Reuters: Iran and Qaeda benefit from US in Iraq: congressman

[gerryhatrick]

Iran and Qaeda benefit from US in Iraq: congressman

Reuters

Sunday, March 5, 2006; 12:58 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. presence in Iraq is hurting the worldwide war on terrorism and benefits only Iran and al Qaeda, U.S. Rep. John Murtha said on Sunday.

"The only people who want us in Iraq are Iran and al-Qaeda," Murtha said on CBS's "Face the Nation" political talk show. "And I talked to a top-level commander the other day and he said China wants us there also. Why? Because we're depleting our resources ... our troop resources and our fiscal resources.

"... The war on terrorism is worldwide. In Iraq, it's a civil war," said Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat.

snip

One of the problems I see and frustrating things is our ambassador keeps giving advice to the Iraqis," Murtha said. "Every time we give the Iraqis advice, they vote for someone else ... The Iraqis don't pay attention to our advice."

snip

"We have a situation where our military is in such bad shape, it couldn't deploy to a second front," Murtha said. "And the Iranians know this. North Korea knows it. China knows it. We're depleting our resources in Iraq."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6030500361.html

I watched this interview. He also makes the point that Iraqis are tolerating Al Qaeda in Iraq because everyone is united against the occupation. Once the occupation ends, they'll kick the terrorists out.

[geoffrey]

Iran and Qaeda benefit from US in Iraq: congressman

Reuters

Sunday, March 5, 2006; 12:58 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. presence in Iraq is hurting the worldwide war on terrorism and benefits only Iran and al Qaeda, U.S. Rep. John Murtha said on Sunday.

"The only people who want us in Iraq are Iran and al-Qaeda," Murtha said on CBS's "Face the Nation" political talk show. "And I talked to a top-level commander the other day and he said China wants us there also. Why? Because we're depleting our resources ... our troop resources and our fiscal resources.

"... The war on terrorism is worldwide. In Iraq, it's a civil war," said Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat.

snip

One of the problems I see and frustrating things is our ambassador keeps giving advice to the Iraqis," Murtha said. "Every time we give the Iraqis advice, they vote for someone else ... The Iraqis don't pay attention to our advice."

snip

"We have a situation where our military is in such bad shape, it couldn't deploy to a second front," Murtha said. "And the Iranians know this. North Korea knows it. China knows it. We're depleting our resources in Iraq."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6030500361.html

I watched this interview. He also makes the point that Iraqis are tolerating Al Qaeda in Iraq because everyone is united against the occupation. Once the occupation ends, they'll kick the terrorists out.

Nah, they would have voted for the crazies if they were so against the occupation. Instead, they voted for moderates.

I really disagree with the term occupation anyways, as the US isn't conducting political operations, just security. But none the less, I can see why the Iraqi's would be angery, at their Mosques everyday they hear hate speech inciting violence towards the Americans. Why wouldn't they believe it after awhile?

[gerryhatrick]

I really disagree with the term occupation anyways, as the US isn't conducting political operations, just security. But none the less, I can see why the Iraqi's would be angery, at their Mosques everyday they hear hate speech inciting violence towards the Americans. Why wouldn't they believe it after awhile?

So Iraqis are misled in the Mosques, THAT'S why they're against the occupation?

US isn't "conducting political operations, just security"????? What are you talking about?

What are "political operations", in your mind? And what's security?

And why don't you respond to any of Murthas arguments?

[geoffrey]

I really disagree with the term occupation anyways, as the US isn't conducting political operations, just security. But none the less, I can see why the Iraqi's would be angery, at their Mosques everyday they hear hate speech inciting violence towards the Americans. Why wouldn't they believe it after awhile?

So Iraqis are misled in the Mosques, THAT'S why they're against the occupation?

US isn't "conducting political operations, just security"????? What are you talking about?

What are "political operations", in your mind? And what's security?

And why don't you respond to any of Murthas arguments?

Because most are unfounded ramblings.

