No Iraq link to al-Qaida

July 24, 2003 6:26 AM

No Iraq link to al-Qaida "The report of the joint congressional inquiry into the suicide hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001, to be published Thursday, reveals U.S. intelligence had no evidence that the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, or that it had supported al-Qaida, United Press International has learned." [more inside]
posted by kirkaracha (72 comments total)

Another lie in the State of the Union address, unless the Bush Administration is going to claim that just because "United Press International has learned" the report says there was no link between al Qaeda and Iraq doesn't mean that there was no link between al Qaeda and Iraq. Or something.

"The reason this report was delayed for so long -- deliberately opposed at first, then slow-walked after it was created -- is that the administration wanted to get the war in Iraq in and over ... before (it) came out," [Former Democratic Georgia Sen. Max Cleland] said.

"Had this report come out in January like it should have done, we would have known these things before the war in Iraq, which would not have suited the administration."

From the New York Times writeup: "One lengthy section, on the cooperation of foreign governments like Saudi Arabia, was deleted at the insistence of the administration."
posted by kirkaracha at 6:28 AM on July 24, 2003

"One lengthy section, on the cooperation of foreign governments like Saudi Arabia, was deleted at the insistence of the administration."

That section must be pretty nasty. Is it common to tell people the subject of the sections that are blacked-out of a declassified document?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 6:53 AM on July 24, 2003

There is a difference between "Saddam didn't help plan Sept 11" and "Saddam has supported many terrorist groups in the past and there is substantial chance he could support a more varried array of groups in the future."

Remember, this isn't a police action. We aren't just tracking down the individuals responsible for planning 9-11. This is a global war against terrorism and the states that support it. Two very different things.
posted by pjgulliver at 6:59 AM on July 24, 2003

(smacks head) Well, I'll be damned! Colour me soooooo surprised.

/sarcasm
posted by damnitkage at 7:06 AM on July 24, 2003

No Iraqi link to September 11th? Is this news?

I wish people wouldn't use the term "war against terrorism" without putting quotes around it. It's a logically flawed concept and utterly meaningless, apart from being a useful cover for the PNAC.
posted by cbrody at 7:14 AM on July 24, 2003

Remember, this isn't a police action. We aren't just tracking down the individuals responsible for planning 9-11. This is a global war against terrorism and the states that support it. Two very different things.

Then why did we waste our time on Iraq, pjgullible? We haven't even finished with the Taliban yet. We tiptoe around Saudi Arabia. And now something like two-thirds of our forces are tied up in an increasingly hostile country, and we've alienated most of the allies that might have helped us. Way to fight terror!
I'm not saying the Bush administration invaded Iraq for no reason--it just wasn't for any of the reasons they actually gave out.
posted by uosuaq at 7:15 AM on July 24, 2003

There is a difference between "Saddam didn't help plan Sept 11" and "Saddam has supported many terrorist groups in the past and there is substantial chance he could support a more varried array of groups in the future."

Sure, but this isn't an issue of semantics. The issue is that "...the Bush administration ... made links between Saddam's support for bin Laden -- and the attendant possibility that Iraq might supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction -- a major plank of its case for war." This report concludes that those links do not exist, and therefore one of the central justifications for the war was based on a lie.
posted by Dean King at 7:18 AM on July 24, 2003

Remember, this isn't a police action. We aren't just tracking down the individuals responsible for planning 9-11. This is a global war against terrorism and the states that support it. Two very different things.


pjgulliver - but that's the thing. This report isn't saying that Iraq didn't help plan 9/11. This report is saying that there was no link between al-Qaida and Iraq.

I suppose one could argue that Saddam helped support Palestinian terrorist groups, but hell, every Islamic state (and some non-Islamic states) do that.

Also, what uosuaq said.
The President claimed that there were direct links, and now its coming out that he lied about this too? I just hope that this story doesn't get buried.
posted by bshort at 7:21 AM on July 24, 2003

Saddam has supported many terrorist groups in the past and there is substantial chance he could support a more varied array of groups in the future

Could you please provide some names of the "many terrorist groups" that the regime supported? I actually seem to remember that the list starts and ends with the payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. If that is the case, it is not "many" groups (3 at most) and their threat to the US hovers at around "nil".

