Michael Moore just said ME....

[treesinger]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
ITA

Richard

"We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone. We have sought coalitions of opponents to challenge his power from within or without. I have met with the Iraqi resistance, and I have invited them to meet with me again next month – when I will encourage them to further unite in their efforts against Saddam.
We have maintained sanctions in the face of rising criticism, while improving the oil-to-food program to help the Iraqi people directly. We have used force when necessary. And we will not let up in our efforts to free Iraq from Saddam's rule. Should he think of challenging us, I would strongly advise against it. As a Senator, I voted for the use of force. As Vice President, I supported the use of force. And if entrusted with the Presidency, my resolve will never waver. "
Al Gore May 2000

And it's quotes like this that take away the liberal's usurpation of the high moral ground.

EVERYONE bought into it over the last 5, 6, 7 yrs. Dems and Pubs. Libs and Cons. But today's liberals want to point to Bush and co. and say it is HIS fault and HE deceived us.

We were ALL deceived, from Clinton to Bush and all the littler men in between. There is no high moral ground to stand on.

The only ones who should be able to criticize are the ones who didn't buy into it at all. And there are very very few of them around. They are the only ones who can claim the high moral ground to say that we were duped and that the general public and politicians were too stupid to see it.

 

[acepepper]

Originally posted by JoeThaNo1Stunna
Here's one:

Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.

The papers will be seized on by Washington as the first proof of what the United States has long alleged - that, despite denials by both sides, Saddam's regime had a close relationship with al-Qa'eda.

The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia and lettering of the Mukhabarat.

They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan, where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.

Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents.

One paper is marked "Top Secret and Urgent". It is signed "MDA", a codename believed to be the director of one of the intelligence sections within the Mukhabarat, and dated February 19, 1998. It refers to the planned trip from Sudan by bin Laden's unnamed envoy and refers to the arrangements for his visit.

A letter with this document says the envoy is a trusted confidant of bin Laden. It adds: "According to the above, we suggest permission to call the Khartoum station [Iraq's intelligence office in Sudan] to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. And that our body carry all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden."

The letter refers to al-Qa'eda's leader as an opponent of the Saudi Arabian regime and says that the message to convey to him through the envoy "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him."

According to handwritten notes at the bottom of the page, the letter was passed on through another director in the Mukhabarat and on to the deputy director general of the intelligence service.

It recommends that "the deputy director general bring the envoy to Iraq because we may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden". The deputy director general has signed the document. All of the signatories use codenames.

The other documents then confirm that the envoy travelled from Khartoum to Baghdad in March 1998, staying at al-Mansour Melia, a first-class hotel. It mentions that his visit was extended by a week. In the notes in a margin, a name "Mohammed F. Mohammed Ahmed" is mentioned, but it is not clear whether this is the the envoy or an agent.

Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted. However, the documents do not mention if any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials.

The file contradicts the claims of Baghdad, bin Laden and many critics of the coalition that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda. One Western intelligence official contacted last night described the file as "sensational", adding: "Baghdad clearly sought out the meeting. The regime would have wanted it to happen in the capital as it's only there they would feel safe from surveillance by Western intelligence."

Over the past three weeks, The Telegraph has discovered various other intelligence files in the wrecked Mukhabarat building, including documents revealing how Russia passed on to Iraq details of private conversations between Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, and how Germany held clandestine meetings with the regime.

A Downing Street spokesman said last night: "Since Saddam's fall a series of documents have come to light which will have to be fully assessed by the proper authorities over a period of time. We will certainly want to study these documents as part of that process to see if they shed new light on the relationship between Saddam's regime and al-Qa'eda.

-----

And although it's yet to be determined if the threats were al Qaeda linked, last week Bad Vlad Putin said that Russia had become aware of specific Iraqi plans to attack the US at home and abroad.

Why are you not outraged that Gore, Clinton, and Kerry all claimed Iraq had WMDs and must be dealt with. Kerry voted for the war, that he says anything bad about it is just like the rapper... Ludacris.

These sound very much like the same documents apparently "found" by The Telegraph that were later proved to be forgeries. They used them to try to smear a British anti war MP and eventually admitted that they were fake. Have you got a link to this story?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by treesinger
And it's quotes like this that take away the liberal's usurpation of the high moral ground.

EVERYONE bought into it over the last 5, 6, 7 yrs. Dems and Pubs. Libs and Cons. But today's liberals want to point to Bush and co. and say it is HIS fault and HE deceived us.

