posted on April 28, 2004 10:29:14 PM new
Dave, I agree this war has only made them hate us more than they did prior to it.
Does anybody remember a great majority of Muslems thoughtout the middle east cheering* when the WTC went down?? (How come we forget those images so easily?) They may be backassward to us, but they are not stupid, and they "hate" quote, hate, the American's and the west. Do any of you really think they dont have a clue they are oil rich countries and that do they have something to protect from a foreign nation? If any you think the entire middle east isnt watching this and not liking it one bit, you're sorely mistaken.
Imo, since we started it, we better finish it - and do it right because there is no complacency to be had anymore. You can bet your last nickel THEY would not give a crap about harming civilians if they could. These are the people that think suicide bombing is the best plan of attack - and we're supposed to think they might care about OUR civilians?
posted on April 28, 2004 11:12:50 PM new
Yes, dave, I do. I have long believed that the fact they didn't share the same religious beliefs would not have prevented them from working together for their common goal - the destruction of our country. That has been a very strong common goal. It's long been reported about these terrorist leaders traveling from MEastern country to country. Now the lefties are saying they're all 'working' together since we've invaded Iraq. I said it long before we took this action, but it was always discounted here. Now it's like the lefties finally are beginning to get it since they see the Muslims coming into help against us in Iraq.
Just like I've never been able to understand those on the left not believing what the clinton/gore administration said about saddam and his weapons. Guess they don't/didn't believe them either.
Here is but one article from a former clinton advisor who also believes there is a connection between the two: This article kind of reminds me of clarke's testimony.....both warning the presidents about a threat. 'Course I still stand by the fact that anything's easier to see/understand with 20/20 hindsight...rather than piece-meal information.
Saddam and 9/11
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 8, 2004
In this edition of Frontpage Interview, we have the privilege of being joined by Dr. Laurie Mylroie, one of the foremost American scholars on Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
In her book Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein´s Unfinished War against America, Dr. Mylroie provided substantial evidence implicating Saddam's involvement in four terrorist attacks: the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing; the 1995 bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and the 1998 bombings of two African embassies.
The author of the new book, Bush vs. the Beltway: How the CIA and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror, Dr. Mylroie is represented by www.benadorassociates.com.
Frontpage Magazine: Welcome to Frontpage Interview Dr. Mylroie.
We really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us.
You have recently become the target of some pretty nasty attacks from the Left. Peter Bergen and David Corn, for instance, have really gone after you - and it is obviously for the evidence you unearthed regarding Saddam's terror links.
It appears that the Left simply cannot forgive you for what they see as the intellectual justification you helped provide for the U.S. liberation of Iraq. These attacks are quite personally vicious and engulfed with some delusional conspiratorial thinking.
Could you talk a little bit about this and what you think these attacks signify?
Mylroie: Partly, it's par for the course, particularly these days, when political discourse can be unusually ugly. Partly, it reflects the high stakes involved.
The 9/11 attacks represent the greatest US intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor. That is not a controversial statement, but the nature of that intelligence failure certainly is, as it involves the question of who bears responsibility.
Bill Clinton and his top advisers are most culpable in my view, and I say that as someone who was Clinton's adviser on Iraq in the 1992 campaign. People may forget, but Clinton was tougher than former president Bush on Saddam then, saying that Bush should have got rid of him during the 1991 war.
Clearly, I didn't begin as someone hostile to Clinton, but my strong critique, indeed utter dismay, developed as the Clinton administration refused to deal with the dangers posed by Iraq, including terrorism, as they became increasingly evident during the 1990's. In fact, I experienced that first hand, because in 1993 and 1994 I had easy access to the people covering the Middle East, including Martin Indyk, Clinton's NSC advisor on the region, who the year before, had actually brought me out of academics to work for him in Washington. That is how I ended up as Clinton's adviser on Iraq.
