• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
  • Hello all! We will be performing a website & forum update soon. You may get logged out so now is the time to make sure your email address in your account is correct - go to your account to check it and update it now. Send us a message with your username and/or email address if you need help.

Surge is a Success!!

New posts
I didn't state it as fact, I stated that we have intelligence that says such. Besides, it's not really cozy to bring this up when the two countries are trying not to hate each other. What about Bush linking Hussein to 9/11, since you can't begin to prove that he lied?

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A Republican congressman from North Carolina told CNN on Wednesday that the "evidence is clear" that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
"Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Rep. Robin Hayes said.
Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places."
Hayes, the vice chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism, said legislators have access to evidence others do not.

The president made repeated references in his speech to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, calling Iraq "the latest battlefield" in the war on terrorism.

Responding to critics who don't believe the Iraq campaign is a central front in the war on terror, Bush quoted bin Laden, the al Qaeda terrorist mastermind who called it the "Third World War."
"The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened or defeated. So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction," he said.
"We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand," he said. "We will stay in the fight until the fight is won."
Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, however, rejected the president's attempt to link the Iraq war to 9/11.
"I think the American people are a lot smarter than that," he said. "They've figured this out."
David Gergen, a political analyst who has worked in both Democratic and Republican administrations, said the speech was an attempt to "try to stop the slide" in public support.
"What he's playing for is time, so that there's not enormous pressure put on him to withdraw," Gergen told CNN.
Gergen pointed out that Bush never used the term "insurgent," referring to them instead as "terrorists."
"[September 11] has been all along his trump card," Gergen said. "He played it in the campaign; he's playing it again now."

Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, told CNN's "Larry King Live" that the speech offered a transformation into what he said was a third rationale for the war in Iraq.
"The first, of course, was weapons of mass destruction. The second was democracy, and now, tonight, it's to combat the hotbed of terrorism," he said. "But most Americans are aware that the hotbed of terrorism never existed in Iraq until we got there."

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.
Cheney and his representatives declined to comment on the vice president's statements. But the comments also surprised some in the intelligence community who are already simmering over the way the administration utilized intelligence reports to strengthen the case for the war last winter.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney's "willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding."

In particular, current intelligence officials reiterated yesterday that a reported Prague visit in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent had been discounted by the CIA, which sent former agency Director James R. Woolsey to investigate the claim. Woolsey did not find any evidence to confirm the report, officials said, and President Bush did not include it in the case for war in his State of the Union address last January.

But Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying

: "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

Multiple intelligence officials said that the Prague meeting, purported to be between Atta and senior Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, was dismissed almost immediately after it was reported by Czech officials in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and has since been discredited further.

The CIA reported to Congress last year that it could not substantiate the claim, while American records indicate Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time, the officials said yesterday. Indeed, two intelligence officials said yesterday that Ani himself, now in US custody, has also refuted the report. The Czech government has also distanced itself from its original claim.

A senior defense official with access to high-level intelligence reports expressed confusion yesterday over the vice president's decision to reair charges that have been dropped by almost everyone else. "There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like this," the official said, speaking on condition he not be named.

Democratic senators have charged that the White House is fanning the misperception by mentioning Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks in ways that suggest a link.

Bush administration officials insisted yesterday that they are learning more about various Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda. They said there is evidence suggesting a meeting took place between the head of Iraqi intelligence and Osama bin Laden in Sudan in the mid-1990s; another purported meeting was said to take place in Afghanistan, and during it Iraqi officials offered to provide chemical and biological weapons training, according to officials who have read transcripts of interrogations with Al Qaeda detainees.
 
Last edited:
No, I believe it is ridiculous to believe that you can assess a strategy based on 4 months from initiation. And you say I grandstand?
.

I can do better than that, I decided the ?Surge? was doomed to fail (in permanently stabilizing Iraq and offering a better exit strategy) before they even initiated it -Because the flaws inherent in the plan were self evident even at that time.

The Surge:

-Too little, too late. They needed closer to 100,000 troops and needed them immediately after the invasion.

-Will not stabilize Iraq because Iraq was de-stabilized by Bush?s previous decisions which cannot be undone. De-baathification, ignoring sectarian issues and its consequences post-invasion, etc, etc. The damage has been done. The genie isn?t going back into the bottle because of 20,000 more troops.

-It will put additional pressure (and potential long term damage) on an already overstressed Army.

-Is a political tool to both make it look like the Admin. has ?a plan? ,and to drag out the US involvement in Iraq so that any withdrawl can come under the next administration and hopefully shift blame for the failure in Iraq off of Bush et al.



Ok, there. I showed you how to do it ?now articulate your position on the surge.
 