We were ALL deceived, from Clinton to Bush and all the littler men in between. There is no high moral ground to stand on.

The only ones who should be able to criticize are the ones who didn't buy into it at all. And there are very very few of them around. They are the only ones who can claim the high moral ground to say that we were duped and that the general public and politicians were too stupid to see it.

Funny, I don't see in that quote where it says "We should go in and remove Saddam by any means necessary, completely ignoring what the rest of the world think of the matter."

Supporting a policy of regime change and actually invading a country and overthrowing it's government are two VERY different things.

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by treesinger
The only ones who should be able to criticize are the ones who didn't buy into it at all. And there are very very few of them around. They are the only ones who can claim the high moral ground to say that we were duped and that the general public and politicians were too stupid to see it.

How exactly were we "duped"?

In the neighborhoods of most people on this thread, I'd be a Liberal too. (Maybe not acepepper's.) I don't think that has much to do with support or non-support for this war.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Funny, I don't see in that quote where it says "We should go in and remove Saddam by any means necessary, completely ignoring what the rest of the world think of the matter."

Supporting a policy of regime change and actually invading a country and overthrowing it's government are two VERY different things.

"As a Senator, I voted for the use of force. As Vice President, I supported the use of force. And if entrusted with the Presidency, my resolve will never waver. "

Quack.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
"As a Senator, I voted for the use of force. As Vice President, I supported the use of force. And if entrusted with the Presidency, my resolve will never waver. "

Quack.

And this, in your mind, means "Let's invade, regardless of the consequences" ?

Just a bit of a stretch, don't ya' think ?

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by wvrevy
After all, most of them seem to think there is a link between Saddam and Al Queda, just like ol' Dubya told 'em

The Clinton administration was the first to put the ties between Saddam and al Qaeda out there.

I posted a bunch of quotes on another thread to rebut some of the things being posted, but no one replied. Perhaps you didn't see them. Perhaps you were laying low for a while to avoid responding to them.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by wvrevy
And this, in your mind, means "Let's invade, regardless of the consequences" ?

Just a bit of a stretch, don't ya' think ?

I don't think so. He may or may not have invaded. But at that time he certainly was trying to make himself sound hawkish. Don't ya think? But then he was trying to get elected so I guess pandering is okay.

Read it again:

"As a Senator, I voted for the use of force. As Vice President, I supported the use of force. And if entrusted with the Presidency, my resolve will never waver. "

So if he voted for the use of force as a Senator, and supported the use of force as a Vice President, what would he do if entrusted with the Presidency? I would think the logical answer would be use force.

Just one man's opinion.

Richard

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

That's not a stretch at all. He said he favors force to remove Saddam. I guess using Clinton-liked semantics you could possibly argue it's not 100% the same as what Bush supports.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
I don't think so. He may or may not have invaded. But at that time he certainly was trying to make himself sound hawkish. Don't ya think? But then he was trying to get elected so I guess pandering is okay.

Read it again:

"As a Senator, I voted for the use of force. As Vice President, I supported the use of force. And if entrusted with the Presidency, my resolve will never waver. "

So if he voted for the use of force as a Senator, and supported the use of force as a Vice President, what would he do if entrusted with the Presidency? I would think the logical answer would be use force.

Just one man's opinion.

Richard

I guess my point is that there are varying levels of "force"...We used force during the Clinton administration to destroy suspected WMD sites, and to remove his capability to violate the terms of the peace agreement, but that's a LONG way from sending in hundreds of thousands of troops.

kbeverina - I never saw the thread you're referring to, but I kinda doubt there would be anything new in it anyway. Not a SINGLE shred of evidence exists that directly ties Saddam or his government to Al Queda. The best you (or anyone) can do to try to make the point is stretch circumstantial evidence and spin conjecture to try to tie the two together. It just Does. Not. Exist.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by JoeThaNo1Stunna
That's not a stretch at all. He said he favors force to remove Saddam. I guess using Clinton-liked semantics you could possibly argue it's not 100% the same as what Bush supports.

Oh course you don't think it's a stretch....You also don't think it's necessary to prove the case for invading a country beyond a reasonable doubt before launching a massive and highly unpopular invasion, costing hundreds of American lives and billions of American tax dollars, so I can see why you would balk at thinking that way It doesn't take "Clinton like semantics" to know that there is a real difference between a targeted bombing raid (the use of force when and as necessary) and an all-out invasion.