I do agree that the US can't fight another war right now. Thats the only one that has substaince. Oh well, have to put of the Iranian invasion for a bit.

It's funny those so opposed to war in Iraq would say one of the biggest reasons is they can't invade another country.

[gerryhatrick]

It's funny those so opposed to war in Iraq would say one of the biggest reasons is they can't invade another country.

Why is that funny?

Do you think people who think the US needs to leave Iraq now don't want the US to be militarily ready?

[gerryhatrick]

Because most are unfounded ramblings.

Murtha backs up everything he says.

You don't respond to what he says because you CAN'T.

All you can do is attack him.

[BubberMiley]

No kidding. Talk about unfounded ramblings, just read 90% of geoffrey's posts.

[Hollus]

I really disagree with the term occupation anyways, as the US isn't conducting political operations, just security. But none the less, I can see why the Iraqi's would be angery, at their Mosques everyday they hear hate speech inciting violence towards the Americans. Why wouldn't they believe it after awhile?

My God Geoffrey, your further gone than I thought! There are none so blind as those you will not see.

[geoffrey]

No kidding. Talk about unfounded ramblings, just read 90% of geoffrey's posts.

Thanks for the vote of confidence Bubber.

I really disagree with the term occupation anyways, as the US isn't conducting political operations, just security. But none the less, I can see why the Iraqi's would be angery, at their Mosques everyday they hear hate speech inciting violence towards the Americans. Why wouldn't they believe it after awhile?

My God Geoffrey, your further gone than I thought! There are none so blind as those you will not see.

I do see the problems with Iraq. But people like Murtha are as far from the truth as the Administration is on the other side of the spectrum on this issue.

If you so insist on me refuting every little point from this Murtha guy, so be it.

"The only people who want us in Iraq are Iran and al-Qaeda," Murtha said on CBS's "Face the Nation" political talk show. "And I talked to a top-level commander the other day and he said China wants us there also. Why? Because we're depleting our resources ... our troop resources and our fiscal resources.

If China really wanted them to be there, they would have voted in favour of the war, not against. Fundamentally false. Doesn't make sense to vote against something you support now does it? I don't think China really cares what the US is up to militarily. China is not planning on being an aggressor nation anytime in the near future.

There is a valid claim to the fiscal resources since the US does have foreign debt with China. I'm pretty confident that war or no war, Bush's financial policies would have the yanks in deficits. It's a more valid claim that China is happy that the Republicans are in the white house.

"... The war on terrorism is worldwide. In Iraq, it's a civil war," said Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat.

Well I disagree and agree at the same time. I doubt if Iraq was in bed with al-Qaeda, but I'm sure Saddam wasn't about to jump to the side of the West and go terrorist hunting either. The effectiveness of the war in Iraq on terrorism is very questionable.

It's not a civil war though. No one is attempting to over-throw the government. Elements exist, no doubt, targeting of political officials would be one example. But a civil war requires a parallel second power trying to overthrow the status quo government or establish a seperate government. This doesn't exist in Iraq.

"One of the problems I see and frustrating things is our ambassador keeps giving advice to the Iraqis," Murtha said. "Every time we give the Iraqis advice, they vote for someone else ... The Iraqis don't pay attention to our advice."

I disagree. We told them to go out and vote and boy did they ever. Massive turnouts. Go Iraqis!

The U.S. role in fighting terrorism around the world is being subverted by Iraq, said Murtha, who characterized the sectarian strife between Iraq's Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims as a civil war that must be settled internally.

It is harming the global war on terror, I agree.

Letting the Sunni and Shi'a fight to the death for control over Iraq is an immoral solution. We've created the problem, we have to fix it. The cost in lives would be spectacular if we left tomorrow.

We should intervene here, we as the civilized world (ie. UN types) and have an international peacekeeping force. Give them the framework, and let them have at it, peacefully.