Still, the point remains: the Bush admin claimed ties with Al-Qaeda. That's bullshit and, what's more incredible, you're actually defending your commander in chief for lying about it. How exactly does that help? How about asking for some accountability instead: where is OBL? what was the Saudi role? did the FBI / CIA fail to perform their duties? etc.
posted by magullo at 7:27 AM on July 24, 2003

Saddam has supported many terrorist groups in the past and there is substantial chance he could support a more varied array of groups in the future

this can also be said about the U.S. should we start attacking ourselves now?
posted by chrisroberts at 7:31 AM on July 24, 2003

No Iraq link to al-Qaida

Yeah, but what about those WM... Er.... I mean, ummmm...

Hey! Lookit those mass graves!
posted by soyjoy at 7:34 AM on July 24, 2003

"This is a global war against terrorism and the states that support it."

Which is why the report supports the view that we shouldn't be wasting our troops lives in Iraq.

Support our troops - Bring them home. Iraqi freedom isn't worth us dying for. Didn't we learn anything from Viet Nam? Let the UN clean up the mess. We need to get the hell out.
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:42 AM on July 24, 2003

uosuaq: way to raise the discourse by notincing "Gulliver" and "gullable" sound similar. I didn't think it was that funny in 5th grade, and its not really that funny now.

I'm tired of constantly restating why it was necessary to invade Iraq. You all have read my arguments before.

And while Bush intimated that there were ties between al-qeuda and Iraq, he also frequently used the term "al-queda type organization" when discussing what Iraq could have done
posted by pjgulliver at 7:52 AM on July 24, 2003

why does UPI hate america so much?
posted by quonsar at 7:59 AM on July 24, 2003

intimated = lied
posted by nofundy at 8:00 AM on July 24, 2003

I'm tired of constantly restating why it was necessary to invade Iraq.

Ah. So that's why they keep coming up with new reasons.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:03 AM on July 24, 2003

he also frequently used the term "al-queda type organization"

fine then. when i speak of bush i'll use terms like "facist, greedy, liar-type president".
posted by quonsar at 8:03 AM on July 24, 2003

".......when discussing what Iraq could have done"

You are refusing to pay attention.

The point is that we now have direct, documented proof that Iraq wasn't doing it, and the administration knew that.

This stuff is just getting started. How many more revelations do you need before you open your mind to the possibility that Bush & Co hid and distorted the facts to promote a war? And more to the point - A war the American people would never have supported had they known the facts.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:05 AM on July 24, 2003

"I'm tired of constantly restating why it was necessary to invade Iraq. You all have read my arguments before."

Perhaps it is time for you to re-read them again.
posted by magullo at 8:06 AM on July 24, 2003

Support our troops - Bring them home

y6^3, could you make a bumper sticker out of that? Seriously. It'd look nice on the back of my car, next to a US flag.
posted by eyeballkid at 8:15 AM on July 24, 2003

pjgulliver:

I'm tired of listening to blanket denials of the administrations wrong doing that doesn't stop me from listening to your arguements.

The President mentions Al Qaeda in a lot of his speeches about Iraq.

< http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/824024.asp?cp1=1>

He is clearly trying to associate the two. Here's an article about Cheney doing the same thing in Britain;

< http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attacks/story/0,1320,665492,00.html>

In fact you can't swing a dead Iraqi around by his leg without hitting an administration official mentioning Iraq and Al Qaeda together. By saying that the administration had other reasons for going to war you complicitly ignore the governments actions and are stating that the means justifies the ends.

The administration can lie, cheat, deceive, and dissemble as long as their hearts in the right place. That is what you are saying.

Do you truely believe that the means justifies the ends?

posted by Wong Fei-hung at 8:16 AM on July 24, 2003

Oops, Ends Justifies the Means
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 8:18 AM on July 24, 2003

The press is demanding that President Roosevelt stop the war because there is no definitive link between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
Republican presidential candidates insist that the administration be more forthcoming with evidence that the two cooperated on the attack on the Pearl Harbor Naval Base, in the Territory of Hawai'i. They downplayed the event, in that "Hawai'i is just some island out there in the Pacific ocean somewhere, and it's not like it's part of the U.S. We shouldn't even be out there when we're still recovering from the great depression. Those Pacific Islanders are all pro-Japanese and anti-American anyway."

In other news, Republicans still plan to get creamed in the next elections.
posted by kablam at 8:22 AM on July 24, 2003

The press is demanding that President Roosevelt stop the war because there is no definitive link between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Good analogy. It fits this situation perfectly. It's chilling how both Germany and Iraq bombed Britain, and almost exactly sixty years apart. When Iraq invaded Israel, Saddam almost seemed like Hitler. He was going to move right on to France and further north if we didn't stop him.

