The war on terrorism

[Shapley]

I did find this:

Bush Argues Democrats Don’t Understand Threat to U.S.

Which contains this:

When Mr. Bush referred to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, in reference to a question about Iraq today, a reporter pressed him, asking, “What did Iraq have to do with that?” Mr. Bush responded somewhat testily, “Nothing,” and added, “Nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack.”

In the run-up to the invasion in March 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney did call attention to the theory, since discredited, that one of the Sept. 11 hijackers might have met in Prague before the attacks with an Iraqi intelligence officer.

Once again, saying that there is no connection between Saddam and 9/11 is not the same as saying there is no connection between Saddam and al Qeada.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Haggis,

If your assertion is the case, then how about answering my question after your first post?

[BigJon@Work]

Death penalty, as I suggested in the Katrina thread?

Karl Rove gets the death penalty?

No, the journalists who get it wrong.

[Shapley]

RE:

Karl Rove gets the death penalty?

What, exactly, is Karl Rove supposed to have leaked. In case you missed it, he's been exhonorated on the Plame issue.

V/R
Shapley

[GreatCarouser]

GC,

Thanks. I've been Googling since I saw that post, and I find no reference to it, either.

I did find a 'blog' that is about two years old which makes that claim. However, they claim the President denies a connection between Iraq and al Qeada, when the question posed to him was whether or not there was a connection between Iraq and 'the men who attacked us on 9/11".

V/R
Shapley

If you go to the official 'White House' site you will find text of the last press conference (the one I assume (yes I know!) jamiebk is referring to in his post. The closest I can come to any statement that would generate that response is the following excerpt:

"THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.

Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case.

And one way to defeat that -- defeat resentment is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government. Now, I said going into Iraq that we've got to take these threats seriously before they fully materialize. I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off without him. Now, the question is how do we succeed in Iraq? And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting. "


Full text of The President's press conference

[OperaTenor]

Death penalty, as I suggested in the Katrina thread?

Karl Rove gets the death penalty?

No, the journalists who get it wrong.

RTWFT.

[OperaTenor]

RE:

Karl Rove gets the death penalty?

What, exactly, is Karl Rove supposed to have leaked. In case you missed it, he's been exhonorated on the Plame issue.

V/R
Shapley

Here we go a-wiggling again.

While he hasn't been indicted, it is a matter of record he leaked Plame's name to Novak while Plame's employment was classified, and she was working a job affecting our national security.

[GreatCarouser]

Richard Cohen

Apparently, Richard Cohen thinks the Jews should have stayed in Europe, where they were loved, instead of trying to forge a homeland on Arab soil. It's not like they have any historic ties to the region, or anything like that....

V/R
Shapley

Shap I don't think you gave Mr. Cohen's piece much thought as you read it. Had you done so I think you'd not have been as denigrating of him as your intro implies. With the wonder of hindsight and the knowledge (at the time probably unfathomable) of the huge threat to peace presented by some Fundamentalist Muslims it would have been easy to see that building and maintaining a State of Israel would be such a fundamental barrier to 'peace' today.

This is ideological, this conflict. I don't believe the sacrifice of The State of Israel, even a bloodless one, would buy anything but more trouble in the long run. Yet I don't believe Cohen believes this either, at least not based on what he says here.Mr Cohen closes his column thus:

"Another gifted British historian, Tony Judt, wraps up his recent book "Postwar" with an epilogue on how the sine qua non of the modern civilized state is recognition of the Holocaust. Much of the Islamic world, notably Iran under its Holocaust-denying president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stands outside that circle, refusing to make even a little space for the Jews of Europe and, later, those from the Islamic world. They see Israel not as a mistake but as a crime. Until they change their view, the longest war of the 20th century will persist deep into the 21st. It is best for Israel to hunker down." This hardly seems the 'rantings' of an Anti-Semite.

Then there is also the article he wrote immediately after the one you linked:...No, it's survival

[Shapley]

Well, I'm sorry I don't read his column regularly, I didn't know it was a soap opera.

I did read the linked column in its entirety. I even re-read most of it, trying to understand where he was coming from. He flatly claims that the existence of Israel is a mistake, a statement he repeats, softened somewhat, in the column you linked. I suspect that that is his version of an explanation.

The existence of Israel is not a mistake, by any means. It exists because the Jews, dislocated over the course of thousands of years have returned from the lands that don't want them to the land of their origin, where they are also unwanted. So what is the solution? Keep shuffling them around, from continent to continent, holocaust to holocaust? Cohen calls for them to fall back to their original 1948 borders, and 'hunker down', knowing that the nations that surround them will surely attack again. Hardly seems a logical strategy to me. When attacked, they have a right to respond, and to retain those lands won in the process, which can be used as a 'bargaining chip' in future negotiations, or to serve as a reminder of the folly of attack if those negotiations fail. Instead, the U.N. orders them to give back whatever they seize, so that there are no consequences to the nations that host the attackers.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now.