We cannot allow a civil war. We shouldn't be allowing it in Sudan right now either. But you guys would rather have them kill each other off too? I mean its a civil war, we have no business in saving innocents from starvation and things like that.

Murtha, a decorated Vietnam veteran who retired from the Marines Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1990, said Iraq would do a better job of rooting out terrorists once U.S. troops leave the country.

"I'm convinced they know where they are, they know who they are," he said. "But they won't tell us because they've turned against us. We've lost the hearts and minds of the people."

Who are they going to tell once we leave? The US has resources, Iraqi security forces don't. They won't tell us... but they'll tell the same people once we leave? Ridiculous idea in my mind.

The United Nations is scrutinizing Iran because of its nuclear research but Murtha said Tehran has become emboldened because of the U.S. focus in Iraq.

"We have a situation where our military is in such bad shape, it couldn't deploy to a second front," Murtha said. "And the Iranians know this. North Korea knows it. China knows it. We're depleting our resources in Iraq."

So we should go into Iran instead? North Korea too perhaps?

"Why would I believe him?" he said. "This administration, including the president, has mischaracterized this war for the last two years ... So why would I believe the chairman of the Joint Chiefs when he says things are going well?"

I don't believe either of you two. I don't trust the Administration to tell the truth, and I sure don't trust some Democrat that doesn't have access to the information that the Join Chiefs do. Both are full of shit.

[Riverwind]

If China really wanted them to be there, they would have voted in favour of the war, not against. Fundamentally false. Doesn't make sense to vote against something you support now does it? I don't think China really cares what the US is up to militarily. China is not planning on being an aggressor nation anytime in the near future.

China is just itching to invade Taiwan. The only thing that keeps them out is the currently cannot compete with the high tech weaponry that the US has sold Taiwan and the US promise to defend Taiwan. China loves to see the US wasting its resources on Iraq but it would never state that publicly by supporting the US.

It's not a civil war though. No one is attempting to over-throw the government. Elements exist, no doubt, targeting of political officials would be one example. But a civil war requires a parallel second power trying to overthrow the status quo government or establish a separate government. This doesn't exist in Iraq.

The US occupation forces are the govt in Iraq now as far as the insurgent forces are concerned. They see the Iraqi govt as the puppet of the Americans which is why they attack Americans.

Letting the Sunni and Shi'a fight to the death for control over Iraq is an immoral solution. We've created the problem, we have to fix it. The cost in lives would be spectacular if we left tomorrow.

Says who? You never know, it is quite possible the Iraqis would work something out fairly quickly if the US troops were gone. It is also possible the country would peacefully split in three parts: something that would never happen as long as the US is there. In any case, Iraq cannot be made into a peaceful democratic country by the US military - it takes a social maturity that does not appear to exist at this time.

[gerryhatrick]

It's not a civil war though. No one is attempting to over-throw the government. Elements exist, no doubt, targeting of political officials would be one example. But a civil war requires a parallel second power trying to overthrow the status quo government or establish a seperate government. This doesn't exist in Iraq.

According to Wikipedia:

"A civil war is a war in which the parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power. "

You're trying (badly) to claim that the term "civil war" does not apply? That is such a pathetic point to try to make...it's nothing but an attempt at message control, something so common to this Orwelian US administration.

Your point about China is even sadder. If they wanted the US to stay in Iraq NOW they would have voted for the war...when? Three years ago? Your lack of logic is stunning to say the least.

At least you recognize later why the point is made that China wants the US to stay (resource depletion), but you demolished yourself with the previous argument.

We cannot allow a civil war.

You just finnished saying it wasn't a civil war....?

[geoffrey]

Very valid comments Sparhawk.

If China really wanted them to be there, they would have voted in favour of the war, not against. Fundamentally false. Doesn't make sense to vote against something you support now does it? I don't think China really cares what the US is up to militarily. China is not planning on being an aggressor nation anytime in the near future.