We had to stop Iraq. With that nuclear arsenal, they were set to take over Europe and then America!
posted by eyeballkid at 8:30 AM on July 24, 2003

Support our troops - Bring them home

Now there's a stupid idea. So we should simply pack up and leave Iraq? Should we let the country be taken over by elements who could give safe harbor to terrorists? Didn't 9/11 happen in large part because the Taliban allowed Al-Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a base of operations, and we stood by and did nothing? I'm sorry that the remnants of Sadaam's regime are killing our soldiers, but the "bring them home" mentality is exactly what they want to create here.

By the way Howard Dean fans, what are his plans for Iraq anyway?
posted by Durwood at 8:31 AM on July 24, 2003

Hawai'i is just some island out there in the Pacific ocean somewhere, and it's not like it's part of the U.S.

And your comparison here is that Iraq is a part of the US? I guess this year was one big annexation for you, eh?
posted by thanotopsis at 8:33 AM on July 24, 2003

Support our troops - Bring them home

(Disclaimer: not directed at anyone in this thread, sorry for the tangent)
This was a great sentiment before the war, but now that we've done it, we have to stay in and clean up the mess. That is part of the cost of this war, and the idea that we could go and kick ass (the easy part) and then not reconstitute a civil society (the hard part) is even more stupid than going to war without getting international sanction.

People who are appalled by the fact that we're losing troops in a slow trickle would do well to recognize this as a cost of war, and to remember that next time the president asks us to support an action like this. I'm just fine with people realizing that the war was stupid because they didn't recognize the total cost of it, but if I continue to hear "we won the war now let's get out" I will be absolutely convinced that many of my fellow citizens are morons.
posted by norm at 8:34 AM on July 24, 2003

y6y6y6: "Let the UN clean up the mess. We need to get the hell out."

Um, no thank you. Clean up your own damned mess.

kablam: "The press is demanding that President Roosevelt stop the war because there is no definitive link between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan."

Um, you do know Hitler declared war on the United States, don't you?
posted by GhostintheMachine at 8:35 AM on July 24, 2003

As to why attack Iraq before Saudi Arabia, here's my rationale:

Whether you like it or not, the global economy runs on the availability of cheap and predictable supplies of fossil fuels. And there's not a damn thing that can be done about that in the short term. Fossil fuels don't only supply gasoline to American SUVs. They run generators that provide electricity throughout the developing world, they are the fertilizers that allow India to feed itself, they provide the ability to move people and goods throughout the world and in every nation. If there were not reliable and cheap sources of fossil fuels, Americans would be inconvienced and our economy would suffer. The developing world would starve.

Saudi Arabia is currently the world's "Swing" oil producer. That means they are the only country with excess production capacity. They can produce more or less oil as necessary to control the price of oil. Currently, whatever they may be guilty of, the Saudi's are a conservative force on world oil prices, keeping them relatively low and relatively stable. If we had gone to war with Saudi Arabia while Iraq was still under sanctions and its production capacity unavailble (Iraq is home to the 2nd largest proven reserves in the world) Saudi oil would have immediately gone offline, and the above nightmare scenarios would have come true.

There is simply no way to deal harshly with Saudi Arabia while it is the world's only swing oil producer.

Now, I believe we should be investing in an energy "Manhattan Project" to vastly decrease the price and increase the availability of more beneign forms of energy. But that doesn't mean we are not stuck dealing with fossil fuels for a long time to come, which means that, whether you like it or not, the Middle East matters.
posted by pjgulliver at 8:38 AM on July 24, 2003

I'm sorry, I mistyped part of my post above. It should've read:

Yeah, but what about those WM... Er.... I mean, ummmm...

Hey! Lookit those mass graves! my latest bogus WWII analogy!
posted by soyjoy at 8:39 AM on July 24, 2003

So we should simply pack up and leave Iraq?

Hell, we've done it before, right? This is what The War in Iraq Part 1 was all about. This is why we're finding so many mass graves (Saddam made sure to show the people that supported the US how he felt about losing the conflict).

I'm not suggesting we actually pack up and leave, just more that a historical perspective of why all of this came about is prehaps warranted.

For example, had we not gone there in the first place, we wouldn't be in any of this mess.

