It's not there. Hannity says it's a delusion made up by a lunatic. US policy can't be responsible. We're America the Perfect, we're never responsible.
France and Germany may not be in Iraq but they sure are in Afghanistan. Germany had the most troops IN Afghanistan after Americans.
To Dem02020, et al (and I assume that's what he did, because admittedly, I did not see the debate and I have not read completely his comments, or the context they were made in)...
I see the same "honesty" in your admitted second hand analysis of this issue as Ron Paul displayed in his response during the debate.
One of the things that had been put forward by most every Bush administration official in the beginning of the Iraq War was the need to (sic) "win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people". In "Insurgency" types of conflict this "Hearts and Minds" strategy is a tactic taught at all US military academys. General Petreaus is considered an expert on just such "Insurgency" warfare.
To affect "Hearts and Minds" strategy, one must understand the prevailing issues and history of the culture with which it is engaged. Incidentally, know thine enemy is an ancient axiom and military philosphy. General George Patton defeated a previously unbeaten Field Marshall Rommel in the desserts of North Africa in WWII. He did, in fact, read Rommel's own book prior to defeating him. Patton was a gutsy braggard and a real son of a bitch who took the time to know his enemy. He's also a WWII hero.
Dem02020, you need to read the subject quotes of Ron Paul in this article to understand the wickedly dumb (factually) yet brilliant (politically & Fox-Newsically) response of Rudy G... Rudy Giuliani's great debate sound byte was to scoff at Ron Paul by stating (sic) "that's a good one, I don't think I've ever heard that one before". Interestingly, if he had taken the time to read the CIA and The 911 Commission reports with regard to "BLOWBACK", then he would have not only heard "that one before", he would have read it from competent authority.
This has nothing to do with sympathy for the 9/11 attackers. It has everything to do with realities of the world and how best to prepare, defend and avoid stupid foreign policy mistakes.
With over 3,000 US Troops "In" the ground and memorial day coming next week, we need leaders with the guts to speak the truth to us. We all need protection, more from ill-informed posers like Giuliani and sound byte media than from anything else.
I'll repeat what I quoted earlier from Jack Nicholson in the movie A Few Good Men; "Truth! You want the truth (Mr. Giuliani and Sean Hannity)...You can't handle the truth.
I think you were being honest and sincere, Dem. We need to know our enemy to secure the future of our Nation for our children. Ron Paul wants that, Rudy Giuliani wants to be President.
Sincerely
Leatherhelmet....Sounds like a Sound Byte to me. So that's all I'll return to you. Nice spelling- did you check the book first. These people need truth... not hysterical chickenhawks, like our abdicating congress.
You are totally wrong, and don't one line quote to me.
Rosina
It's bewildering how each side (CLinton/Bush) can go on and on about who caused what-
If one goes back to the question of : Is what Dr. Paul said inflamatory and deserving of Giuliani/Fox News blast? To me, it's plainly evident that:
1) Listening to the attackers, via CIA reports, interviews with Bin Ladin is entirely logically, afterall tax dollar paid for the agency to get the information, why not look at it;
2) once we do look there one finds at least some of the keys to the question of WHY WE WERE ATTACKED;
3) The distinction between Clinton/Bush is blurred, which is in large part symptomatic of the country and its politics as a whole (not just militarily) and thus doesn't really matter-
4) foreign policy must be changed to a more conservative approach- one that totally departs from either camp;
5) Giuliani is just more of the same 'ol same 'ol, if not worse than most because of his weak platform and one-note campaign. He's a slick lawyer using emotional ploys (one-note) to establish footing.on an otherwise non-conservative social agenda.
6) Fox News wants Giuliani in and hell-bent on spinning earth off it's axis to acheive that goal. MSNBC, ABC, NPR, et al aren't any better, just for different candidates. Where is journalistic craft in all this? Witchcraft, I think.
Paul is right on.