Cohen's piece seems to indicate that the history of the Levant began 1,000 years ago, during the Ottoman empire. An area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians), he calls it. No mention of the historic claim of the Israelis to that strip of land, a claim older than the religion of Islam. That is why I find Cohen incohenherent.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

While he hasn't been indicted, it is a matter of record he leaked Plame's name to Novak while Plame's employment was classified, and she was working a job affecting our national security.

Sorry, OT, but it is a matter of speculation, not of record. He has yet to be named as a source for the information, which is why he wasn't indicted.

[bignaf]

[quote="bignaf No one thinks they can eradicate radical Islam. that is not the objective. the objective is to render it impotent.

And again, that (rendering them impotent) will not happen unless Islam itself becomes the catalyst for change and gains control of their "juveniles", as Analog referred to them (radical Islam)

not really. killing lots of them will make them much weaker. there will be new ones, but killing the most immediate threats will ensure out safety. also not allow them to transport weapons between the sources (Iran) and the terror destinations.

Great solution Bignaf...we kill lots of them, they kill lots of us. Where does it stop? Unfortunately, unless the force is so completely overwhelming that the enemy is totally annihilated, war only hardens the resolve...and creates the fuel for even more hatred. So far, the US seems to be the one that's impotent in dealing with these guerrilla tactics. Half the time we do not even know at whom we are shooting.[/quote]
as you said, we can't deal with the hatred and resolve (and knowing the arab mentality, the reasoning of "war creates more hatred" doesn't apply. they jump on weakness). our only bet is weakening their actual capabilities. as you say, US is doing it wrong, and you're right.
and regarding "where does it stop?" it doesn't, deal with it. it will either not stop with us reacting, or won't stop with us submitting.
And I'm talking more of homeland protection and surgical operations, not sending soldiers for lengthy occupations of foreign lands as in Iraq. the 60's mentality brought us to this situation, we have to abandon it.

[jamiebk]

I found it absolutely remarkable that even GWB himself admitted in his news conference of yesterday that there was no connection between Al qaeda and Iraq... So, now we have managed to ignite a total inferno for what reason?

I find no reference to any such remark other than certain 'satirical' websites. Would/Could you quote your source, please, jamiebk?

My source of Bush's comments was the evening news on, I believe, NBC, however, here is a transcript of the entire news conference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 60821.html
#######################
Excerpt:
BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

################

I see this in conflict with statements that Cheney made a couple of years ago:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/ ... .al.qaeda/

Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link
Says media not 'doing their homework' in reporting ties
Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 2:25 AM EDT (0625 GMT)

Cheney said the press is "often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said."

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."
#################

Further...here was an interview from Meet the press...the weblink is from the White House Press archive:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident ... 11209.html

RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no.

Since that time, a couple of articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out.

And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: ``We know that at Salman Pak, in the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eye witnesses--three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors--have said, and now there are aerial photographs to show it, a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers, trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives.''

And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck, and there it is.

RUSSERT: The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers.

Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.

RUSSERT: What we do know is that Iraq is harboring terrorists. This was from Jim Hoagland in The Washington Post that George W. Bush said that Abdul Ramini Yazen (ph), who helped bomb the World Trade Center back in 1993, according to Louis Freeh was hiding in his native Iraq. And we'll show that right there on the screen. That's an exact quote.

If they're harboring terrorist, why not go in and get them?

CHENEY: Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists. That wasn't the question you asked the last time we met. You asked about evidence involved in September 11.

RUSSERT: Correct.

CHENEY: Over the years, for example, they've provided a safe harbor for Abu Nadal (ph), worked out of Bagdad for a long time.

The situation, I think, that leads a lot of people to be concerned about Iraq has to do not just with their past activity of harboring terrorist, but also with Saddam Hussein's behavior over the years and with his aggressive pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

When we go back and look at 1981, he was pursuing nukes. The Israelis preempted when they hit the Osirak reactor and shut down the program. In 1991, 10 years later, when we went in, we found evidence of a very aggressive nuclear program.

For the last three years, there have been no inspectors in Iraq, and he has aggressively pursued the development of additional weapons of mass destruction. He's had significant sums of money from smuggling oil that are outside the oil for food program that are available to him to undertake these activities.

And we know, as well, he's had a robust biological weapons and chemical weapons program, and unlike just about anybody else in the world, he's used them. He used those weapons against the Kurds in Iraq and against the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War.

RUSSERT: You were very critical of the Clinton administration for not inspecting for two years. It's been a full year since you've been in office. Why hasn't the Bush administration demanded and gotten inspections?

CHENEY: The president's made it clear, and did the other day in connection with a question he was asked, that he believes that the inspectors ought to go back into Iraq. Of course, Saddam Hussein subsequently rejected that option. We've not yet made a decision about how best to proceed.