China is just itching to invade Taiwan. The only thing that keeps them out is the currently cannot compete with the high tech weaponry that the US has sold Taiwan and the US promise to defend Taiwan. China loves to see the US wasting its resources on Iraq but it would never state that publicly by supporting the US.

That's a tough one. I know China would love to invade, but in the big scheme of things, do you actually think they'd ever try? It would certainly be a major conflict, not really worth the payoffs. I don't buy the Taiwan argument, as I'm sure the US wouldn't militarily strike against China. It would be a real shit storm if it did happen.

I don't think the China threat is a valid reason for pulling out of Iraq.

It's not a civil war though. No one is attempting to over-throw the government. Elements exist, no doubt, targeting of political officials would be one example. But a civil war requires a parallel second power trying to overthrow the status quo government or establish a separate government. This doesn't exist in Iraq.

The US occupation forces are the govt in Iraq now as far as the insurgent forces are concerned. They see the Iraqi govt as the puppet of the Americans which is why they attack Americans.

The US 'occupation' forces really don't have much to do with the governing anymore, besides security detail, and even that is being turned over.

Insurgency is better than civil war. France had an insurgency against the German occupation, it was not a civil war. Is that not a somewhat valid comparision?

Letting the Sunni and Shi'a fight to the death for control over Iraq is an immoral solution. We've created the problem, we have to fix it. The cost in lives would be spectacular if we left tomorrow.

Says who? You never know, it is quite possible the Iraqis would work something out fairly quickly if the US troops were gone. It is also possible the country would peacefully split in three parts: something that would never happen as long as the US is there. In any case, Iraq cannot be made into a peaceful democratic country by the US military - it takes a social maturity that does not appear to exist at this time.

I find it highly unlikely that the violence will decrease with a US withdrawl. Most of the recent trouble we see, apart from the roadside bombs, is Iraqi on Iraqi violence. They don't have the police or military power to crush a major military coup right now, they need the US to protect their fragile, but democratically elected, government.

[Montgomery Burns]

Iran and Qaeda benefit from US in Iraq: congressman

Reuters

Sunday, March 5, 2006; 12:58 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. presence in Iraq is hurting the worldwide war on terrorism and benefits only Iran and al Qaeda, U.S. Rep. John Murtha said on Sunday.

"The only people who want us in Iraq are Iran and al-Qaeda," Murtha said on CBS's "Face the Nation" political talk show. "And I talked to a top-level commander the other day and he said China wants us there also. Why? Because we're depleting our resources ... our troop resources and our fiscal resources.

"... The war on terrorism is worldwide. In Iraq, it's a civil war," said Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat.

snip

One of the problems I see and frustrating things is our ambassador keeps giving advice to the Iraqis," Murtha said. "Every time we give the Iraqis advice, they vote for someone else ... The Iraqis don't pay attention to our advice."

snip

"We have a situation where our military is in such bad shape, it couldn't deploy to a second front," Murtha said. "And the Iranians know this. North Korea knows it. China knows it. We're depleting our resources in Iraq."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6030500361.html

I watched this interview. He also makes the point that Iraqis are tolerating Al Qaeda in Iraq because everyone is united against the occupation. Once the occupation ends, they'll kick the terrorists out.

Is Jack Murtha nuts?

From the same appearence on CBS's Face the Nation:

Congressman Murtha, thank you for coming this morning, and I want to start by quoting something that General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said this morning on "Meet the Press." He said he believes the war in Iraq is going, in his words, "very, very well." What is your assessment?