NEW YORK (CNN) -- A Republican congressman from North Carolina told CNN on Wednesday that the "evidence is clear" that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
"Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Rep. Robin Hayes said.
Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places."
Hayes, the vice chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism, said legislators have access to evidence others do not.

The president made repeated references in his speech to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, calling Iraq "the latest battlefield" in the war on terrorism.

Responding to critics who don't believe the Iraq campaign is a central front in the war on terror, Bush quoted bin Laden, the al Qaeda terrorist mastermind who called it the "Third World War."
"The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened or defeated. So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction," he said.
"We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand," he said. "We will stay in the fight until the fight is won."
Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, however, rejected the president's attempt to link the Iraq war to 9/11.
"I think the American people are a lot smarter than that," he said. "They've figured this out."
David Gergen, a political analyst who has worked in both Democratic and Republican administrations, said the speech was an attempt to "try to stop the slide" in public support.
"What he's playing for is time, so that there's not enormous pressure put on him to withdraw," Gergen told CNN.
Gergen pointed out that Bush never used the term "insurgent," referring to them instead as "terrorists."
"[September 11] has been all along his trump card," Gergen said. "He played it in the campaign; he's playing it again now."

Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, told CNN's "Larry King Live" that the speech offered a transformation into what he said was a third rationale for the war in Iraq.
"The first, of course, was weapons of mass destruction. The second was democracy, and now, tonight, it's to combat the hotbed of terrorism," he said. "But most Americans are aware that the hotbed of terrorism never existed in Iraq until we got there."

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.
Cheney and his representatives declined to comment on the vice president's statements. But the comments also surprised some in the intelligence community who are already simmering over the way the administration utilized intelligence reports to strengthen the case for the war last winter.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney's "willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding."

In particular, current intelligence officials reiterated yesterday that a reported Prague visit in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent had been discounted by the CIA, which sent former agency Director James R. Woolsey to investigate the claim. Woolsey did not find any evidence to confirm the report, officials said, and President Bush did not include it in the case for war in his State of the Union address last January.

But Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying

: "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

Multiple intelligence officials said that the Prague meeting, purported to be between Atta and senior Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, was dismissed almost immediately after it was reported by Czech officials in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and has since been discredited further.

The CIA reported to Congress last year that it could not substantiate the claim, while American records indicate Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time, the officials said yesterday. Indeed, two intelligence officials said yesterday that Ani himself, now in US custody, has also refuted the report. The Czech government has also distanced itself from its original claim.

A senior defense official with access to high-level intelligence reports expressed confusion yesterday over the vice president's decision to reair charges that have been dropped by almost everyone else. "There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like this," the official said, speaking on condition he not be named.

Democratic senators have charged that the White House is fanning the misperception by mentioning Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks in ways that suggest a link.

Bush administration officials insisted yesterday that they are learning more about various Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda. They said there is evidence suggesting a meeting took place between the head of Iraqi intelligence and Osama bin Laden in Sudan in the mid-1990s; another purported meeting was said to take place in Afghanistan, and during it Iraqi officials offered to provide chemical and biological weapons training, according to officials who have read transcripts of interrogations with Al Qaeda detainees.

OK, I take it that no, you can't find where Bush blamed Hussein for 9/11. Further, from your own source:

President Bush did not include it in the case for war in his State of the Union address last January.

But Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying

: "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."


He is right. We don't know. We know Hussein would have jumped at the chance to help, as he was a continual cash source for terrorists. He paid the families of suicide bombers. He gave safe haven to terrorists, but we never said that he was responsible for 9/11. Here's what you said, you've yet to offer it.

"There's proof all over the place about that, ESPECIALLY the part about where Bush lied about WMDs AND Hussein's involvement in 9/11."

And, just for fun, one of my favorite of your quotes:

"Don't give me book suggestions - if they are as insane and skewed as your postings, I'd end up throwing them through a window in disgust."
 
scooterbug44: "Don't give me book suggestions - if they are as insane and skewed as your postings, I'd end up throwing them through a window in disgust."

You wanted evidence to support my claim that 1) Bush's statements about WMDs were false/lies and that 2) he tried to link Hussein to 9/11. I provided it from a variety of sources.

Thanks for the favorite scooterbug quote - helped remind me who I was arguing with!
 
I can do better than that, I decided the ?Surge? was doomed to fail (in permanently stabilizing Iraq and offering a better exit strategy) before they even initiated it -Because the flaws inherent in the plan were self evident even at that time.

That?s why I said you were not open-minded about it. You have given the strategy, since it began implementation, less than 4 months. It?s only been fully implemented for less than a month.