 

[kbeverina]

I'll re-post here in case you missed them the last time around. These are just a few. The accusation being made is that the Bush administration fabricated a Saddam/al Qaeda link. That link has been suspected for years.

From the Washington Post in 2002:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1998, the Clinton administration asserted that Iraq provided technical assistance in the construction of a VX production facility in Sudan, undertaken jointly with al Qaeda. In retaliation for al Qaeda's August 1998 truck bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, President Bill Clinton ordered the destruction of the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan's capital.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton's advisers released scant public evidence about al Shifa, and the Tomahawk missile attack was widely regarded as a blunder. Top Clinton administration officials, and career analysts still in government, maintain there was strong evidence behind the strike but that it remains too valuable to disclose. During last year's New York trial of the embassy bombers, prosecution witness Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl, a onetime operative who broke with al Qaeda, offered limited corroboration. He named al Qaeda and Sudanese operatives who had told him they were working together to build a chemical weapons plant in Khartoum. He said nothing about Iraqi support for the project and named a site near, but not in, the al Shifa plant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer

And in case the other thread doesn't reappear, I wanted to give TheAnswr the link that was requested:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ThAnswr
Please, do give us a link when you find the article. Thanks in advance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No problem. I purposely chose The Guardian since it's so often quoted and found to be reliable by those against war in Iraq.

This article was written in 1999.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since RAF bombers took part in air raids on Iraq in December, Bin Laden declared that he considered British citizens to be justifiable targets. Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counter-terrorist operations, said: "Hijazi went to Afghanistan in December and met with Osama, with the knowledge of the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. We are sure about that. What is the source of some speculation is what transpired."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and more:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...,314700,00.html

The relationship has been alleged for years and the media knows it--they reported it.

Let me draw attention to this again:

Top Clinton administration officials, and career analysts still in government, maintain there was strong evidence behind the strike but that it remains too valuable to disclose.

It's highly likely that the current administration is unable to reveal corroborative evidence at the risk of endangering sources and methods. It wouldn't be done, regardless of the political cost.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by wvrevy
kbeverina - I never saw the thread you're referring to, but I kinda doubt there would be anything new in it anyway. Not a SINGLE shred of evidence exists that directly ties Saddam or his government to Al Queda. The best you (or anyone) can do to try to make the point is stretch circumstantial evidence and spin conjecture to try to tie the two together. It just Does. Not. Exist.

Perhaps I misunderstand your position then.

Are you or are you not saying that the Bush administration fabricated the link to make a stronger case for war?

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I guess my point is that there are varying levels of "force"...We used force during the Clinton administration to destroy suspected WMD sites, and to remove his capability to violate the terms of the peace agreement, but that's a LONG way from sending in hundreds of thousands of troops.

Fair enough. We'll just disagree with what Al Gore's definition of the word "force" is as it was used at that time.

By the way, how many hundreds of thousands of troops are stationed in Iraq?

Richard

 

[dennis99ss]

I need proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, I don't need it when it comes to national security. If we have good reason to believe that someone is going to strike us, we should strike them. That's the bottom line.

I need to respond to this one........

If we have reason to believe that someone is going to strike us? Huh, that statement is so general, it has no meaning whatsoever. What is reason to believe defined as? Is that the same definition used against Iraq? If I have a report that my neighbor will hurt me, am I justified in attacking first? What happens if the report was unsubstantiated? What happens if the neighbor just wanted to do me harm, but would actually never do it? Does that mean I am in the right, if I attack first, even if I was only provoked by words, and not actions?

If the gov't "believes" that US citizens are going to strike, does it give the govt. extra powers to strike first?

If your fellow students access websites that are deemed subversive, etc. does that give the govt the right to invade the schools files, and, upon showing access to sites, lock the people away.

Before you start throwing out the principle that has guided this country during its existence, I would say you need to consider the consequences of such actions.

 

[dennis99ss]

Right now aI believe it is actually about 150k troops in Iraq, with more to be called up. If you take into account all of the contractors providing security, supplies, etc. which, previously had been in house duties, but which are now farmed out to private companies like Hallibutrton, there are "hundreds of thousands" in the country.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by kbeverina
Perhaps I misunderstand your position then.

Are you or are you not saying that the Bush administration fabricated the link to make a stronger case for war?