Rep. MURTHA: Why would I believe him? I mean, that administration, this administration, including the president, had mischaracterized this war for the last two years. They, first of all, they said it will take 40,000 troops to settle this thing right after the invasion. Then they said there's no insurgency. They're dead-enders is what the secretary of defense said. On and on and on, the mischaracterization of the war. They said there's nuclear weapons. There are no nuclear weapons there. There are no biological weapons there. No al-Qaeda connection. So why would I believe the chairman of the joint chiefs when he says things are going well. I ask my staff--when my staff--when they make a statement like this, I say, `Look, look in the latest report that the State Department puts out, the Weekly Report, and tell me how much progress we've made.' So they look at it, and we've made no progress at all. Sixty percent unemployment, the Iraqis want us out of there. Eighty percent of the Iraqis want us out of there. Oil production below prewar level. Water production, only 30 percent of the people getting water. Now our troops are being fed well and being taken care of. They're doing everything they can do militarily. But they're in a situation where they're caught in a civil war. And there's two participants fighting for survival and fighting for supremacy inside that country, and that's my definition of a civil war.

So I don't believe the secretary. I think we're not making progress. We're caught in a civil war. We've lost almost 20,000 people in this war, if you count the casualties and the people who've been killed in the three years we've been involved.

SCHIEFFER: Now I'm going to make sure I understand. I mean, I think I understand what you're saying, but you're talking about a Marine and here you are an ex-Marine. This is a military man. This is not--this is not somebody, some civilian out there at the Pentagon. You're saying you no longer believe what Marine General Peter Pace says when he says he thinks things are going well.

Rep. MURTHA: That's exactly right. Why would I believe him with all the misstatements and mischaracterizations they've made over the last two years? And the public is way ahead of what's going on in Washington. They no longer believe. The troops themselves, 70 percent of the troops said, `We want to come home within a year.' The only solution to this is redeploy. Let me tell you, the only people who want us in Iraq is Iran and al-Qaeda....

It's rather remarkable that a sitting United States Congressman would play so fast and loose with the facts, especially in the context of accusing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of being a liar. Pretty much every "fact" that Murtha hysterically tossed out is wrong.

Murtha's suggestion that the administration said Iraq had nuclear weapons is absurd. (Why don't talk show hosts ever seem to call Democrats on these wild misrepresentations?) Likewise his claim that there is "no al Qaeda connection." In light of everything we now know, that statement can only be described as ignorant. And, even if we charitably assume that Murtha is behind the curve on this one, how about Zarqawi? How about Ansar al-Islam? How about the terrorist training camps? How about the many connections beween Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda that are documented in the Senate Intelligence Committee's report?

Yeah, he's nuts. Another Democrat goes off the deep end--a victim of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).

[Black Dog]

Murtha's suggestion that the administration said Iraq had nuclear weapons is absurd. (Why don't talk show hosts ever seem to call Democrats on these wild misrepresentations?)

Ridiculous hair splitting. The Bush administration repeatedly referred to Saddam's designs on nuclear weapons (and how close he was to getting them), his "stockpiles" of WMD, the urgency of the threat and the danger that the "smoking gun...would be a mushroom cloud." In other words, they may not have said it, but the entire campaign was designed to create the impression that a nuclear-armed Iraq was a legitimate danger.

Likewise his claim that there is "no al Qaeda connection."In light of everything we now know, that statement can only be described as ignorant. And, even if we charitably assume that Murtha is behind the curve on this one, how about Zarqawi? How about Ansar al-Islam? How about the terrorist training camps? How about the many connections beween Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda that are documented in the Senate Intelligence Committee's report?

Another deliberate distortion of the partisan right. "Connections" could mean anything. Saddam met with Al Qaeda, had some contact with them (as have most governments in the region, I expect), but there's no evidence of a working relationship. But by harping on these "connections" (as though that in itself is significant: it's not) the White House propaganda machine is trying to create the impression that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were thick as thieves. (The reference to Ansar al-Islam is especially funny: that organization was an Islamic fundamentalist Kurdish separatist group that operated in the Kurdish Autonomous Region, out of reach of Saddam's secular Sunni Arab regime.)

[gerryhatrick]

Ridiculous hair splitting.

Exactly what I was thinking. The Bush administration - on more than one occasion - talked about "mushroom clouds" as a threat and Iraqs nuclear program and said they'd been seeking material.

For Montgomery Burns to claim this is an "absurd claim" by Murtha is in itself beyond absurd.

