Bush vs the CIA

[Guest eureka]

If, as the Americans claim, the Gulf War had not really ended, then George Bush as Commander-in-chief was a legitimate target for assassination. The Geneva Conventions allow for that.

[Black Dog]

Yes, I do mean the daily coalition bombings on Iraqi military targets, especially anit-aircraft targets that fired upon coalition aircraft on a daily basis. The same coalition aircraft protecting the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south. Those are facts. Deal with them however you like, but please stop providing excuses for Saddam and his regime.

In the context of the illegality of the no fly zones, shooting at enemy aircraft are justifiable acts of self-defence.

Not so, either is their sheltering of those who participated in the bombing.

Your source tells a different story:

The Bush administration is using the evidence to strengthen its disputed prewar assertion that Iraq had ties to terrorists, including the al-Qaeda group responsible for the Sept. 11 attack. But President Bush, in contrast with comments Sunday by Vice President Cheney, said Wednesday, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved."

...

Even if the new information holds up — and intelligence and law enforcement officials disagree on its conclusiveness — the links tying Yasin, Saddam and al-Qaeda are tentative.

Given that the Bush administration can't keep its story straight, I'm not surprised you can't either.

No, the no-fly zones permitted under Security Council Resolution 688. The no-fly zones which protected the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south.

Nope:

No-Fly zones: the legal position

The two no-fly zones over Iraq were imposed by the US, Britain and France after the Gulf War, in what was described as a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north.

The justification was that an acute humanitarian crisis made it necessary to infringe the sovereignty of Iraq in this way.

However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution

(Black Dog)

Until Saddam's IIS put four bullets in his head

Yes, until then, I'm glad we agree

So: Saddam kills a known terrorist and somehow that makes him a sponsor of terror?

[Black Dog]

No, you're lying. Try providing links to your references too, it would be most helpful.

Again: your own source contradicts your previous statement that he was in Baghdad at the start of the war:

He also helped launch a mini-war against the Kurdish leadership in northern Iraq, who were then living outside Saddam Hussein's direct control.

His organisation was then called Ansar al-Islam, or fighters for Islam. It has since mutated to its newly-minted name "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia". This coincided with a recent website proclamation of loyalty to bin Laden

That's true. But to suggest there was no intelligence when half the world had intelligence suggesting Iraq was in possession of WMD is extremely irrepsonsible.

Another lie:

Allies Were Not Persuaded By U.S. Assertions on Iraq WMD

For example, Russia was not convinced by either the September 24, 2002 British dossier or the October 4, 2002 CIA report. Lacking sufficient evidence, Russia dismissed the claims as a part of a "propaganda furor."2 Specifically targeting the CIA report, Putin said, "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another." He goes on to say, "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."3 However, Putin was apprehensive about the possibility that Iraq may have WMDs and he therefore supported inspections. The Russian ambassador to London thought that the dossier was a document of concern. "It is impressive, but not always…convincing."

French intelligence services did not come up with the same alarming assessment of Iraq and WMD as did the Britain and the United States. "According to secret agents at the DGSE, Saddam's Iraq does not represent any kind of nuclear threat at this time…It [the French assessment] contradicts the CIA's analysis…" French spies said that the Iraqi nuclear threat claimed by the United States was a "phony threat."

After Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech on February 5, 2003 to the United Nations Security Council, the focus of discussion among U.S. allies changed. France, Russia, and Germany did not find Powell's "evidence" strong enough to support the U.S.'s stance on the Iraqi threat. However, having already questioned the veracity of the dossier and CIA report, they instead concentrated on persuading the international community to continue UN inspections.

There's always a but with you people. Saddam lied but. Iraq was in breach but. Stop making excuses for Saddam and his regime. Please.

Why? Do Saddam's crimes then justify any action against him?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Shady,

It's not the length of the post you should be apologizing for, it's the regurgitation of propaganda from a murderous dictator and his regime

It is considered wise to study one's adversary. Besides, I grew sick of the regurgitated propaganda on CNN and NBC, so at least this is something new. The last thing anyone in the west should do, if they truly wish to end the problems, let alone win, is stick their fingers in their ears and say "la la la, its all propaganda...."

[Ironside]

Third Anniversary of the Downing Street Memo

A war based on lies. Where have we heard that before?  WW1 & WW2 if my historical perspective is correct.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Geez, who EVER claimed WWI and WWII were "based on lies"?