That's exactly what I am saying. Your list of "evidence" above is just more of the same: supposition based on limited evidence.

Here is what Clinton said when asked about Al Gore's speech yesterday slamming the administration for misleading the public:

Q: Al Gore gave a speech in Washington Thursday about the Bush administration's attempts to link Iraq and al-Qaida. Do you agree with him that the administration misled the country about those alleged links?

A: The whole time I was there [in the White House], I knew of no links. Now, I don't think you can say for sure that there was never an al-Qaida member that was inside Iraq, but in terms of them being operational partners, I didn't know anything about that. I also never had any doubt that Iraq was not behind 9/11, because they didn't have the terrorist capacity to do it.

I supported -- as the whole world did -- resuming the weapons inspections inside Iraq, for a simple reason. When any kind of tyranny is running out of steam -- as Iraq seemed to be -- I was afraid if they still did have any of those chemical or biological agents, somebody might sell them or give them away, or they might be stolen. But in terms of [Iraq and al-Qaida] working together, I never saw any evidence of it. And I have not seen any evidence since -- from what's been in the press -- that supports that contention. And apparently the 9/11 commission doesn't agree [with the allegation that Iraq worked with al-Qaida] either.

Now I hear Vice President Cheney continuing to assert that there is a connection, but there's a difference between assertion and evidence. If they have some kind of evidence, they can come forward with it, but I haven't seen any yet.

Q: The administration and its supporters have often cited statements from you and your administration about Saddam Hussein's regime to justify the decision to go to war in Iraq. I have heard you say recently that the invasion was too precipitous -- and that the president should have waited until the inspections were completed, at least. Do you believe the war was justified?

A: Well, I believed at the time that it was far more important to win a complete victory in Afghanistan, do everything we could to try to find Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida's leadership, and help Hamid Karzai be the president of the whole country and not just Kabul. Now it seems to be moving in the right direction anyway because Karzai has proved to be a very able man and because we beefed up our support a little bit and the rest of the world came in a little bit. I thought at the time that we should take care of our Afghan obligations first. I thought it was curious -- given who did 9/11 and what the big terrorist threat was -- that we were sending 150,000 troops to Iraq and had only between 12,000 and 15,000 in Afghanistan.

But Paul Wolfowitz always had a theory that if they got rid of Saddam Hussein they could build a democracy in the Middle East that would shake up the other authoritarian Arab regimes, and that would give them greater leverage in making peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The only legal justification they had for going to war was Saddam Hussein's failure to comply with the U.N. resolutions [requiring his regime to destroy its illicit arsenal].

And I didn't see how we had triggered that by substituting our judgment for that of [chief U.N. weapons inspector] Hans Blix. If Blix had said this guy won't cooperate, he's bad, and we ought to take him out, then I would have favored military action. But had that happened, then whether the Security Council voted for it or not, we would have had many more allies and far fewer enemies, and no one would have thought we had a different agenda.

The rest of the interview is on Salon.com if you'd care to read it.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by wvrevy
That's exactly what I am saying. Your list of "evidence" above is just more of the same: supposition based on limited evidence.

I'm not providing evidence that there's a link. I'm providing evidence that the Bush administration didn't fabricate this whole idea of a link. That link has been out there for years.

What I'm trying to get from you is not about the evidence itself, factual or not. It's my understanding of your previous posts that you claim the current administration was the first to propose this link and put it out there to justify the war. Is that an incorrect?

Here is what Clinton said when asked about Al Gore's speech yesterday slamming the administration for misleading the public:

He said:

The whole time I was there [in the White House], I knew of no links.

That's clearly false, as evidenced by the Washington Post article I cited.

Do you think he just forgot about asserting the ties between al Qaeda and Saddam or he's purposely being dishonest in this interview?

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by wvrevy
That's exactly what I am saying. Your list of "evidence" above is just more of the same: supposition based on limited evidence.

Well, gee, thanks for enlightening us. And exactly how long have you been in the intelligence community? Don't forget to enlighten the other intelligence agencies of the world who are making the same claims.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by s&k'smom
I heard the interview too, very interesting. Gave you a lot to think about whether you agree with him or not but I do happen to like him. Of course I like Howard Stern too!

I missed Howard's show today! It sounded like it was a good one too. Thats what I like about Howard he has lots of controversial subjects on there too.


I heard that Neil Young, and Roseanne Barr support Moore, among other celebrities. I can't wait to see the movie.