Murtha is speaking the truth. It all rings true, and stands against partisan twisting.

[newbie]

Yeah, he's nuts. Another Democrat goes off the deep end--a victim of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).

Is that the best you got Monty? You must be getting awfully tired of using that BDS mantra. Well, put me down as I believe Murtha is right on the money.

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog:

Ridiculous hair splitting. The Bush administration repeatedly referred to Saddam's designs on nuclear weapons (and how close he was to getting them), his "stockpiles" of WMD, the urgency of the threat and the danger that the "smoking gun...would be a mushroom cloud." In other words, they may not have said it, but the entire campaign was designed to create the impression that a nuclear-armed Iraq was a legitimate danger.

Ridiculous projection. How does Bush claiming that Saddam was seeking nukes (and we know he was) become "They said there's nuclear weapons", as Murtha said?

Another deliberate distortion of the partisan right. "Connections" could mean anything. Saddam met with Al Qaeda, had some contact with them (as have most governments in the region, I expect), but there's no evidence of a working relationship. But by harping on these "connections" (as though that in itself is significant: it's not) the White House propaganda machine is trying to create the impression that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were thick as thieves. (The reference to Ansar al-Islam is especially funny: that organization was an Islamic fundamentalist Kurdish separatist group that operated in the Kurdish Autonomous Region, out of reach of Saddam's secular Sunni Arab regime.)

What do you want? Pics of them having sex with each other? Saddam ran Iraq with an iron fist and he gave sanction (and housing and a govt salary) to one of the terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, and Zarqawi fled to Iraq (after the Taliban fell), and got medical attention at Baghdad's Olympic Hostpital, a hospital run by Uday Hussein. We all know that Saddam's Iraq was a virtual terrorist haven.

Secular? Do secular people change the country's flag by adding the words "Allah Akbar"?

Saddam and his Al Qaeda friends:

The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period.

"Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri – then deputy head of the council of the leadership of the revolution - to take part in the congress, along with some 150 other Islamic figures from 50 Muslim countries," Allawi said.

According to Allawi, important information has been gathered regarding the presence of another key terrorist figure operating in Iraq - the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period," Allawi affirmed, "and began to form a terrorist cell, even though the Iraqi services do not have precise information on his entry into the country," he said.

Allawi's remarks come after statements to al-Hayat by King Abdallah II of Jordan over Saddam's refusal to hand over al-Zarqawi to the authorities in Amman.

On this question Allawi said: ''The words of the Jordanian King are correct and important. We have proof of al-Zawahiri's visit to Iraq, but we do not have the precise date or information on al-Zarqawi's entry, though it is likely that he arrived around the same time."

In Allawi's view, Saddam's government "sponsored" the birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, coordinating with other terrorist groups, both Arab and Muslim. "The Iraqi secret services had links to these groups through a person called Faruq Hajizi, later named Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime as he tried to re-enter Iraq. Iraqi secret agents helped terrorists enter the country and directed them to the Ansar al-Islam camps in the Halbija area," he said.

But but but..."connections" could mean anything.

And it's insignificant.

[Montgomery Burns]

Yeah, he's nuts. Another Democrat goes off the deep end--a victim of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).

Is that the best you got Monty? You must be getting awfully tired of using that BDS mantra. Well, put me down as I believe Murtha is right on the money.

With the Democrats shoddy record of being "right on the money", I hope you were given good odds.

[Black Dog]

But but but..."connections" could mean anything.

And it's insignificant

Exactly. Fact is, there is no proof of any real ties, just your assumptions. We all know if there was any real evidence of Al Qaeda/Iraq cooperation, the U.S. would be trumpeting from the mountaintops. But they've done nohing but backpedal away from their earlier claims of ties between the regime and AQ. Why do you suppose that is? Why the hell would the Bush administration sit on information that would benefit them imensely? I've asked that many times before (in relaton to this, the WMD issues etc.) and you've never once answered why that is, which leads me to beleive you know very well you're claims are unsupportable, yet you cling to them anyway in a staggering display of intellectual dishonesty and partisan blindness.