Most rightwingers, I no longer use the word conservitive to describe this administration or its followers, that’s false advertising, are not given to the authentic study of cause and effect. Evolution is supernatural magic. Terrorists are evil doers and satanic beasts. Life is simple. Easy to understand and manipulate. Any true study or analysis is quickly smeared with a overcoat of black or white. Ron Paul made the mistake of scratching the paint to revel its true colors. Rudy jump in with his brush as soon as he could to the cheers of simpletons, idiots and war profiteers.
From kevin1007:
Your the one who had better be careful here:
In the interview, Mr. bin Laden expresses contempt and revulsion for much more than just Clinton. His diatribe is also directed at Bush Sr. and the "American government". He tells us that the "hearts of Muslims are filled with hatred for the United States of America" and that he has "declared jihad against the United States" whom he blames for deaths in not just Iraq, but also Lebanon and Palestine. He is furious with the Saudi dictatorship. And on and on.
bin Laden was and is angry with many aspects of American policy and actions; his hatred is directed at much more than just Clinton. Far from supporting your ongoing and still failed attempts to blame all that has gone wrong with Bush's disasterous military misadventure on a single past-President, you have shown that all you have to support your specious claims are distortions and misrepresentations.
It was George Bush Jr., not Clinton, who mislead the American public into a costly and failed military campaign that has killed thousands of American soldiers, plunged Iraq into a civil war, more than doubled the ranks of Al Qaida, and made the world much less safe, all the while profoundly and perhaps irrevocably damaging America's international influence and standing. And your absurd attempts to deflect the responsibility for these failures away from Bush aren't working.
"It was George Bush Jr., not Clinton, who mislead the American public into a costly and failed military campaign that has killed thousands of American soldiers, plunged Iraq into a civil war, more than doubled the ranks of Al Qaida, and made the world much less safe, all the while profoundly and perhaps irrevocably damaging America's international influence and standing. And your absurd attempts to deflect the responsibility for these failures away from Bush aren't working."
I think you're confused. The topic of this threat concerned what motivated 9/11. Obviously, the invasion of Iraq could not have motivated 9/11 since it occuured a year and a half after 9/11.
You read the CNN interview with bin Laden, but you left out the pertinent passages. Here is how Peter Bergen of CNN described bin Laden's words on page 22 of his 2001 book "Holy War, Inc.":
"Asked what message he would send President Clinton, bin Laden answered: 'Mentioning the name of Clinton or that of the American government provokes disgust and revulsion. This is because the name of the American government and the name of Clinton and Bush directly reflect in our minds ... the picture of the children who died in Iraq.' He was referring to the fact that, by May 1996, an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1990, for its continued violations of U.N. resolutions.
"He continued: 'The hearts of Muslims are filled with hatred towards the United States of America and the American president. The president has a heart that knows no words. A heart that kills hundreds of children definitely knows no words. Our people on the Arabian Peninsula will send him messages with no words because he does not know any words. If there is a message that I may send through you, then it is a message I address to the mothers of American troops who came here with their military uniforms walking proudly up and down our land.... I say that this represents a blatant provocation to over one billion Muslims. To these mothers I say if they are concerned for their sons, then let them object to the American government's policy.'"
Obviously, the motivation for 9/11 was there long before Bush 43 became president, yet you appear to want to assign him 100% of the blame while Clinton, whom bin Laden explicitly singled out is spared of any responsibility. Most reasonable people would find that very odd.
Someone who claims that:
...isn't likely to know what "reasonable people" might find odd.
That's what's known as a straw man.
No one on this thread has ever assigned "100% of the blame" for 9/11 to Bush, and I have not blamed him at all. It is you who are trying to lay blame for 9/11; you have repeatedly attempted to blame Clinton for 9/11, an absurdity that has compelled you to go so far as to distort the meanings of statements by the likes of Ron Paul and bin Laden himself.
That's two falsehoods in one phrase. First, Clinton has not been "spared of any responsibility"; that's simply another made-up claim by you. Secondly, bin Laden never singled-out Clinton as the cause for 9/11; bin Laden said he was going to "send him a message", but he layed blame at much more than just the incumbent President.