As early as 1993, I raised my concerns with them: it appeared from the New York Times reporting that Iraq was involved in the World Trade Center bombing. Also, Massoud Barzani (head of the Kurdish Democratic Party) had told me that Saddam was hiding many things from the UN weapons inspectors (UNSCOM), including that Iraq was still making biological agents (after Saddam's son-in-law defected, UNSCOM learned that Barzani was correct).
Initially, Indyk and the others I spoke with were quite concerned. Those concerns were certainly passed on to their superiors. But since nothing was ever done, one can only conclude that those concerns were dismissed. And it was not all that long before the Clinton people began to slime me, in the fashion of Corn and Bergen (although in his book, Bergen is much more respectful of my work). That is what you do, when you don't want to deal with the facts that someone marshals in support of an argument you don't want to hear.
FP: Presently, what do you think is the most important issue in the war in Iraq and in the War on Terror?
Mylroie: There are several. One is the lack of competence within the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority)--which US military commanders have tellingly dubbed, "Can't Provide Anything." Iraqis would say the same.
Another is Iraq's biological weapons (BW) program. We know from UNSCOM's work that Iraq had such a program, and it included the production of anthrax.
So what happened to that anthrax?
It's very important to find out to ensure that it is not used in an attack against the US or any other country. That is especially so, as there is an Iraqi-American, living in the US, with a Ph.D. in microbiology, who very much appears to have given logistical support to those who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 (discussed in Study of Revenge, my book on Iraq, terrorism, and its proscribed weapons).
The person who knows the most about Iraq's BW program is a retired U.S. Army colonel, Dr. Richard Spertzel, who led UNSCOM's pursuit of that program. Spertzel volunteered to go to Iraq, and, in fact, he was supposed to do so as part of the Iraq Survey Group--but it never happened. Indeed, there were other UNSCOM people who did not go, or only went belatedly, when the ISG ran into trouble. It is stunning that the most knowledgeable people were not involved from the get-go in such an important project, but that is also typical bureaucratic behavior.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has not done what is necessary to set things straight.
posted on April 28, 2004 11:21:52 PM new
neroter - Dave, I agree this war has only made them hate us more than they did prior to it.
I agree their hatred is still there....has it grown greater? Only they know. They hated us enough over 11 years ago when the attacks started on US interests abroad, imo. But since the numbers of deaths were small....we didn't pay too much attention.
And this is part of why I believe this administration was expecting/looking for more of the same....abroad...rather than here on our land before 9-11.
posted on April 28, 2004 11:36:52 PM new
"Dave, I agree this war has only made them hate us more than they did prior to it"
I disagree with that statement. An action does not create more hate. The hate at the same intensity has always been there. If you think all these terrorist were not tied to each other in every Muslim nation in this old world of ours you need to get reprogrammed.
The invasion of Iraq might just save what we as a nation has never seen on a large scale. Death of its citizens on one hell of a large scale everyday, that will make the cost of lives at the trade center look like a cake walk at social event.
Ask yourself what have you done to a Muslim that would them hate you so much that they would use women, children or anything to destroy your way of life? People it is not your life they want to destroy, its your way of life as you know it.
posted on April 29, 2004 12:08:40 AM newNow the lefties are saying they're all 'working' together since we've invaded Iraq. I said it long before we took this action, but it was always discounted here. Now it's like the lefties finally are beginning to get it since they see the Muslims coming into help against us in Iraq.
Which 'lefties', Linda? Who are you talking about?
Just for the record I've never said that the US should pull out of Iraq.
And I don't think that Al Queda was operating out of Iraq when Bush declared war.
Now, before you attack me...... that's just my personal belief.
posted on April 29, 2004 01:22:22 AM new
Linda, I know you didn't address me but all I did was ask a polite question about who 'all the lefties' are that you referred to because I honestly didn't know who you meant and you get rude. BTW, I still don't know who you mean.
You seem to have a big problem with some of us who have opposing views to yours.
Just 32 percent, the lowest number ever, say Iraq was a threat that required immediate military action a year ago.
Less than half, 47 percent, now say the U.S. did the right thing taking military action in Iraq, the lowest support recorded in CBS News/New York Times Polls since the war began.
