Broder touted Bush "conviction" that "preeminent mission was to combat the forces behind" 9-11
In his May 20 column, Washington Post columnist David Broder wrote that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the July 7, 2005, London subway bombings "armed" President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "with a conviction that their preeminent mission was to combat the forces behind those assaults." Broder, however, offered no explanation as to how the Iraq war fit into Bush's "preeminent mission" to "combat the forces behind" the 9-11 attacks. Indeed, in past columns, Broder challenged the Bush administration's suggestions of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda and postulated that Bush may have resolved to remove Saddam Hussein from power before 9-11.
In his May 20 column, Broder wrote:
The 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington and the 7/7 London subway and bus bombings shook both Bush and Blair from any sense of complacency and armed both men with a conviction that their preeminent mission was to combat the forces behind those assaults. Both men now believe -- no, are passionately and permanently convinced -- that the terrorist threat from radical Islamists is one that must be resisted at all costs.
However, in his December 7, 2003, column, Broder quoted Louis Fisher of the Congressional Research Service challenging the administration's linkages of Iraq and Al Qaeda:
Louis Fisher, the authority on congressional-executive relations at the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, is one who argues that the failure was not personal but institutional. While joining those who challenge the intelligence the Bush administration used to justify the preemptive attack on Saddam Hussein's regime, Fisher is even more critical of the lawmakers who sanctioned the action.
In the fall issue of Political Science Quarterly, he writes: "Month after month, the administration released claims that were unproven" about weapons of mass destruction and links between Iraq and al Qaeda. "For its part, Congress seemed incapable of analyzing a presidential proposal and protecting its institutional powers."
In a July 18, 2004, column, Broder wrote that the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq had "blow[n] a huge hole in Bush's claim that war was required to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and sever an alliance between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda." As Media Matters for America has noted, the Senate report concluded: "The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship." As Media Matters has noted, a separate Senate Intelligence Committee report released September 8, 2006, thoroughly debunked the claim that there was a connection between the government of Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, and the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
In his March 18, 2003, column -- written on the eve of the invasion of Iraq -- Broder wrote: "When historians have access to the memos and the diaries of the Bush administration's insiders, it's likely they will find that President Bush set his sights on removing Saddam Hussein from power soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks -- if not before." Broder also wrote: "Skeptics may argue that the United States has yet to produce convincing evidence of a link between the Baghdad regime and the al Qaeda terrorists. But the link exists in the mind of the commander in chief, and he is prepared to act on that conviction."
Another example of MMFA highlighting a particular column written by a Washington opinion based commentator, simply out of disagreement.
Out of disagreement with reality. And willing to cheerlead for the President for acting on links that may exist only in his mind, and not connected to any evidence.
Simply that, yeah.
David Broder just opining, er mind reading, again. No problem. But it would be nice if he could at least square himself with himself, if not with any facts.
Such musings are such from a troll
That context just won't slow his roll
In creating distraction
From the "why's this here? faction
He must think himself rather droll.
l
That bald headed gas bag named Broder
Eminates quite a distinct odor
He buys into the fear
like a drunk with a beer
as his effluvium masks neocon order!
couldn't help myself. I've been quiet for awhile, your rhymes woke me up again! ;)
Woo, effluvium...that's good, Snoop. You're the dawg!.
Hey Tommy,
I realize that everytime MMFA jumps on a column that you seem to think is no big deal you always say that but never seem to want to bring up the history of the invasion of a country that didn't attack us on 9/11 or any other day for that matter.
By simply reading PNAC's own website and having a basic knowledge of some of the memo's that have seen the light of day (by patriots that thought the truth must be known to the public) and to mention the fact that about 75% of the signer's of the PNAC mission are or were part of the Bush regime.
These people wanted to attack Iraq back in 98' (Three years before 9/11). Remember, they sent a letter to Clinton demanding as much and when he said NO, well, we all know about Monica, don't we!
As for the 'preeminate' mission to go after the ones behind 9/11..... well, if that was supposed to be the case then we should be in Saudi Arabia not Iraq!
Oh wait, the Bush family is in bed with the Saudi royals, nevermind!
The last thing we need now is for the truth and the facts that support them to get in the way of saving this country from those that seek to steal what they can, while they can, and as fast as they can!
Please Tommy, I know it is tempting to jump on MMFA for jumping on Broder,
but since the truth hurts.......