You have distorted much but accomplished very little with your "arguments". Here, as in other threads, you have repeatedly tried to blame Clinton for what has gone wrong while you lamely try to deflect any criticism of Bush for the disasterous and horrible mistakes he has made:
It was George Bush Jr., not Clinton, who mislead the American public into a costly and failed military campaign that has killed thousands of American soldiers, plunged Iraq into a civil war, more than doubled the ranks of Al Qaida, and made the world much less safe, all the while profoundly and perhaps irrevocably damaging America's international influence and standing. And your absurd attempts to deflect the responsibility for these failures away from Bush aren't working.
"Someone who claims that:
...isn't likely to know what "reasonable people" might find odd."
"That's what's known as a straw man."
"No one on this thread has ever assigned "100% of the blame" for 9/11 to Bush, and I have not blamed him at all. It is you who are trying to lay blame for 9/11; you have repeatedly attempted to blame Clinton for 9/11, an absurdity that has compelled you to go so far as to distort the meanings of statements by the likes of Ron Paul and bin Laden himself."
No one? Obviously, you have not read all the posts. So if you don't believe Bush deserves 100% of the blame for 9/11, you must believe Clinton bears a certain percentage of the responsibility. You then contradict yourself by criticizing me above for saying Clinton does indeed bear responsibility. Perhaps you should think through your arguments better.
"That's two falsehoods in one phrase. First, Clinton has not been "spared of any responsibility"; that's simply another made-up claim by you. Secondly, bin Laden never singled-out Clinton as the cause for 9/11; bin Laden said he was going to "send him a message", but he layed blame at much more than just the incumbent President."
In the CNN interview bin Laden said he would send Clinton, and no one else, "messages with no words." Read the interview. He didn't say he was going to send Reagan, Bush 41, or anyone else "messages with no words." He said he was going to send Clinton "messages with no words."
"You have distorted much but accomplished very little with your "arguments". Here, as in other threads, you have repeatedly tried to blame Clinton for what has gone wrong while you lamely try to deflect any criticism of Bush for the disasterous and horrible mistakes he has made:"
There you go again. This thread is about what motivated 9/11. Again, 9/11 was planned years before it took place and the 9/11 pilots were in this country before Bush was elected president. It is simply not possible that Bush did anything that motivated 9/11, yet you want to assign blame to Bush. Yours is a lame and dishonest argument.
"It was George Bush Jr., not Clinton, who mislead the American public into a costly and failed military campaign that has killed thousands of American soldiers, plunged Iraq into a civil war, more than doubled the ranks of Al Qaida, and made the world much less safe, all the while profoundly and perhaps irrevocably damaging America's international influence and standing. And your absurd attempts to deflect the responsibility for these failures away from Bush aren't working."
There you go again. The invasion of Iraq took place 18 months after 9/11. You cannot argue that the invasion motivated 9/11.
It's you who are odd, Kevin.
Much of your interaction on this site today has revolved around the intelligence that led Bush to claim he had justification for invading Iraq. I cannot count how many times you mentioned that Clinton must have been lying about the link between WMD's and Iraq, but it was quite a few.
The facts are that armed with strong warnings from Clinton and Clinton's staff, including Richard Clarke, Bush did almost nothing to try to defend us from Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.
If Clinton was wrong for not handling the USS Cole response in the last month of his presidency, then Bush is 10 times more to blame for not doing something in his first months in office to punish Bin Laden. If Clinton had bad intelligence that caused him to be misled about the threat that Iraq posed to their neighbors and to the US, then Bush is 10 times more to blame for ignoring the facts that disproved that intelligence. Intelligence is educated guesses, and when those educated guesses get proven wrong, a capable leader would pause. Bush rushed to war despite repeated pleadings from the UN Weapons Inspectors!
9/11, as Ron Paul said, has many root causes going back many years. None of that absolves Bush of the responsibility for the choices he made and the neglect he engendered.
"Much of your interaction on this site today has revolved around the intelligence that led Bush to claim he had justification for invading Iraq. I cannot count how many times you mentioned that Clinton must have been lying about the link between WMD's and Iraq, but it was quite a few."