There are growing concerns about the long-term impact of the war. 41 percent now think the war increased the threat of terrorism against the U.S. 71 percent say the Administration’s policies have worsened the U.S.’s image in the Arab world.
...
For now, only 31 percent believe the Administration has a clear plan to turn over power in Iraq; 32 percent say it has a clear plan to rebuild the country.
The struggles in Iraq appear to have hurt assessments of the President. His overall approval rating (46 percent), his rating on handling Iraq (41 percent), and his rating on handling foreign policy (40eign policy (40 percent) are at the lowest points ever in this Administration. In each case, more disapprove than approve. 53 percent of voters are uneasy about Bush’s handling of international crisis, figures unmatched since before 9/11.
posted on April 29, 2004 07:53:13 AM new
Fred: a simple example, you dislike your neighbor, he doesn't like you either. One night you truly believe he is planning to burn down your house, you preemptively burn his house down and search the remains for any matches so he can not retaliate. He now hates you and his prime motivation is revenge.
What have I done personally to a Muslim to warrant their hatred? Nothing, however my government have interfered in their lives to such an extent in the name of big business (oil) and has done so in my name (The People of the United States).
I am not saying that our attackers are blameless or justifying their actions. I believe both parties to be in the wrong.
Linda: With regard to your comments that Al-Queda and Iraq were in cahoots, yes I long ago realized that you are not capable of thought or change which is why I only occasionally post here in response to your hysterical fantasies. But once again the administrations inuedo regarding this connection has been debunked many times over and shown to be false.
posted on April 29, 2004 08:12:29 AM newAgreement Reached to End Fallujah Siege
FALLUJAH, Iraq - U.S. Marines announced Thursday an agreement to end a bloody, nearly monthlong siege of Fallujah, saying American forces will pull back and allow an all-Iraqi force commanded by one of Saddam Hussein's generals to take over security.
Elsewhere, 10 U.S. soldiers were killed Thursday — eight of them in a car bombing south of Baghdad. Two were killed in a convoy attack in Baghdad and roadside bomb in Baqoubah, north of the capital.
The Fallujah deal came after intense international pressure on the United States to find a peaceful solution to the standoff that killed hundreds of Iraqis and became a symbol of anti-U.S. resistance in Iraq, fueling violence that made April the deadliest month for American forces.
posted on April 29, 2004 08:20:24 AM new
Army Finds Troop Supply 'Getting Thin'
As Iraq Insurgency Persists, Army Finds Its Supply of Fresh Troops 'Getting Thin'
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON April 29 — If required to send additional combat forces to Iraq this spring or summer, as seems increasingly likely, the Pentagon and the Army would have several options none good.
It's not yet certain that U.S. commanders in Iraq will ask for more troops beyond the 135,000 there now, but if they do, the Army would have to resort to extreme measures to answer the call.
Of the service's 10 active-duty divisions, all or parts of nine are either already in Iraq to serve 12-month tours of duty, or have just returned home in recent weeks after a year's duty.
If more troops are needed, soldiers may get less time at home before going back, one top general says. The Army might also have to consider sending troops who help defend South Korea against North Korea. National Guard and Reserve combat forces would simply take too long to train.
"It's getting thin," said Pat Towell, a defense expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
It would even be difficult to keep the force at the current level beyond June or so, when 20,000 soldiers whose yearlong Iraq tours were extended by three months are due to go home. The Army has not said which units it would call upon if it needs to replace those soldiers this summer.
The only Army division not now in Iraq or just returned is the 3rd Infantry Division. That unit is not expecting to get the Iraq call again until about January 2005, since it already has done one grueling tour there. Its soldiers spent months training in the Kuwait desert before spearheading the Iraq invasion in March 2003 and capturing Baghdad, along with the 1st Marine Division, in April. The 3rd Infantry returned to its bases in Georgia late last summer and is in the midst of a top-to-bottom reorganization and refit.