The Surge:

-Too little, too late. They needed closer to 100,000 troops and needed them immediately after the invasion.

Where did you get 100,000? I?m going with 5 brigades because that?s what the man that is fighting this for a living asked for. He knows a lot more than I do about military strategy. He?ll probably ask for more in September if he can show progress. We?ll see then, but given the Democrat?s position to undermine the President rather than take their role as ruling party responsibly, I doubt he?ll get it. In advance, I?ll probably support it. Because I?d choose to defer to his judgment over my own.

-Will not stabilize Iraq because Iraq was de-stabilized by Bush?s previous decisions which cannot be undone. De-baathification, ignoring sectarian issues and its consequences post-invasion, etc, etc. The damage has been done. The genie isn?t going back into the bottle because of 20,000 more troops.

Maybe not. What do you suggest we do?

-It will put additional pressure (and potential long term damage) on an already overstressed Army.

True. What is your alternative? I?m assuming withdrawal, so juxtapose the geopolitical damage, damage to morale, etc. against the potential long term damage from sticking out and stabilizing Iraq. I?m going with what has been recommended. That?s my position. That?s my position because I believe it is absolutely imperative that we stabilize the country and establish some sort of representative government.

-Is a political tool to both make it look like the Admin. has ?a plan? ,and to drag out the US involvement in Iraq so that any withdrawl can come under the next administration and hopefully shift blame for the failure in Iraq off of Bush et al.

I disagree. There?s no way Bush can escape blame no matter who withdraws.
 
You wanted evidence to support my claim that 1) Bush's statements about WMDs were false/lies and that 2) he tried to link Hussein to 9/11. I provided it from a variety of sources.

Thanks for the favorite scooterbug quote - helped remind me who I was arguing with!

You didn't prove a damn thing. Here - again what you said ""There's proof all over the place about that, ESPECIALLY the part about where Bush lied about WMDs AND Hussein's involvement in 9/11."

You proved that he said there were WMDs and where we didn't turn any up. The crux of your argument is intent, and as rancid and I have agreed, there is no way to know, and I'd argue it's far less likely that he lied about it.


The 9/11 article specifically states that Bush did not mention Hussein's link, and it mentions specifically that Cheney said that they don't know.

You can dance as many touchdown dances as you like, but when you look up you'll realize that you ran into the wrong endzone.
 
What is your alternative? I?m assuming withdrawal, so juxtapose the geopolitical damage, damage to morale, etc. against the potential long term damage from sticking out and stabilizing Iraq. I?m going with what has been recommended. That?s my position. That?s my position because I believe it is absolutely imperative that we stabilize the country and establish some sort of representative government.
.

The troop ?surge? is a complete waste of time and resources because the underlying factors that contributed to the de-stabilization aren?t being addressed with that strategy.

I agree that it is imperative to US interests to see a stable Iraq. However, the best window of opportunity for that was about 6 months in 2003.

Given that time travel is not possible, I sticking with my plan from a previous thread:

The US should reinstate the Sunni dominated government of pre-invasion Iraq:

-Not the former top tier officials but all the civil servants who know how to actually run the country.
-Reinstate the Sunni dominated Armed Forces of Iraq.
-We ?pay off? this new government to the tune of 5-12 billion a year so they will act in American interests. This is similar to the existing US relationship with Egypt. They don?t challenge our regional interests and we get to base forces at one or two key bases in country to maintain a regional military presence. The new gov?t officials will be fat and happy with American dollars and will work aggressively to maintain the status quo.
-We turn a blind eye to the ugly reality of how the new Sunni gov?t re-instates order in the country.
-The Kurdish area of northern Iraq should not be placed under this new gov?t.- it should remain an autonomous region within Iraq with an eventual goal of establishing an independent Kurdistan. This will require delicate negotiations with Turkey (who have a substantial Kurdish minority of their own) and so the US should throw support for Turkish entry into the EU as a ?sweetner? for ending Ankara?s opposition to a free Kurdish state on their border.



Ugly of course, but I believe it to be the most ?workable? solution to the extremely deep hole Bush has gotten us into.

Unless you can lay out a scenario under which the ?surge? will get us to a stable Iraq faster and better than my plan (an address the underlying factors that created the instabity in the first place), then I suggest you reconsider your support for it.
 
The troop ?surge? is a complete waste of time and resources because the underlying factors that contributed to the de-stabilization aren?t being addressed with that strategy.

I agree that it is imperative to US interests to see a stable Iraq. However, the best window of opportunity for that was about 6 months in 2003.

