Yes, you are, and there has been no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida even after September 11th, 2001. If you have evidence of this, present it. And define what evidence is acceptable to you for the opposing point of view.
We’re talking about whether President Bush made public assertions that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved with the attacks of September 11, 2001. He did not, and you have not proven anything to the contrary.
And still have not found any more WMD than Blix's inspectors did, so how the hell can you claim with a straight face that the sanctions were not effective and an occupation was needed?
The occupation forces were free to launch a far more comprehensive investigation than was Hans Blix – regardless of the outcome of either inquiry. The likelihood of the inspections’ success rose when Hussein left power and his security apparatus melted away to fight guerilla war rather than maintain the national infrastructure.
Sanctions deserved a long, critical eye. They were never given that much even after Blix came to the table.
Why? Why does September 11th have such magical qualities that all other considerations can be cast aside? September 11th happened once, and it is not going to happen again. The reason it succeeded was because it was unexpected and unforeseen, and those crucial advantages of surprise are gone forever now. If anybody will try to hijack a plane and there is the least hint about them being terrorists, everyone will assume they will die anyway if they do nothing and tear the hijackers apart limb from limb. September 11th in no way gives carte blanche to invade everyone you don't like when they pose no threat?
Because it proved unequivocally wrong anybody who believed even the most demographically insignificant nations toothless. It set a new example as well as a new precedent; raised the bar, if you will, for security considerations worldwide between larger and smaller powers. Osama bin Laden changed the global calculus of power.
Another terrorist attack could occur at any time. A dirty bombing. A car bombing. Even another attempt to hijack an airplane could always result in a crash-landing in populated areas. These things can still happen whether or not we’re more prepared, Edi. To assume otherwise is eminently foolish.
Regardless of your opinion of whether September 11th opened new doors of policy for the United States, you cannot deny that reference between September 11th and rogue nations is quite valid.
How? By using harsh language and calling George W. Bush an imperialistic lackey of Satan? You made this bullshit claim, now back it up with some hard data. September 11th is a null and void justification here because of what I said above, so any bleatings about it are not acceptable.
By financing terrorist attacks on the civilian populations of the hyperpower. Arguing that September 11th changed the American national security outlook is a “bullshit claim?” How do you explain, then, the move from increasing isolationism to outright preemption just after the attacks?
You made no argument above. You whined about the policy results of September 11th in the United States – that doesn’t change the fact that the original comparison was however quite valid.
He implied a connection, and actively encouraged the misperception that there is a direct connection when this was not the case. You don't see this as a problem? It's just as dishonest as lying directly.
What else was he going to do? September 11th was an important issue to broach in terms of the “Iraqi question” – especially where threat assessment was concerned.
Afghanistan is a red herring here. There was no evidence that Al-Qaida trained in Iraq, which is relevant here, and if Washington didn't finger Iraq as responsible, why did the White House go out of its way to make everyone believe there was a connection? There are two options, none of which are good:
Their intelligence was so faulty they actually believed there was a connection
They intentionally and dishonestly misled the American people to get support for a war they wanted but couldn't justify
Of these two options, the first one is already discredited by testimony from the American intelligence community, so you're left with option #2 and an indefensible argument.
Afghanistan is the poster child for every nation with private cash reserves, a long history of virtual isolation, and the intent to do harm.
The White House went out of their way to tie Iraq with al-Qaeda. Nobody ever fingered Hussein as directly responsible for September 11th. And yes, there’s a difference because the attacks themselves relate directly to the question of rogue states – which Iraq was – in the first place.
The war and comparisons between Iraqi potential and September 11th are two different topics.
Perle's statements were public and are thus a public matter. The White House was smart enough to only engage in innuendo and implications instead of actually making an outright, definite statement that could be verified or discredited with no weasel room after the fact.
Perle’s statements were not those of the administration. Period. Nobody confirmed or authenticated his private arguments.
Anyone who wanted to wage a war he couldn't justify and wasn't too particular about the methods he got it with, yes, and that person would be a dishonest asshole.
… or anybody who wanted to raise the issue of the potential for rogue nations to do damage to the First World beyond what conventional means might seem to permit.
Oh really? Let's have your regurgitation of the party line, then.
September 11th changed the way we look at the Third World. That’s the end of it.
No, the Bush administration was in the process of engaging in a huge guilt-by-association lie to deceive the American people into perceiving a threat where none existed, as Iraq's very evident toothless destitution made all too obvious.
Drawing ties between the two situations was only an intelligent means of covering all bases. Afghanistan was even more destitute than Iraq. Your argument is flawed.
There are already several quotes to that effect appearing in this thread, the statements in Bush's own State of the Union address, and repeated statements in which Iraq and 9-11 are put together in the same sentence. Your repeated denials do not erase this no matter how much you wish it did.
Quotes linking Hussein to September 11th, or Hussein to al-Qaeda? They are two different matters. The one accusation can’t help but run into the other.
Sorry, but a token widows-and-orphans fund for the families of suicide bombers hardly amounts to being an "active party" in terrorism. And you have yet to demonstrate that Americans were deliberately targeted in acts aimed at the Israelis. American civilians who were in a guerilla war zone were there at their own risk.
It doesn’t mean we should let those responsible go free.
You asked for proof that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. I gave it to you.
False Dilemma fallacy. Yet again.
I’ve already made the necessary argument. Blix never had the simultaneous coverage the occupation forces could deliver.
Red Herring fallacy. Nobody was trusting the word of Saddam Hussein at face value.
This has nothing to do with whether or not Hussein could have been perpetuating deception at the time.
Sorry, but political gospel and fact are two different things entirely. The deterrence option was still quite viable and in fact had been for twelve years, and the evident material and financial decrepitude of Iraq made their pursuit of WMD programmes an impossibility.
Hans Blix could never have been as thorough as an occupation force. That’s it.
My position is that they lied. I thought I made that clear enough. The facts of Iraq's military and technological decrepitude combined with no WMDs actually being found bears this out. I'm sorry if that doesn't suit you.
The search for WMD is still underway. You cannot prove to me that neither Blair nor Bush viewed Iraq as a potential danger.
The guilt-by-association lie is still a lie, no matter how desperately you stretch yourself to deny this.
It’s debatable. And it has nothing to do with actual, public connections of Hussein to 9/11. You’re begging the question.