Lt. Gen. Richard Cody, the Army deputy chief of staff for operations, said recently that the 3rd Infantry is scheduled to finish reorganizing by midsummer and could deploy after that if necessary.
Cody said if extra troops are needed, the Army would have to abandon its goal of allowing soldiers at least one full year at their home station before returning to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Although Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said the Iraq commitment does not prevent the military from defending U.S. interests elsewhere in the world, a substantial portion of U.S.-based troops who are earmarked as reinforcements for a conflict in Korea or elsewhere in Asia are tied down in Iraq.
Looked at another way, the Army has 33 active-duty brigades within the 10-division structure. Of those brigades, 27 are either in Iraq or Afghanistan or just returned home. Of the six others, three are in the 3rd Infantry, and two are on duty in South Korea.
The only other brigade not otherwise occupied is the 172nd Infantry Brigade, based at Fort Richardson and Fort Wainwright in Alaska. It is "waist deep" into a fundamental reorganization, spokesman Lt. Col. Ben Danner said, and has yet to receive its new Stryker vehicles, which travel on wheels rather than steel tracks and make the Army more agile.
That leaves several other possibilities, none of which the Army thought it would be facing at this point, almost a year since President Bush declared major combat over last May 1.
Among the options:
Send the 3rd Infantry back to Iraq ahead of schedule. Even while the division has been reconfiguring, it has kept one brigade ready for a short-notice deployment in a crisis.
Early deployment of the 1st Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division, which just completed training in its new configuration with Strykers. A brigade spokesman, Capt. Tim Beninato, said the unit has received no deployment order but is ready to go. The Army had planned to dispatch the 1st Brigade next fall, but could accelerate that.
Send more elements of the Fort Drum, N.Y.-based 10th Mountain Division, which has been tapped extensively for Afghanistan and currently has some soldiers in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.
Take some troops from the main Army force permanently stationed in South Korea the 2nd Infantry Division and send them to Iraq. That would be a radical step, because the soldiers in South Korea have long been considered untouchable so long as communist North Korea poses a threat.
Use members of the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force, based on the Japanese island of Okinawa, in Iraq, even though they normally are considered reinforcements for Korea.
posted on April 29, 2004 08:29:05 AM new
Poll: Growing Doubts On Iraq
"Just 32 percent, the lowest number ever, say Iraq was a threat that required immediate military action a year ago."
"Less than half, 47 percent, now say the U.S. did the right thing taking military action in Iraq, the lowest support recorded in CBS News/New York Times Polls since the war began."
posted on April 29, 2004 08:34:46 AM new U.S. Marines announced Thursday an agreement to end a bloody, nearly monthlong siege of Fallujah, saying American forces will pull back and allow an all-Iraqi force commanded by one of Saddam Hussein's generals to take over security.
Just hours after this "agreement", which the Pentagon denies, there were three air strikes into the urban area of Falluja.
posted on April 29, 2004 08:57:23 AM new
Why thank you dave. It's nice to see that you keep such an open mind that you're willing to accept you could be wrong in the conclusions you've drawn.
-----------------------
Maybe this was just a practice run - a test to see if it would work:
Al Qaeda's Poison Gas
The foiled attack in Jordan might have killed thousands.
Thursday, April 29, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
Jordanian authorities say that the death toll from a bomb and poison-gas attack they foiled this month could have reached 80,000. We guess the fact that most major media are barely covering this story means WMD isn't news anymore until there's a body count.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi--the man cited by the Bush Administration as its strongest evidence of prewar links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and the current ringleader of anti-coalition terrorism in Iraq--may be behind the plot, which would be al Qaeda's first ever attempt to use chemical weapons. The targets included the U.S. Embassy in Amman. Yet as of yesterday, most news organizations hadn't probed the story, if at all, beyond the initial wire-service copy.
Perhaps the problem here is that covering this story might mean acknowledging that Tony Blair and George W. Bush have been exactly right to warn of the confluence of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
Jordan's King Abdullah called it a "major, major operation" that would have "decapitated" his government. "Anyone who doubts the terrorists' desire to obtain and use these weapons only needs to look at this example," said Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.