But clearly, given the events of September 11, given the vulnerability of the United States that's now been demonstrated, given the increasing linkage, if you will, between terrorist and weapons of mass destruction, we have to be very deliberate in terms of how we proceed to make certain that the United States is not vulnerable to that kind of an attack.

And so, all of those considerations will, I'm sure, influence the president's decision. But he'll ultimately have to make the decision about what kind of policy we best want to pursue with respect to Iraq.
###################

So, now, by invading Iraq, we have actually focused al-Qaeda's efforts: Read on.......

##############
By Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online world affairs correspondent
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3756650.stm

Too few US and foreign troops in Iraq for the task, report says
The war in Iraq probably helped boost al-Qaeda recruitment, according to a report from leading Western think-tank.
The report, the annual Military Balance by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, does not dwell on the causes of the war.

But it does consider its effects and has some highly critical comments.

It says that the risks of terrorism to Westerners and Western assets in Arab countries "appeared to increase after the Iraq war began in March 2003".

It says that al-Qaeda was forced to disperse after the invasion of Afghanistan but remained "a viable and effective 'network of networks' ".

Iraqi insurgents need to be brought into the political process

"It is probable that recruitment generally has accelerated on account of Iraq," the report concludes.

#####################

So...here are the "references" you asked for, with sources quoted. This is what I have been saying....war was not and is not the solution here...it has only made the problem worse.

[bignaf]

re: Israel. I think even according to the Muslim denial of the holocaust, and ignoring the fact that Israel is the homeland of the Jews and the so-called Palestinians are the occupiers (with much blood spilled, might I add, circa 700), Israel should be legitimate (I know I don't have to convince you, but I'm pointing out the flaws in the muslims logic even after accepting their prepostorous axioms). Israel should be legitimate as a haven to a repressed class from the muslim world. more than %50 of Israel's Jews have been driven from muslim countries.

[OperaTenor]

While he hasn't been indicted, it is a matter of record he leaked Plame's name to Novak while Plame's employment was classified, and she was working a job affecting our national security.

Sorry, OT, but it is a matter of speculation, not of record. He has yet to be named as a source for the information, which is why he wasn't indicted.

Mmm, no.

July 8, 2003 – Columnist Robert Novak calls senior White House adviser Karl Rove, according to subsequent media accounts. Novak tells Rove he had heard that Joseph Wilson’s wife, who worked for the CIA, played a role in Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger. Rove confirms the story to Novak without mentioning Valerie Wilson’s name or covert status, saying “I heard that, too.” ( Rove ... Talk on C.I.A. Officer, NY Times, July 2003). Novak will later write that he originally acquired the information from an official who is “no partisan gunslinger.” Novak says, “When I called another official for confirmation, he said: ‘Oh, you know about it.’” (Novak, " CIA Leak" Chicago Sun-Times, Oct 2003).

From that bastion of liberal heathens, FactCheck.org - The Annenberg Foundation.

http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html

[Shapley]

OT,

That is consistent with other reports, i.e., he verified information that Novak already had. That is not being a 'leak'. You're trying to stretch the definition. Even in your post you do not cite an instance of 'leaking Plame's name'. Nowhere in "Yeah, I heard that, too." does he come close to mentioning her name.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

GC,

RE:

If you go to the official 'White House' site you will find text of the last press conference (the one I assume (yes I know!) jamiebk is referring to in his post.

Thanks. I went there early on, expecting to find the transcript, but only found info through July. I assumed (yeah, I know, too) it hadn't been posted yet.

Apparently, many people still think 'no link to 9/11' and 'no link to al Queada' are identical statements.

V/R
Shapley

[analog]

QUOTE: " ...saying “I heard that, too.” "

? ?Am I too simple minded and literal? "I heard that too" confirms the existence not the truth of whatever rumor they're talking about.
Were I on the jury I'd have to assume he was pumping the reporter, absent contrary evidence.



gosh - i'm cynical today........... so I even looked here: http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp11092005.html

and still have more than reasonable doubt.

[OperaTenor]

Rove, by his own admission(and even that's most likely a lie), at least corroborated Novak's information, without such Novak probably wouldn't have published.

It's wiggling taken to an artistic level.

[Shapley]

OT,

I just said that a couple of posts ago. He confirmed information that Novak already had. That is a far cry from leaking. Also, according to your post:

it is a matter of record he leaked Plame's name to Novak

. According to all accounts, he never mentioned Plame's name at all.

You're stretching this every which way to make this fit Wilson's assertions, but it doesn't work. Rove was not the source for the information, and that is why he wasn't indicted.

V/R
Shapley

P.S. - RE:

and even that's most likely a lie

. This prejudice is what makes you so unwilling to face reality. You are convinced that Rove is dishonest, and are unwilling to accept anything to the contrary.