So the point is that Broder is a weather vain. One is presumed to be an authority if they get a column in a D.C. paper, we can expect consistency.
So, columnists are "weather vains" now? Better tell that to all the op-ed columnists in existence today, they missed that memo.
At the time of the 9-11 event, Bush was a dumb kid who somehow got elected to the highest office in the land, who totally acted on Cheney's advice alone. and it was the Cheney, Rumsfeld , Rice, and Wolfowitz gang that wanted to " finish " Bush 41 Iraq war. Cheney wanted to go all the way to Baghdad and kill Hussein, but Bush 41 stopped the continued operation upon cessation of hostilities. From the situation we are presently in, this kinda makes Bush 41 a pretty smart guy.
I don't know about that WOLF. Not defending Cheney here, but Russert nailed him on this in an interview in 2003 in which he played a clip of a then Cheney indicating that the decision to not go on to Baghdad was the right one. Just saying.
The attacks on 9/11/01 and 7/7/05 "armed" Junior and Poodle "with the convection that there preeminent mission was to combat the forces by those assaults".
In the beginning there was wmd's a a mushroom cloud. Then is was freedom for the Iraqi people. We will stand down when they stand up. I listen to my generals on the ground. And of course Cheney stating the insurgents are on their last throes. Atta's meeting in Prague. We are fighting them there so that they can't come here. The list goes on and on.
So why are we not attacking Saudi Arabia? Why don't we have 150,000 additional troops in Afghanistan?
There is not enough space for all of the lies, misinformation and plan old bullsh** that this administration has given not only to the American people but the world.
There's something worth noting here, whenever we see this kind of difference of opinion, on George W. Bush and his administration, and all that surrounds that administration these past six-plus years... whether it be 9/11 or Iraq or oil or defense budgets or ethics or politics...
Briefly, different folks sometimes have different beliefs... I don't necessarily mean religious beliefs (although they're included here too), but more like 'political beliefs'... and these 'political beliefs' are as much the belief in people, or a particular person, as in any sort of idea or 'ideology'.
OK, these political beliefs are sometimes so fundamental and so core, as to be called unshakable... no amount of debate or arguing is going to make you 'disbelieve'... religious belief is like that always... there's no amount of talk between those who don't believe and those who do, that's going to change either of their minds in the least... quite the contrary, not only do they fail to persuade one another as they talk or debate (again, because their beliefs are so fundamental, so core, so unshakable), but the more they talk and debate, the more they tick each other off, the closer they come to trading insults, the closer they come to making threats, and maybe worse.
Political belief is like this too... I bet you've noticed that, without me noting it here.
My point: With regard to George W. Bush, and all that has surrounded him and his administration of our Federal Government... all of 9/11 and Iraq and defense spending and oil etc....
There seems to be at least two beliefs, at least two fundamental and core and unshakable beliefs:
One is the belief that George W. Bush is a sincere and hard-working and compassionate and well-meaning public servant...
...and another belief is quite different, nearly the opposite, and finds that 'public servant' crap to be a frigging laugh.
I guess this hack broder thinks the first thing, the 'public servant' crap, about George W. Bush.
The hack broder uses words like "a conviction that their preeminent mission..." and "passionately and permanently convinced"...
I guess that hack believes in George W. Bush, if he talks like that... he probably even believes George W. Bush is a religious man (although few truly religious people think that anymore... that's as much the reason behind GWB's tanked popularity nation-wide, as any other: The true believers have no trouble seeing now, the wolf in sheep's clothing).
It's a frigging laugh, this 'public servant' crap... I'd think the hack broder was too embarrassed to be caught even talking like that in public.
Yeah right, George W. Bush the 'public servant'... the oilman, the guy formally charged with insider trading in the oil business, the guy who formally headed up a defense contractor in the Carlyle Group... the Carlyle Group of the Bush friends and family, of the saudis and the bin ladens... that Carlyle Group.
Right, George W. Bush, whose "good friends" and business partners the saudis attacked us on September 11, 2001, and GWB covered up for them and 'redacted' (suppressed!) the Conclusions of the JCI's Report on those attacks.
George W. Bush is a a sincere and hard-working and compassionate and well-meaning public servant?
What a frigging laugh that crap is.
the problem is that we don't seem to be fighting them at all now. bush insists that if we leave iraq, it will become a base for al-qaeda. sort of like, say, pakistan? who we're paying money to fight al-qaeda, and they have basically turned over the whole border area with afghanistan to al-qaeda and the taliban? it's the old saying, with friends like that......
