ncrdbly thr s mr vdnc fr cnnctn thn thr s fr n cnnctn. nd rq hs bcm sch rrsstbl flyppr fr trrrsts tht ts strtgc mprtnc n th grtr wr cnnt b dnd, xcpt fr ths n dnl.
[Editor: ignore=off]Well lets see, Public Law 107-243-Oct. 16, 2002, derived from H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45 and S.J. Res. 46) had Sept. 11 connections with Iraq and al Qaida the same 5 times the President referenced on Tuesday night. S.J. Res. 45 was sonsored by then Sen. Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Reps Tim Roemer and Jane Harman both co-sponsored the House version H.J. Res. 114. Senator's Kerry, Edwards, Bayh, Biden, Boxer, Feinstein, Dodd, HRC, and McCain all voted for this Joint Resolution. Votes matter, these elected representatives all cast their votes based on their conscience. In paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 20, and 21 all connect 9/11 to Iraq. The President signed this into law on October 16, 2002.
Here are the links, one from C-span, the other from the WH. Compare the two if you like.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Reality is reality.
Posted by peter at June 30, 2005 06:33 AMIncredibly there is more evidence for a connection than there is for no connection.
And there is more evidence that you are an ignoramus than there is not.
If there were a hypothetical pile of evidence that Hussein had no connection to 9/11 or terrorism I'd like for you to try and describe what that evidence could possibly be.
Posted by muckcat at June 30, 2005 06:36 AMHey Peter.
Got any photos of Saddam Hussein shaking hands with international terrorists?
Posted by ??? at June 30, 2005 06:56 AMPeter,
Perhaps you take us for dunces, but please....
The only sentence in the link that attempts to "link" Al Qaeda to Iraq is this one:
"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq".
Guess what, if Al Qaeda "being in" a country is sufficient evidence for going to war with that country, Iraq was not even close to the top of the list of countries that had Al Qaeda "in" it. This is the kind of poppycock that even kindergarteners would not be taught. By your logic, the United States had Al Qaeda "in it" and must have therefore been a terrorist supporter! This is absurd nonsense that even a child would be embarrassed to put out.
The question is not whether a country had Al Qaeda "in it" - it is whether that country actively supported Al Qaeda and the 9/11 Commission made it quite clear that Saddam Hussein was not actively supporting Al Qaeda. But again, even if you want to stick with this mythical claim that there were "links" between Saddam and Al Qaeda, so were there more than just "links" between many other countries and Al Qaeda. Saddam's threat at that time was nowhere near the top of the list compared to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, all of which actually played a direct role in the 9/11 attacks through their sponsorship of terrorists in Al Qaeda. Flightsuit Boy and his supporters declared archenemies like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia our "allies" so we could move on to made up threats like Iraq. Bush proved that his policy of "pre-emption" was a spectacular failure because it only works against countries tht didn't pose any real threat to the US in the first place. In the meantime, those who were supporting terrorists who actually posed a threat to the US went scot free. The only exception was Afghanistan but even there, after the initial assault, resources were diverted away from it such that Afghanistan is heading towards become a "failed state" yet again.
What Bush has accomplished is turned a country which did not actively support Al Qaeda into one that is one of the biggest supporters, training/breeding ground for Al Qaeda - even more than Afghanistan was. So, mission accomplished, clearly.
You and other war apologists (like Bendito) can try to conflate the fact that Iraq was not much of a threat at all BEFORE the invasion, to the fact that it has become a threat AFTER the invasion because of Bush's incompetence, but that's not going to fool people who care to think for themselves. (I've written a number of posts by now that it is because of the threat that Iraq has *become* thanks to Bush that I can't see myself easily advocating a pullout now.)
As for Congressmen/Senators voting on the resolution, war apologists like to forget that they were fed fake "intelligence" by an administration that deliberately cooked it. So, you can accuse them of being insufficiently skeptical (and they obviously were and I certainly don't approve that) - but I know you won't because you would accuse those who voted against it as simply being "unserious" about security or "politicizing" the war. It is not easy to find honest war supporters in the US.
Posted by eriposte at June 30, 2005 07:06 AMI love the periodic trotting out of the Iraq War Resolution by Bush apologists to say 'look your guys supported this'.