You guys are going on an odd and illogical tangent. This thread is about Pul's statement concerning what motivated 9/11. The invasion of Iraq took place AFTER 9/11. You cannot argue that the invasion motivated 9/11.
"The facts are that armed with strong warnings from Clinton and Clinton's staff, including Richard Clarke, Bush did almost nothing to try to defend us from Al Qaeda and Bin Laden."
Again, the topic of this thread concerns what motivated 9/11. The plan was 9/11 was in place long before Bush became president, so the motivation was there before Bush became president. Clarke is not credible and there is no evidence that the outgoing Clinton administration warned Bush about al Qaeda. There are press releases concerning warnins about Iraq. See
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010801.htm
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010903.htm
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1011102.htm
I have not found similar press releases concerning al Qaeda. I suspect they do not exist. Clinton global security report of December 2000 barely mentioned bin Laden and made no mention at all of al Qaeda. It did deal with Iraq extensively.
There wre reports that Sandy Berger handed a plan to the Bush administration to go after bin Laden, but Berger shot those reports down before the 9/11 Commission.
"If Clinton was wrong for not handling the USS Cole response in the last month of his presidency, then Bush is 10 times more to blame for not doing something in his first months in office to punish Bin Laden."
You've been corrected on that timeframe before, yet you continue to repeat it. The USS was bombed in October 2000, with more than THREE MONTHS left in the Clinton administration. Clinton had plenty of time and plenty of reasons to go after bin Laden in October 2000. The problem was that Gore was campaigning as a "peace and prosperity" candidate. That "peace" part would have been in doubt with a response against al Qaeda. Yours is an odd argument. Bin Laden bombed our embassies in Africa in 1998 and the USS Cole in October 2000, yet it was up to Bush, and not Clinton, to punish him? So if al Qaeda bombed a U.S. city tomorrow, it would be all right with you if Bush passed the punishment phase off to the next president?
"If Clinton had bad intelligence that caused him to be misled about the threat that Iraq posed to their neighbors and to the US, then Bush is 10 times more to blame for ignoring the facts that disproved that intelligence. Intelligence is educated guesses, and when those educated guesses get proven wrong, a capable leader would pause. Bush rushed to war despite repeated pleadings from the UN Weapons Inspectors!"
The intelligence was not proven wrong before the invasion. Bush went with what the intelligence agencies told him. And the claim that Bush rushed to war is just plain nonsense. If anything, he waited too long. He spent months seeking UN and congressional approval. He should have done like Clinton and deployed the military much sooner without UN or congressional approval. Many of the post-Saddam problems could have been avoided if the invasion had taken place six months earlier.
"9/11, as Ron Paul said, has many root causes going back many years. None of that absolves Bush of the responsibility for the choices he made and the neglect he engendered."
Another confused poster. The invasion took place 18 months after 9/11. You can say the invasion is a root cause of 9/11.
Most neocons are content to merely blame Clinton for every single thing that has gone wrong for America in the past 7 years, including 9-11, but Kevin has invented a whole new and refreshing type of Kool-Aid to enjoy:
So in Kevin's new flavor, Clinton isn't just to blame for 9/11; it turns out that Al Qaeda actually attacked the WTC and the Pentagon to send a message intended only for Bill Clinton long after he had left office.
Got that? Kevin wants us to believe that 9/11 was a message to Bill.
Drink up.
"When Congressman Ron Paul, who has long served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explained how 50 years of American interventionism in the Middle East has helped compromise our national security, [Rudy] Giuliani interrupted saying he had "never heard anything so absurd." This statement is particularly troubling coming from the former mayor who tries to cast himself as a security expert, since Dr. Paul's point comes directly from the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission Report."
(Repeat from the essay we are posting about) and worth repeating here. Foreign policy of meddling in the Middle East thru many presidents are causative agents for terrorists as well as excuses they use to recruit others. The terrorists are beyond despicable.
Ron Paul is well informed on this topic. The other Republican candidates ought to know better than to grandstand and pander.
I am a liberal Democrat but I love Ron Paul's honesty on the tough questions and if the Republicans had any sense (and luckily they don't) they would listen to him instead of ridicule him.