The Bush Regime is the worst ever.
Jimmy Carter
"As Media Matters has noted, a separate Senate Intelligence Committee [link to intelligence.senate.gov] title="http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf">report released September 8, 2006, thoroughly debunked the claim that there was a connection between the government of Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, and the 9-11 terrorist attacks."
Of course, the Bush administration never made such a claim. It was the Clinton administration that claimed Iraq and al Qaeda were working together. See http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
What MMFA dishonestly refuses to tell its readers is that Iraq was on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. Given that combined with Iraq defiance of UNSC resolutions and the near universal belief that Saddam had WMD, how could not action be taken against Iraq in a global war on terrorism?
Your post was a disaster and what it showed was not that MMFA is dishonest but that YOU are dishonest. First MMFA claimed the connection between Iraq, Al Queda and 9/11 was made by HADLEY not by the Bush administration. Then, in your obsession to blame Clinton for everything from halitosis to root canals on Clinton that HE made the claim, to do so of course you have to CHANGE the claim to just a connection between Iraq and al Queda because by the time 9/11 happened the Clinton administration had been gone for seven months. Except you claim the Bush adminstration never made that claim and OF COURSE the Bush administration claimed there was a connection between al Queda and Iraq
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june04/iraqconnection_06-18.html
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaida, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida
Unless you are going to make the ludicrous claim that a relationship doesnt equal a connection then I guess Bush pretty much said so straight out. Your post was so weak, in your zeal to attack MMFA and Clinton that you have simply embarassed yourself. Give it up. Your claim has ZERO MERIT.
Don't bother. Kevin only responds to posts that don't completely destroy his argument. good catch on your part though.
"...OF COURSE the Bush administration claimed there was a connection between al Queda and Iraq
"PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaida, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida."
Wrong. Saying al Qaeda and Iraq had a relationship is not the same as saying Iraq was involved in 9/11. Germany and Japan had a relationship. That does not mean Germany played a role in Pearl Harbor.
Why did the Bush Administration make such an obvious point of juxtaposing Saddam/Iraq, WMD/Mushroom Clouds and OBL/Al Qaida/shadowy terrorist network in speeches at the time?
If the Bush Administration didn't want people to get a false impression, they did a pretty lousy job of it.
I don't think they deserve a pass for what their successful deception.
I didnt claim they did. As I said in my post you CHANGED THE CLAIM so you could give your compulsion to blame Clinton for EVERYTHING a workout.
Of course, the Bush administration never made such a claim. It was the Clinton administration that claimed Iraq and al Qaeda were working together. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Well the Clinton administration also never claimed Iraq was behind 9/11 as they would have needed a time machine to do so. However like the Clinton administration the Bush Ad. DID claim they were working together. Your posts was ludicrous. It was a mishmash of distortion and inanity. The MMFA article claimed that HADLEY made that claim cited no one else. Ya got nothin.
Sorry for the long post. I need to respond. Kevin, The Bush admin did make claims that Iraq and al Qaeda were connected. Here's a quote from a Senate hearing with director of CIA George Tenet,
"Iraq has, in the past, provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates."*
Or maybe you like this from Sec of State Colin Powell,
"These al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months,"*
As for Iraq violating UN resolutions, that's a bit weak to support an invasion by the US. The US invasion is a violation of the UN charter.** As for invading Iraq because it was on the State Dept. list of terror sponsors, this is a weak argument also. If this was a good reason to invade other countries wouldn't the President want to take action to "protect" us all? There are a number of nations on that list. When will the US be invading them?
Sources *See CNN.com>> [link to www.cnn.com]
**See Wikipedia>> [link to en.wikipedia.org]
"Sorry for the long post. I need to respond. Kevin, The Bush admin did make claims that Iraq and al Qaeda were connected. Here's a quote from a Senate hearing with director of CIA George Tenet,"
No one disputes that. We know that both the Bush and Clinton administrations said Iraq and al Qaeda had ties. However, the Bush administration DID NOT say Iraq was involved in 9/11. Bush clearly said there was no evidence of that.
"As for Iraq violating UN resolutions, that's a bit weak to support an invasion by the US. The US invasion is a violation of the UN charter.** "
So you're an expert on international law? The only violations were on the part of Iraq.