More details of the plot emerged Monday night with the dramatic broadcast on Jordanian television of confessions from the terror cell's leader and associates. The idea apparently was to crash trucks--fitted with special battering rams and filled with some 20 tons of explosives--through the gates of targets that included the U.S.
Embassy, the Jordanian Prime Minister's office and the national intelligence headquarters. The explosions notwithstanding, the real damage was reportedly to come from dispersing a toxic cloud of chemicals, which included nerve and blister agents.
Anonymous U.S. officials have been quoted playing down the WMD wrinkle, suggesting the chemicals may have been meant to merely amplify a conventional explosion.
But then much of our "intelligence" bureaucracy is still wedded to the discredited notion that secular tyrants and fundamentalist terrorists don't cooperate (see Hezbollah). They may also be defensive about their earlier, dismissive assessments of Zarqawi's significance.
Plotter Hussein Sharif Hussein was shown on Jordanian television saying the aim was "carrying out the first suicide attack to be launched by al Qaeda using chemicals." A Jordanian scientist described a toxic cloud that could have spread for a mile or more. So was it really a foiled WMD attack? Here's hoping someone is trying to get to the bottom of this.
posted on April 29, 2004 09:14:16 AM new"Why thank you dave. It's nice to see that you keep such an open mind that you're willing to accept you could be wrong in the conclusions you've drawn."
How did you come to this conclusion, linda? I see Dave made reference to your hysterical fantasies. Is your fantasy quoted above meant to counter that comment?
posted on April 29, 2004 09:22:25 AM new
As I've said before, helen, it appears to me that some of you just won't deal with the realities of what's going on. Much easier to keep those minds closed rather than accept confessions of the terrorists themselves, other countries who agree, statements from a clinton advisor who is well thought of because of her knowledge in this field, etc.
No....winning this election is MUCH more important than being open to the fact there are many out their who wish to continue with their repeat 9-11 antics.
That's one of the reasons why kerry won't be elected.
posted on April 29, 2004 09:31:11 AM newAl Qaeda's Poison Gas
Al Qaeda doesn't need anything from Iraq to make poison gas. You can get everything you need from WalMart.
And there is no evidence that any material came from Iraq.
It is just another "opinion" piece trying to pull Bush's butt out of the fire.
If you think invading Iraq will prevent Al Qaeda from making chemical weapons you're wrong.
However, by pinning over 120,000 troops down in Iraq which could be destroying Al Qaeda which instead still roams in Afghanistan and Pakistan, you're avoiding reality in support of the lying deserter Bush.
posted on April 29, 2004 09:36:30 AM new
Linda, I have no interest in your pre-historic view of the war. My question is why are you atributing ideas to other posters that they never made?
posted on April 29, 2004 09:40:11 AM new
reamond - The link at the bottom of my post is not an opinion. It was the story when CNN first reported it. The terrorists confessed. But I understand that confessions from our known enemies are not to be believed by those who really don't care what they do.....they just want Bush out.
As far as the troops go....you will notice that it was Jordan who foiled this plot. Just as there have been other reports of foiled plots in other countries. We have other countries who are working to route out the terrorists too. And they did it all without the aid of having our troops available.
posted on April 29, 2004 09:44:23 AM new
Linda_K says
I have repeatedly said on these threads that I have no problem with others having opposite opinions from mine.
Then when anyone has anything to say that doesn't agree with what Linda_K says, she twists and turns their words, gets rude or says things like this:
As I've said before, helen, it appears to me that some of you just won't deal with the realities of what's going on. Much easier to keep those minds closed
Linda_K, (and I know you didn't address me) your reality may not be our reality. I've even apologized to you several times for getting you so upset when I've disagreed with your "reality". Why can't you accept that some of us have different views than you do?
posted on April 29, 2004 10:06:33 AM new
kiara - You really have a problem with opposing views it appears. A problem grasping that many don't agree on a lot of the political/national security issues/etc.