Given that time travel is not possible, I sticking with my plan from a previous thread:

The US should reinstate the Sunni dominated government of pre-invasion Iraq:

-Not the former top tier officials but all the civil servants who know how to actually run the country.
-Reinstate the Sunni dominated Armed Forces of Iraq.
-We ?pay off? this new government to the tune of 5-12 billion a year so they will act in American interests. This is similar to the existing US relationship with Egypt. They don?t challenge our regional interests and we get to base forces at one or two key bases in country to maintain a regional military presence. The new gov?t officials will be fat and happy with American dollars and will work aggressively to maintain the status quo.
-We turn a blind eye to the ugly reality of how the new Sunni gov?t re-instates order in the country.
-The Kurdish area of northern Iraq should not be placed under this new gov?t.- it should remain an autonomous region within Iraq with an eventual goal of establishing an independent Kurdistan. This will require delicate negotiations with Turkey (who have a substantial Kurdish minority of their own) and so the US should throw support for Turkish entry into the EU as a ?sweetner? for ending Ankara?s opposition to a free Kurdish state on their border.



Ugly of course, but I believe it to be the most ?workable? solution to the extremely deep hole Bush has gotten us into.

Unless you can lay out a scenario under which the ?surge? will get us to a stable Iraq faster and better than my plan (an address the underlying factors that created the instabity in the first place), then I suggest you reconsider your support for it.

Well, I hate that you missed your call as a diplomat. I?m very good at what I do, so I stick to that. Since I?m not a diplomat, I look at what is presented and make determinations accordingly. I couldn?t live with your plan because I believe it would be wrong to turn a blind eye to whatever reality the Sunni government reinstates. I also don?t believe that splitting up the Kurds would work well either. I?ve been for Turkey?s entry to the EU for a while, and I thought that was our State Dept. position as well. How do you plan to quell sectarian violence, specifically increased Shia violence that will no doubt ensue as Iran sends young men south? Oh, and who is negotiating your plan that I must support? Are you taking the red eye to Baghdad tonight?
 
I think our best bet is to get Iran and the rest of the world supporting our actions, supplement our current forces w/ more foreign soldiers/staff to train the Iraqis, and then turn international efforts & focus towards rebuilding the country and getting our soldiers out of there.

Lack of support from Iran for the insurgency and constantly improving quality of life for the Iraqis will go a lot further towards helping us reach our goal of a stable Iraq. It would also help keep the people we NEED to rebuild Iraq from leaving/entice them to return. Keeping a base there as we do in Eygpt might not be a bad idea, but I think our presence/meddling is viewed as part of the problem and adds feul to the fire rather than helping extinguish it.

Creating a Kurdish state will be like adding another Isreal to the region. Due to past problems & persecution they would be very jittery and we would have to keep them supplied and backed up militarily.
 
The troop ?surge? is a complete waste of time and resources because the underlying factors that contributed to the de-stabilization aren?t being addressed with that strategy.

I agree that it is imperative to US interests to see a stable Iraq. However, the best window of opportunity for that was about 6 months in 2003.

Given that time travel is not possible, I sticking with my plan from a previous thread:

The US should reinstate the Sunni dominated government of pre-invasion Iraq:

-Not the former top tier officials but all the civil servants who know how to actually run the country.
-Reinstate the Sunni dominated Armed Forces of Iraq.
-We ?pay off? this new government to the tune of 5-12 billion a year so they will act in American interests. This is similar to the existing US relationship with Egypt. They don?t challenge our regional interests and we get to base forces at one or two key bases in country to maintain a regional military presence. The new gov?t officials will be fat and happy with American dollars and will work aggressively to maintain the status quo.
-We turn a blind eye to the ugly reality of how the new Sunni gov?t re-instates order in the country.
-The Kurdish area of northern Iraq should not be placed under this new gov?t.- it should remain an autonomous region within Iraq with an eventual goal of establishing an independent Kurdistan. This will require delicate negotiations with Turkey (who have a substantial Kurdish minority of their own) and so the US should throw support for Turkish entry into the EU as a ?sweetner? for ending Ankara?s opposition to a free Kurdish state on their border.



Ugly of course, but I believe it to be the most ?workable? solution to the extremely deep hole Bush has gotten us into.

Unless you can lay out a scenario under which the ?surge? will get us to a stable Iraq faster and better than my plan (an address the underlying factors that created the instabity in the first place), then I suggest you reconsider your support for it.

Timmy,
Notwithstanding trying to reinstate the Sunni governemnt, what does one do about the Shiites? THey are currently extremely drunk with fanaticism, growing in numbers and will probably not be inclined to relinquish their tentative power right now. Curious to hear your thoughts?
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter












                               
Back
Top