"As for invading Iraq because it was on the State Dept. list of terror sponsors, this is a weak argument also. If this was a good reason to invade other countries wouldn't the President want to take action to "protect" us all? There are a number of nations on that list. When will the US be invading them?"
At the time of the invasion, there were just seven nations on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism: Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria. Those nations were on that list before Bush became president.
Your argument that it was not valid to invade one without invading the other six is nonsense.
First, Libya and Sudan to steps to aid us in the global war on terrorism. You don't attack countries that are cooperating with you. Clinton made that mistake in 1998 when he bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan after that country had offered to turn over bin Laden just a couple of years earlier. Libya actually gave up its WMD programs.
We have had a different approach with North Korea since it is a different situation. Seoul it within artillery range and Japan is within missile range. Military action would put two bvery important allies at risk.
Cuba? I think we tried invading there before. How did that work out?
Syria and Iran neighbor Iraq. The plan was that a dmeocratic Iraq would lead to the "transformation of the Middle East" (in the words of Condoleezza Rice), with Iraq setting an example for the other Arab states and Iran. Unfortunately, Iran and Syria's leaders, as well as liberals in our country, have resisted the spread of democracy.
"i think we tried invading there before". thanks for pointing that out. and even if sudan had offered to turn bin ladin over, there was no legal way to hold him. he was not under indictment.
You can indict a ham sandwich. If Clinton wanted to take bin Laden into custody, he could have found a way.
So in other words, to a conservative like yourself, the law really doesn't matter or more precisely, the law means whatever you want it to mean?
No, bin Laden had already tried to kill our troops in Aden in December 1992 and played a role in the deaths of U.S. troops in Somalia in 1993. This was all before the Sudanese offered up bin Laden on a silver platter. That was enough to support an indictment.
Assuming the offer actually took place, prove that the FBI knew about that information at the time.
Arfe yo0u implying that the Clinton administration had an intelligence failure?
On page 142 of "Against All Enemies," Richard Clarke writes, "In recent years Sudanese intelligence officials and Americans friendly to the Sudan regime have invented a fable about bin Laden's final days in Khartoum. In the fable the Sudanese government offers to arrest bin Laden and hand him over in chains to FBI agents, but Washington rejects the offer because the Clinton administration does not see bin Laden as important or does and cannot find anywhere to put him on trial." Clinton himself confirmed that this 'fable" actually occurred. Speaking to a New York business group on Feb. 15, 2002, Clinton said the following: "Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, and then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." Clinton clearly states that he did not bring bin Laden to the U.S. because "we had no basis on which to hold him," yet Clarke writes, "…had we been able to put our hands on him then we would have gladly done so. U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White in Manhattan could, as the saying goes, 'indict a ham sandwich.' She certainly could have obtained an indictment for bin Laden in 1996 had we needed it." On page 135, Clarke writes, "Despite the lack of evidence of a bin Laden hand in the series of terrorist events, Lake, Berger, Soderberg, and I had persisted in 1993 and 1994 in asking CIA to learn more about the man whose name kept appearing in buried CIA's raw reporting as 'terrorist financier Usama bin Laden.'" If the Clinton administration had suspicions in 1993 and 1994, it seems the "ham sandwich" could have been indicted in 1996.
"If the Clinton administration had suspicions in 1993 and 1994, it seems the "ham sandwich" could have been indicted in 1996." --kevin
Your argument is entirely speculative. It should also be noted that Bill Clinton has since backed away from those remarks and the 9-11 Commission hasn't found any evidence that the "Sudanese Myth" was indeed true.
That said, assuming the "Sudanese Myth" is indeed true, you did not prove the FBI had the proper information at the time which would be necessary to keep bin laden. Clarke even admits to a "lack of evidence" I don't doubt you can indict a "ham sandwich" purely on "suspicion". It may have been deemed worthless by advisors/lawyers to the President unless we could present an actual case with evidence. What good would it be if bin laden walked away scot-free?
It should also be noted that Richard Clarke is a counter-terrorism expert and not a lawyer. Clarke wasn't in a position to properly assess who could be indicted and on what constituted the entirety of the legal situation at the time...if the events in question even happened.
"Unfortunately, Iran and Syria's leaders, as well as liberals in our country, have resisted the spread of democracy." --Kevin
The spirit of Jerry Falwell lives on through propaganda parrots like Kevin. I suppose Iraq would be a shining example of Democracy if it hadn't been for us stupid liberals.