I do accept and understand that others see things differently than I do. I have said that many times. That, however, does NOT mean I will not argue why I see things different and offer my supportive proof.
I find it laughable how you call me on my rudeness when you yourself have been rude....and I don't see dave's response to my answer to his question any differently than what you accuse me of.
But since he holds a view that you approve of....his rudeness to me is okay????? It sure appears that way to me, otherwise you might have suggested the same thing to him.
Get used to the fact that others hold different views and that in MY country we're all free to express those views. Maybe it's not that way in Canada????
posted on April 29, 2004 10:24:29 AM new
Linda, I've had the decency on occasion to apologize for my rudeness which is more than you have ever done. I've even tried to be nice to you but you've continued your attacks.
And I don't see where I've addressed Dave or said anything about his comments on this thread and I even read it over carefully once again. Perhaps you have me mixed up with Helen who commented on it?
If I did approve of his rudeness to you how would that be any different of you approving of your son calling me the C word or making up lies that I don't support the troops and that I'm rooting for the insurgents? I did notice that none of you could come up with the threads when I called you on your lies.
Seriously, each time I post on this board you remind me of a wet hen flying out of its nest to attack with an egg lodged up its azz.
posted on April 29, 2004 10:24:34 AM new
helen - why don't you just stick to your own insults and let kiara offer her own responses.
Each side thinks the other side is 'twisting' what is meant or was said.
When I post a response that's how I see what's being said. Others may see it differently....their right...my right to see it my way. Just as I saw your posts about our military's actions violating the Geneva Convention. I judge, by what you post, that by your combined posts you are anti-war, anti-military and anti-American. If you don't see yourself that same way.....that's your right. Just as it is my right to make my own call on how I see your statements. So.....get over it.
But what I'm saying here is that I believe it's quite obvious who doesn't really want to be open to the thought that we're all in this together and we're all going to be the one's attacked if these terrorists are ignored.
Re-elect President Bush!!
posted on April 29, 2004 10:32:51 AM new "helen - why don't you just stick to your own insults and let kiara offer her own responses."
Linda....My question started this dialog. I see that you refuse to answer it or to comment on your practice of misrepresenting my comments and the comments of others.
I would just like to see you play fair because its such a time wasting exercise to add corrections to your misrepresentations.
posted on April 29, 2004 10:33:52 AM new
kiara - LOL now that wasn't rude at all
Get over it....or use your ignore button. I will respond when I want to.
I work at trying to ignore all the personal insults that are directed my way, and feel I do a pretty good job most of the time at sticking to the issue not returning personal insults. But I'm human and sometimes sarcastic/rude/insulting personal comments annoy me just like they do everyone else....and I respond back.
I would prefer to keep discussions to the subject only and not get into personal insults because one does not agree with anothers opinions. But I see giving blanket [broad brush] statements about how the lefties or the righties see things differently [as a whole] as not being personally rude....not directed at a person...but rather their party's position.
posted on April 29, 2004 10:52:58 AM newI would prefer to keep discussions to the subject only.
Good.
From the report I posted:
There are currently about 2,500 armored Humvees in Iraq, according to an Army spokeswoman. The new production pace should put 4,300 such vehicles in the country by September.
I'm wondering if September may be too late, seeing as the casualty rate is already so high and they predict even worse fighting in the next couple of months.
posted on April 29, 2004 11:41:33 AM newSeptember may be too late
It would have been too late, from the beginning, when kerry voted not to fund our troops needs....had the vote gone the way he wanted it to.
[i]While campaigning in Pittsburgh PA, Kerry attacked Republicans for questioning his history of voting against defense funding. This is a legitimate line of questioning which deserves a straight answer. Last year, for instance, Congress voted on an $87 billion package, 75% of which was intended for military expenditures including troop transportation, body armor, armored Humvees and two-week furloughs for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
your reality may not be our reality. I've even apologized to you several times for getting you so upset when I've disagreed with your "reality". Why can't you accept that some of us have different views than you do?