That resolution was the hottest political potato in Washington offered up right before an election. And now everyone shouts about how we need to look forward and show a united front. But to argue that Democrats supported the IWR to show a united front as a means of forcing Saddam Hussein to comply fall on deaf ears. It such a crook of shit. Damned if you do damned if you don't.
Posted by muckcat at June 30, 2005 07:24 AMeriposte, How true your last sentence is. Funny thing, Tim Roemer signing off on this, then as a member of the 9/11 Comm. saying something so different. I wouldn't excuse their lack of credible info so easily. A vote is a vote, and voting matters. I'll grant you the either/or of your last paragraph.
I think I said connections, little different from links. I would never take any of you for a dunce.
Posted by peter at June 30, 2005 08:20 AMSince, by reading from every possible source there is, most everyone else the world around has been forced to learn the hard way how things were cooked (fixed?) to make the invasion of Iraq a bit more palatable, in order to conclude that “there is more evidence for a connection than there is for no connection” I’ve had no other option but to come to this conclusion: To learn all there’s to know about Iraq's invasion and the true reasons behind this bloody fiasco Bendito must be reading a newer version of My Pet Goat.
Paz
However, when I clicked through to Tom Maguire's post (at JustOneMinute) I actually didn't see any specific evidence of any Democrat or prominent lefty denying Saddam's links to terrorism.
Well, I can't help with John Cole's phrasing - the point I was addressing is the widely offered contention that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.
Let's see - per this CNN exit poll from last November, 55% of respondents say yhe war in Iraq is part of the war on terror; 42% do not.
Unsurprisingly, we see a partisan split - the 55% who see a connection went for Bush, 81 to 18; the 42% who do not see a connection went for Kerry, 11 to 88.
Or, just last week, the NY Times said this (and I linked to it):
The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of Washington, but there was no Iraq-Qaeda axis, no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on the United States.
Sorry for the confusion - most of my readers are reasonably familiar with the lefty talking points.
Posted by Tom Maguire at June 30, 2005 12:48 PMOK, let's see if I understand these righty talking points correctly:
(1) Saddam had some connection to terrorism/terrorists.
(2) Therefore Iraq is part of the WOT.
(3) Therefore the only solution is to invade and occupy the country.
I didn't follow this illogic 2 years ago, and it makes even less sense in retrospect. The missing piece is the building of a convincing factual case that military invasion and occupation provide the best solution to the problem. Of course, as the DSMs prove, if you start with (3) and work backwards, it becomes obvious.
That some Democrats or public polls support some phraseology is beside the point. As a noble man recently said (to an ignoble one):
Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
I'm glad to see we are making progress - (3) does not follow from (1) and (2), of course, as you note, but that is not relevant to the point I was making (although I evidently made it in a way that was too elusive for Steve).
My point is that many Dems are denying points (1) and (2) by falling out of bed every time Bush mentions Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence. Even though Saddam had no operational involvement with the 9/11 attack, and even though his links with Al Qaeda were tenuous at best, he was a major factor in the environment that led to Islamic terrorists.
Or put differently, there were some who argued that the best way for America to create the conditions for peace with Islamic terrorists would be for the US to urge a settlement of the West Bank problem. Using Dem logic, we might say, "Why do that - neither Palestinians nor Israelis flew aircraft into the Twin Towers."
Well. Steve told us in his post that:
when I clicked through to Tom Maguire's post (at JustOneMinute) I actually didn't see any specific evidence of any Democrat or prominent lefty denying Saddam's links to terrorism.
Maybe he tuned Kerry out during the campaign (I tried to) - here was Tall John from Sept 2004:
That means that we must have a great and honest debate on Iraq.
(APPLAUSE)
The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy.
(APPLAUSE)
Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and from our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists.
One might argue (I do!) that Kerry was saying that the war in Iraq and the war on terror were separate. I disagree with that assessment for the reasons noted, as did Ken Pollack (although per that exit poll, most Dems do not).
Now, concentrate; this next logical step stumps some people - since (3) does not follow from (1) and (2), we can agree that the war on Iraq was a part of the war on terror but disagree on whether it was a sensible part.