Thank you for that good example of the kind of delusional "thinking" that goes on amongst some conservatives.
I think it's without question that liberals in this country have impeded the spread of democracy in Iraq and elesewhere.
Can you provide some examples?
Have you read posts on this web site?
That's weak even from you.
I guess your answer is "no" then.
Wow. That is so ridiculously stupid.
I think without question conservative warmongers like YOU have helped get many Americans killed. You just love the lets get Americans killed policies.
The only place where kevin's argument is "without question" would seem to be amongst the "Barney Bloc" of dogged and delusioned supporters who still support the President.
Ya like Chile.
"Your argument that it was not valid to invade one without invading the other six is nonsense." --kevin
No. Your point is moot. The fact that we apparently haven't even considered invading these countries lately would suggest that being on that State Department list isn't as big a factor as you are trying to suggest. If it was a big factor, we would have invaded the other countries on that list.
Have you noticed that JamesBondKevin loves to talk about the Clinton administration's failings, but never mentions how Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon? I guess his talking points don't go back that far.
Do you even know what "moot" means? I've give you credit for not spelling it "mute" like most moonbats.
I misused the word "moot". Touche. That's all you have?
You are of course WRONG AGAIN as you usually are. According to the UN charter only two reasons are legitimate to invade a country. UN Security counsel approval and article 51 which is to stop an IMMINENT attack, since you have pointed out yourself Bush never claimed imminence its clearly AGAINST the UN Charter. Also since Israel has violated twice as many UN resolutions as Iraq when are we going to invade Israel or is it that we invade official enemies when THEY violate UN resolutions and make excuses when our allies do so?
I notice the conservatives in this country have embraced the lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy.
There is a vast gulf between taking no action, Kevin, and invading a country, destroying its infrastructure, adding jet fuel to smoldering ethnic tensions, and trapping our military in the middle of a civil war in a part of the world that's already hostile to America.
Jesus.
Use the mind you were born with, son.
"There is a vast gulf between taking no action, Kevin, and invading a country, destroying its infrastructure, adding jet fuel to smoldering ethnic tensions, and trapping our military in the middle of a civil war in a part of the world that's already hostile to America."
Okay, try using your mind and tell us what should have been done with a country that was a state sponsor of terrorism, was believed to have WMD, and was in violation of numerous UNSC resolutions. Remember, the Clinton administration said there would be no peace or security in the Middle East as long as Saddam was in power.
he didn't have wmd. the inspectors were there and finding nothing.
JamesBondKevin is a one-trick pony. His job here is to deflect our attention from the stupidity and corruption of the Bush administration by posting talking points about the President that left office over six years ago.
Here's a deal for you, JBK...you can call Bill in as a witness in W's impeachment hearings. How's that?
MEFIRST, Kevin asked the right question: Given the situation as he described it, what should have been done? Your answer is that the situation described was not so. But, the Clinton administration thought it was, the UK and U.S. Intel communities thought it was, and so did the Bush administration.
We may never know the truth as long conveys of trucks were moving stuff out of Iraq prior to the coalition forces invasion. We DO know (as I’ve cited before) that Iraqi biological artillery warheads were about to be used by Syrian based terrorists on Jordon subsequent to this.
But that still begs the very cogent question which I haven’t seen any of you on the left on this blog put forth a viable answer to: what should have been done?
The inspections should have been allowed to proceed. They said they needed a few more months then we would have KNOWN if there was a WMD component to the Iraqi problem. Iraq was contained, Saddam hadnt so much as SNEEZED in anyones direction since the first Gulf War and yes we DO know. Whatever you say about trucks we KNOW that both Kay and Duelfer didnt SAY that they couldnt FIND any WMDs but that there hadnt BEEN ANY since the mid nineties. Now I dont know how WMDs that DIDNT EXIST could possibly have been taken anywhere.
It appears that containment was working just fine. David Kay credited containment policies like the UN sanctions/inspections and surgical strikes like Desert Fox as responsible factors in eliminating the last of Saddam's WMD threat.
Your apparent prefered solution has cost us about $500 billion dollars. Containment was getting similar results at a mere fraction of that cost.
Sandy Berger in 1999 said that Saddam was a contained but still remained a threat. Kenneth Pollack, Clinton's top expert on Iraq at the NSC, wrote in 2002 that containment and sanctions were failing.