Can we just soothe kevin1007 sad and pathetic ego and just annoint Bush "Lord and Saviour and Master of the Universe" so that he'll just go away? It's better than him mucking up the comments page with 50 comments of disinformationa and outright lies. Then kevin will have more time to drive his camaro and fluff his mullet.
My Letter to Joe Klein:
Mr. Klein,
Seriously, man do you even have a clue how far off you are from fact based reality ? (http://mediamatters.org/items/200705190001)
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1) <!--[endif]-->The 9-11 Commission Report – They Attack us for being in Saudia Arabia and for Sanctions on IRAQ after the gulf war
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2) <!--[endif]-->Paul Wolfowitz - “There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.”
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3) <!--[endif]-->Watch Ron Paul’s interview on CNN (http://www.freecentury.com/2007/05/20/breaking-news-ron-paul-on-cnn-late-edition-52007/). That interview makes your comment “singular moment of weirdness” so indicative of how out of touch with reality you are on this problem or his fact based analysis. He’s right and you damn well should know it. If you don’t you really need to stop all of your commentary on Al Qaeda.
We need to have rational debate to solve problems. Ron Paul may be a long shot, but his point is based on fact. All the other candidates claiming they attack us for our freedoms necessarily don’t understand the problem we face. Regardless of whether Ron is a legitimate contender has no bearing on whether his point is based in fact. It is based on Bin Laden’s own statements, you should damn well know it, and you owe the American people a hell of a lot better then what you are giving them. Promulgating continued false hoods is an absolute disgrace.
I really wonder how much rationalizing you have to do to make yourself feel like you are doing a good job? Or even a competent job? Even lawyers who defend the guilty can do a competent job without rationalizing it into a good job. You can’t do either so what does that really say about your ability to analyze or even time magazine’s for that matter?
With no respect for your absolute lack of basic competence or general insight,
Jim C
P.S. Don’t even get me started on how ridiculous Glen Greenwald made you look.
For Kevin,
In the movie "Good Will Hunting" the anlyst (Robin Williams) says to Will (Matt Damon)...(and I'm very loosely paraphrasing here because I'm too damned old to want to google everybody to death) 'you can recite infinite details from scores of books you've read - and precisely recant obscure points tucked away in your genius memory - but you can't tell me how the dirt smells or what the wind feels like against your face!'
My point, you are spinning like a whirling cyclone to what end. If it consoles you any, yes, several administrations have served in perpetrating various insults and injuries to most nations of the 3rd world. We have been ill-equipped to smell, taste or feel those affronts. We are to busy fascilitating the needs of our ravenous corporate elites to insure you and I get to the Acme with enough money left over for a disposable cel phone for our 10 year olds.
If I threatened to draft your butt into the military right now, your sensory perceptions, particularly dread, would increase a thousand fold. That's my experience. I'm not so sure these excercises in mental masturbation would offer much relief once you boarded the plane to Iraq.
Bottom line, give me the name of a 20 year old you want to spend in of support politicians who, under the influence of some 35,000 plus lobbyists and for the sake of Big Biz and our otherwise unencumbered drive to the Acme. (There were approx. 60+ lobbyists during the 1960's) And remember, Those we send to Iraq, and in my case, Vietnam, get to see and smell the death of those innocent children and civilians. May have something to do with Delayed Stress Syndrome.
American does not hold exclusive rights to the high moral ground in its dealings throughout the world. Past Presidents share in some of the cause and affect. But they invoke War one President at a time. Bush and Cheney were no shows when they had the opportunity to suit up. Mission Accomplished is the biggest cartoon I can suggest for your entertainment and my disgust with them. Meanwhile, I'll be making my 39th anniversary pilgrimage to the parents of a childhood friend and Marine who died in Vietnam on Nov. 10, 1968.
Dis Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Powell , etal, deceive us in the run up to Iraq. You bet your sweet ass. Google PNAC and then, Google this.
I got somewhere else to be, so I'll read your excrutiating factually spun response later. Quotes aren't truths, facts are not necessarily justification for murder or, if you prefer, war. You win, HUZZAH.