Posted by Tom Maguire at June 30, 2005 08:26 PMTom,
First, the post was mine (eriposte) not Steve's. Common mistake but in the future please make a note of the author.
Thanks for taking the time to post your comments. I certainly appreciate an honest dialogue.
First of all, using that exit poll and its wording is not the most effective way to make your point - and here's why. If you ask me today, has Iraq become part of the war on terrorism, I would agree that it has, simply because Bush created a vast terrorist breeding/training ground in a country which barely registered on the terrorist priority list prior to the war.
But a lot of us who were opposed to the invasion, have a very different perception in mind when asked about the talking point from Bush and company about Iraq being "part of the war on terror". If a random person asked me, my thought often goes to refuting the contention that it was a major part of the war on terrorism prior to the invasion. This has become unconscious at times simply because I've been tired of hearing Republicans provide that as a justification *for initially going to war with Iraq* -- because it was never a good enough justification to go to war in Iraq. It may have become a justification to stay there now, but that is because the invasion resulted in the situation we are in today.
So, the fact that a significant number of people said it is "not" part of the war on terror could easily be attributed to the what people unconsciously think the question is referring to. It may be hard for you to understand, but words can come across in different ways to different people. You may think I'm simply being defensive here - and nothing I say may convince you, but I can assure you that among many of those on the Left that I know, we are still faced with people who constantly conflate the past and the present to make it appear that what may be true today, was somehow true prior to the invasion. That conflation is then offered as a justification for the invasion. It is often in response to this seedy practice that many lefties (including a lot of people I know personally) keep saying Iraq (was) not part of the war on terror. I've heard many Democrats speak about Iraq and the context is likewise similar.
So the Kerry quote you provide:
"The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy"
...is exactly correct because it *was* a profound diversion at the time we went into invade Iraq. It is very important that Kerry pointed it out because it was the worst thing Bush could have done and botched the war on terrorism in the process.
Again, you are seeing the same thought process that I described above. It was a diversion, it was not the right thing - when it happened. That has to be said again and again until Bush is held accountable, because it is important for people to know that he is not competent when it comes to national security.
Now, to the present. No one disagrees that Iraq has become a key part of the terrorism problem today. You and I may disagree on the reasons, but I think the facts are clear why Iraq has turned into what it has. Yes, some Dems are advocating a phased pullout and others are not. But even some Reps are advocating a phased pullout. What angers many on the left is the fact that those who got it spectacularly wrong on literally every single claim and promise of theirs for the past 3 years are lecturing those who got it almost 100% right about how a "pullout" demosntrates lack of seriousness about the "war on terrorism". Any claim that those advocating a pullout are not serious about terrorism is absolute nonsense, and I say that as a person who is not advocating pullout (not yet anyway). There is absolutely no guarantee that a non-pullout will somehow be better for the war on terrorism overall than a pullout. A pullout may harm Iraqis a lot, but a non-pullout is not helping them tremendously either. What's more important is whether a pullout or non-pullout will harm American national security. I've not heard anything convincing one way or the other here. And I certainly am very unlikely to rely on any of the claims of the neocons and their supporters about what pullout may cause, because they have minus 100 credibility on national security. The neocons have been a bunch of the worst people America could have hoped for to deal with the aftermath of 9/11. I'm sure you disagree but that's fact as far as I'm concerned. So, the only people I'm going to trust the most are those who were almost 100% right all these years. I also put some faith in independent, non-partisan groups and I plan to spend more time hearing what they have to say in the coming months.
But, if you understand the context I have provided above, and you think it is reasonable, I would urge you to give some thought to that perspective when you next critique the Left's position on national security. You may even find that people on the Left become more receptive to your arguments (if that's important to you).
Posted by eriposte at June 30, 2005 09:22 PMTom,
Another point. Kerry never denied Saddam's links to terrorism. He said that it was more than questionable that Saddam, whatever his links to terrorism were, was such a high priority over and above bin Laden and Al Qaeda. So, your claim that I missed Kerry's statement is off the mark because no, I did not ignore Kerry's claims (as I have also discussed in my comment above).
Posted by eriposte at June 30, 2005 09:31 PM