I am a bit puzzled. Are you saying containment didn't work because Pollack didn't think it was working at the time? Has it occurred to you that time has proven Pollack was mistaken in his assessment?
I haven't seen any evidence in your post that containment didn't work in actuality.
Your quote of Berger does not demonstrate that containment failed. The Soviet Union was a continuing threat, but containment undoubtedly worked on them as well.
"I am a bit puzzled. Are you saying containment didn't work because Pollack didn't think it was working at the time? Has it occurred to you that time has proven Pollack was mistaken in his assessment?"
I think the fact that France openly violated the sanctions regime in 2000 demonstrates that sanctions and containment were faling apart, as Pollack. And you ignored Berger's contention that even a contained Saddam posed a threat.
"Your quote of Berger does not demonstrate that containment failed. The Soviet Union was a continuing threat, but containment undoubtedly worked on them as well."
Yes, it kept them out of Afghanistan and East Europe.
"I think the fact that France openly violated the sanctions regime in 2000 demonstrates that sanctions and containment were faling apart" --kevin
So the French sending humanitarian aide to Baghdad demonstrates that Saddam could get WMD programs restarted? Sure.
" And you ignored Berger's contention that even a contained Saddam posed a threat." --kevin
Actually I did address your remark. Here is another example: A tiger in a cage is still a threat. Your prefered solution was to go into the cage at the cost of $500 billion and kill the tiger, while I would prefer to save my time/money for more important things and let the tiger just stay in the cage.
"Yes, it kept them out of Afghanistan and East Europe." --kevin
Perhaps you don't really know your history. Containment was a policy instated as a reaction to Soviet expansionism in Eastern Europe.
Containment of the Soviet Union includes reaction to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the support of the Mujahedeen rebels in a proxy war. This is the essence of containment and how it can succeed. It did indeed keep the Russians out of Afghanistan. I don't see how this supports your argument. Please explain.
OPEN MIND, The French were not providing just humanitarian aid to Baghdad. They were providing lots of military aid (and had been for years). They have viable conventional weapons technology to sell, just as do the Russians who were also giving military aid to Saddam.
As Kevin pointed out, containment was not working. There were too many Euro-Asian regimes making money off of (or getting oil from) Saddam in order for it to have worked. The UN inspectors were constantly thwarted in their attempts to pull surprise inspections or to inspect suspicious sites.
This “tiger” was not contained.
The comparison between that element of containment of the USSR by way of our Mujahadeen support in Afghanistan and the "containment" applied to Iraq is confusing. The Mujahadeen support was military containment, not economic as was supposedly (but not actually) being applied in Iraq.
"OPEN MIND, The French were not providing just humanitarian aid to Baghdad. They were providing lots of military aid (and had been for years). They have viable conventional weapons technology to sell, just as do the Russians who were also giving military aid to Saddam." --oldmarine
In the example Kevin was providing, the French WERE "providing just humanitarian aid to Baghdad". That was his example of how sanctions failed to "contain" Saddam.
While I am prepared to admit that the Russians likely violated UN sanctions with some pawltry military and intelligence assistance, I haven't seen any evidence that
Please provide legitimate links to support your claim. The point may simply be moot as it appears that any of these supposed violations were not sufficient to break containment. Saddam presented a pitiful defense of his country when he was invaded. The ease with which the initial campaign defeated the Iraqi Army should testify to the effectiveness of the sanctions.
"We may never know the truth as long conveys of trucks were moving stuff out of Iraq prior to the coalition forces invasion." --oldmarine
Hope springs eternal. I guess you only have speculation left. Hold on to it dearly.
"We DO know (as I’ve cited before) that Iraqi biological artillery warheads were about to be used by Syrian based terrorists on Jordon subsequent to this." --oldmarine
No. I don't know what you are referring to. Please provide a legitimate link that can clue me in a little better.
"But that still begs the very cogent question which I haven’t seen any of you on the left on this blog put forth a viable answer to: what should have been done?" --oldmarine
I have answered the question above. It's viability is proven by Saddam's lack of WMD's according to the post mortem reports issued by our own government. I suspect the only "viable answer" you would accept would be one that necessarily supports your own unsupported point of view.
I accidentally blended my reply here with a post you placed above. Sorry about any confusion that may have caused.
