1 photos
Revisionist History Continues
[QUOTE=Doggboy]Hey Punter. I don't think you would find many of the left leaning mongers advocating a hands off approach with Al Qaeda. Certainly not me. My beef, and I think the beef of many, has been with the monumentally flawed strategy employed by the Bush administration. Lest we forget, there were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion, and there was an historical enmity between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Remember, the Bush administration's reasons have changed considerably since they initially floated the WMD rationale, and there is much compelling evidence that alot of the WMD "evidence" was contrived.[/QUOTE]Dogg, Stray, Stowe,
Please review the following articles; they are quoting your deity - President Clinton, by a source you will probably accept - CNN.
Please provide your comments on how the Clinton rhetoric and rationale is different from Bush's - other than putting "boots on the ground" and attempting to nation build (although Sec of DOD Cohen did say that the strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan were to defend our ideals of democracy)
[url]http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/[/url]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/24/bomb.damage/[/url]
[url]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04EFD9173CF936A1575BC0A96E958260&scp=2&sq=iraq+sudan&st=nyt[/url]
[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp[/url]
[url]http://www.washtimes.com/news/2004/jun/24/20040624-112921-3401r/[/url]
Stray: Possibly your branch enjoyed some of the Clinton "info blackout",
"The Pentagon's tight hold on information contrasts with previous cruise missile strikes. Sources say that at least two members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff office did not learn of the attacks until President Clinton announced them Thursday afternoon."
By the way, I thank you for your service to the United States. Whether you agree with or believe in the policies of your Commander in Chief, that is your right - I defend that right.
Gato Hunter: I'm sorry I was was not overly moved by your photos - But I am quite moved and motivated by this one. Also of the video of Paul Johnson Jr. And Nick Berg. Do you know who Paul Johnson and Nick Berg were?
There was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the war.
[QUOTE=Alan23]Dogg, Stray, Stowe,
Please review the following articles; they are quoting your deity - President Clinton, by a source you will probably accept - CNN.
Please provide your comments on how the Clinton rhetoric and rationale is different from Bush's - other than putting "boots on the ground" and attempting to nation build (although Sec of DOD Cohen did say that the strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan were to defend our ideals of democracy)
[url]http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/[/url]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/24/bomb.damage/[/url]
[url]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04EFD9173CF936A1575BC0A96E958260&scp=2&sq=iraq+sudan&st=nyt[/url]
[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp[/url]
[url]http://www.washtimes.com/news/2004/jun/24/20040624-112921-3401r/[/url]
Stray: Possibly your branch enjoyed some of the Clinton "info blackout",
"The Pentagon's tight hold on information contrasts with previous cruise missile strikes. Sources say that at least two members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff office did not learn of the attacks until President Clinton announced them Thursday afternoon."
By the way, I thank you for your service to the United States. Whether you agree with or believe in the policies of your Commander in Chief, that is your right - I defend that right.
Gato Hunter: I'm sorry I was was not overly moved by your photos - But I am quite moved and motivated by this one. Also of the video of Paul Johnson Jr. And Nick Berg. Do you know who Paul Johnson and Nick Berg were?[/QUOTE]
There was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the war. The stuff you quoted was old, nothing was ever found linking Al Qaeda to Iraq. They did find one guy from the PLO who was retired and living in Baghdad, and another guy who was in the Kurdish area in the north, (which saddam had no control over) to try to make a link. There was no link.
[QUOTE=washingtonpost]Before the war, “Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives, according to senior intelligence officials.”[/QUOTE][url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15019-2003Jun4?language=printer[/url]
[QUOTE=CNN]“The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said.”[/QUOTE][url]http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/[/url]
The Baath party, which Saddam Hussein was the leader, was a secular socialist party. They where hated by Al Qaeda. They did not promote religion. Within the government there where Christians, Sunni and Shia. For example Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz was Christian.
[QUOTE]“For example, of the eight top Iraqi leaders who in early 1988 sat with Husayn on the Revolutionary Command Council--Iraq's highest governing body-- three were Arab Shias (of whom one had served as Minister of Interior), three were Arab Sunnis, one was an Arab Christian, and one a Kurd. On the Regional Command Council--the ruling body of the party--Shias actually predominated. During the war, a number of highly competent Shia officers have been promoted to corps commanders. The general who turned back the initial Iranian invasions of Iraq in 1982 was a Shia.”[/QUOTE]From [url]http://countrystudies.us/iraq/38.htm[/url]
The Baath Party was Secular, and was fearful of religious extremist.