[gerryhatrick]

Exactly. Fact is, there is no proof of any real ties, just your assumptions.

It's rightwing revisionism that there were significant ties between Al-Q and Iraq.

In many cases (perhaps this included) they've been exposed to so much of the BS propaganda that they believe it themselves and thus seem amazed and condescending towards those who don't believe it.

Go to any rightwing American forum. The idea that there were ties is considered a proven fact to them.

1984 is here now.

[geoffrey]

1984 is here now.

Blatant fear mongering.

I know there was no ties. I know most right wingers that I talk to don't think there were ties. So because a few do, we all are stupid brainwashed Bushbots? Nah.

Doesn't change the fact that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, a war criminal, human rights abuser and aggressive militarist. Not that I supported the war at the beginning though (I didn't).

[Montgomery Burns]

But but but..."connections" could mean anything.

And it's insignificant

Exactly. Fact is, there is no proof of any real ties, just your assumptions. We all know if there was any real evidence of Al Qaeda/Iraq cooperation, the U.S. would be trumpeting from the mountaintops. But they've done nohing but backpedal away from their earlier claims of ties between the regime and AQ. Why do you suppose that is? Why the hell would the Bush administration sit on information that would benefit them imensely? I've asked that many times before (in relaton to this, the WMD issues etc.) and you've never once answered why that is, which leads me to beleive you know very well you're claims are unsupportable, yet you cling to them anyway in a staggering display of intellectual dishonesty and partisan blindness.

How pathetic can you get? Seriously. What do you want? Photographic evidence?

Bush has spoken numerous times about Al Qaeda links to Saddam's terrorist haven.

What the hell? Do you think Bush should have daily addresses to the nation, or daily press conferences? Read a book about Bush. He doesn't think the press speaks for the country. I agree. Also, he's got work to do instead of playing immature political games. Like Harper, he knows that the press is hostile to conservatives.

Only the most stubborn pigheaded partisan would deny that Al Qaeda had numerous ties with Saddam's Iraq. They've even found documents in Iraq proving this.

The 2 chairmen of the 9-11 commission said that there was numerous links between Iraq and Al Qaeda; they just couldn't find enough proof that Saddam collaborated with Al Qaeda in 9-11. But Bush never said Saddam was involved in 9-11 (although a federal judge made a legal ruling that Iraq was involved in 9-11).

It's difficult to take you seriously...

[gerryhatrick]

1984 is here now.

Blatant fear mongering.

Don't be ridiculous. Harkening to 1984 is making a simple point that truths are created through repetition of falsehoods, as is the case here.

[Black Dog]

How pathetic can you get? Seriously. What do you want? Photographic evidence?

Bush has spoken numerous times about Al Qaeda links to Saddam's terrorist haven.

Hmmm: two links from 2003 (when the admin wa sstil pushing that line) and one from 2004 after teh 9-11 commission report in which Bush: "did not infer that the two had a "collaborative relationship" on the attacks, a conclusion rejected by the commission investigating the intelligence failures that prevented the United States from warding off the attacks."

No. Collaborative. Relationship.

The 2 chairmen of the 9-11 commission said that there was numerous links between Iraq and Al Qaeda; they just couldn't find enough proof that Saddam collaborated with Al Qaeda in 9-11. But Bush never said Saddam was involved in 9-11 (although a federal judge made a legal ruling that Iraq was involved in 9-11).

So tell me, if they didn't collaborate on 9-11, what did they collaborate on? Where's the evidence of a working relationship? There isn't any: just rumour and speculation.

It's difficult to take you seriously...

That ship sailed for me long ago. It's just funny to see what whacked out conspiracy theory you come up with next.

[Montgomery Burns]

Have you been living in a cave?

Don't you remember Bush saying "we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them?"