"The comparison between that element of containment of the USSR by way of our Mujahadeen support in Afghanistan and the "containment" applied to Iraq is confusing. The Mujahadeen support was military containment, not economic as was supposedly (but not actually) being applied in Iraq." --oldmarine
Perhaps it should be compared to Desert Fox, which was what I would consider part of military containment (a component of the overall US policy of containment) as it (along with Desert Storm and sanctions/inspections) destroyed the last vestiges of Saddam's pitiful WMD programs according to David Kay.
"This “tiger” was not contained." --oldmarine
Sorry, but the available evidence (or more precisely the lack of any substantial evidence of WMD) would seem to bely that assertion.
It appears all you have left to argue are speculative tales of mythical convoys full of WMD moving north.
They had been in Eastern Europe since WW2 BEFORE we started containment and we WANTED them in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinsky Carters National Security advisor wanted to draw them into what he called a Vietnam trap. So YOU HAVE NO POINT AGAIN
http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html
Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*
Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Has WMDs, violates UN security counsel resolutions, sounds like Israel when do we invade? Besides paying the families of suicide bombers which our ally Saudi Arabia also does, name the terrorist event Iraq was behind since 1993. Because the CIA said they didnt know of any. The CIA said they were not a threat to use terrorism agains us and General Zinni said they were NOT A THREAT not a gathering threat not to us not to their neighbors not even close. That is what he said while testifying to congress.
Zinni did indeed say Iraq was a threat. In 2000, Zinni testified before Congress that Iraq was the biggest threat facing the United States. "Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region," Zinni told Congress on March 15, 2000. "Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, and is concealing extended-range SCUD missiles, possibly equipped with CBW [chem-bio-weapons] payloads," Zinni continued.
Zinni is largely responsible for allowing the USS Cole to be bombed in 2000 and is now is CYA mode in effort to curry favor from liberals and their allies in the MSM.
Also, there is evidence that Saddam outsourced terrorist attacks prior to the invasion. See http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p01s03-woap.html
"Zinni is largely responsible for allowing the USS Cole to be bombed in 2000 and is now is CYA mode in effort to curry favor from liberals and their allies in the MSM." --kevin
Thanks for the mindreading.
From your article:
These "Iraqi defectors" do not have a great history of being reliable. Chalabi and Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri were very influential in the dissemination of false information before the war. Your article would be more interesting if it didn't use what I would consider dubious sources.
And by 2003 he had changed his mind what he said was containment HAD worked and we just didnt know it. Further intelligence obviously changed his mind because he testfied before the Senate Foriegn Relations comittee saying the opposite
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/18814/
Zinni testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just before the war and was asked if the threat from Saddam Hussein was imminent: "No, not at all," he said. "It was not an imminent threat. Not even close. Not grave, gathering, imminent, serious, severe, mildly upsetting, none of these."
Your Christian Science Moniter report, which is a good source doesnt support your contention since it states DIRECTLY that it was a response to the coming WAR. As the CIA had said they were NOT a threat to use terrorism against us UNLESS we started a war with them
Lies about iraq and wmd, lies about afghanistan, lies bout 9-11, now lies about iran... we can't listen to the official voices, we have to support independent journalism and investigations, like the italian "Zero - Investigation on 9-11" i recently found.. they try to focus on the missing point of the official report, it seems a good job...
This is off topic (a little bit)
But why is it that any time the words Bush, Iraq war and intelligence come up I get a very specific mental image.
I see our President sitting on the floor of the oval office (while the adults sit around talking). He has a large board with little model houses and hills (something he and his dad built, as a father son bonding activity (when he was 26 years old)). The President is moving little green army men and little tanks over the board, yelling in delight, "bang, bang!" (and of course getting very mad, because the enemy army men are winning, I think they are led by Barney the dog, who has a web page at http://www.whitehouse.gov/barney/ )
Maybe I'm gaining the con's psychic abilities.
It's all about the oil, anyway. The longer this drags out, the more obvious that will become.
"Both men now believe -- no, are passionately and permanently convinced -- that the terrorist threat from radical Islamists is one that must be resisted at all costs."
And yet in 2007 Bush fights against having secure borders and Blair presides over the building of the largest radical Wahhabist mosque in the world inside England.
Any more conviction than that and they would be sending express surrender papers to Bin Laden.
Glad author was called out on spinning more onto the fairy tale.
Using the word conviction in conjunction with Bush would be better used to speculate about his conviction on Impeachment charges.
His only conviction is that money is his God.