Didn't 9/11 happen in large part because the Taliban allowed Al-Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a base of operations

No, 9/11 happened because they hated us. They would have found refuge in any number of countries, friendly or unfriendly.
posted by thanotopsis at 8:41 AM on July 24, 2003

And how does the above answer the question of the ends justifying the means?
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 8:43 AM on July 24, 2003

Two questions:

1) Why is WWII such a false analogy? More American's died on 9-11 than in Pearl Harbor, and 9-11 was an attack on two separate US states, rather than a US territory.

2) Thanotopsis. First, we didn't pack up and leave Iraq in 1991. We fully complied with our UN mandate, which was for the liberation of Kuwait, not the replacement of the Hussein regime. Now, I think the US needs to act above and beyond the mandates of the UN from time to time, so I certainly believe we should have marched on Baghdad in 1991. But I would imagine you hold the UN in fairly high regard. So why the double standard between then and now?
posted by pjgulliver at 8:51 AM on July 24, 2003

1) Why is WWII such a false analogy? More American's died on 9-11 than in Pearl Harbor, and 9-11 was an attack on two separate US states, rather than a US territory.

The players were all states and, IMHO, the US chose its enemies well. The "War on Terror" (or "Total War," as its godfather Richard Perle prefers to call it)--if we even are to believe that it was begun earnestly and honestly--is about non-state entities.

In your first comment above, you talk about how this is not the prosecution of a crime, but a new kind of war. You are right, but I wish you weren't. What if 9/11 was prosecuted like a crime? We would still aim to dismantle al Qaeda, and the lack of jingoism would allow to ask the same kinds of questions that help society to prevent other crimes: mainly, "what are the underlying factors?".

pjgulliver, dare I say that you are the most reasonable conservative-type on MeFi, and you have said many times that you think W is a scoundrel/goof. So to what is your alliance stronger, conservative principles or a war that you admit is at least in part a naked resource grab?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 9:01 AM on July 24, 2003

Japan is a nation, which could be attacked. Terrorism is an idea, and cannot.

The attack on Pearl Harbor signalled the beginning of a war and was clear evidence of Japan's intent to invade. Al Qaeda... well... the idea that a hundred zealots hiding in Central Asian caves were going to somehow pose a military threat to the U.S. is ludicrous in the extreme. The attack began and ended with the plane crashes.
posted by Mars Saxman at 9:04 AM on July 24, 2003

I'm tired of constantly restating why it was necessary to invade Iraq. You all have read my arguments before.

And they were weak then, and they're weaker now.

kablam: The press is demanding that President Roosevelt stop the war because there is no definitive link between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Except for that pesky little Three Powers Pact signed in Berlin on September 27, 1940. Publicly. With much media fanfare.

"No link." You dingbat. Read some history before you embarrass yourself with completely, utterly, hideously inappropriate analogies again.
posted by Cerebus at 9:04 AM on July 24, 2003

1) Why is WWII such a false analogy? More American's died on 9-11 than in Pearl Harbor, and 9-11 was an attack on two separate US states, rather than a US territory.

And what did Iraq have to do with 9-11?

There are many many differences, but here are a few off the top of my head.

1. The Axis consisted of 3 countries that formed a significant fraction of the world military power. Additionally, their economic power was significant.

2. Saddam != Hitler.
To say otherwise is to wildly misunderstand both the situation in WWII and GWII.

3. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. When did Iraq attack the US?

4. The Axis controlled a significant portion of both Asia and Europe and posed a direct threat to both the US and to the Allies. Note that Iraq was not a threat to anyone. Except, maybe Israel.

And really, if Iraq ever attacked Israel, they would nuke Baghdad in a heartbeat.

5. etc.
.
.
.

By your justification, we should declare wars on cars, because they kill something like 40,000 a year. That's like 10 Pearl Harbors!
posted by bshort at 9:11 AM on July 24, 2003

"Clean up your own damned mess."

If I thought we were capable of such a thing, I would agree with you.

But while we did a good job "cleaning up" Germany and Japan after WWII I think the current administration simply lacks the ability to bring stability and democracy to Iraq or Afghanistan. I base this on: 1) Our total failure to bring stability to Afghanistan, and 2) our inability to win hearts and minds in Iraq.

To be blunt: We can win a war anywhere, but we don't demonstrate the skills to clean up afterwards.

If we decide to stay until the job is done we'll be there forever. Just like Viet Nam. We need to turn this over to the Europeans and the UN. All we're doing there now is creating more bad will in the region. I realize we want to look like the good guys by leaving a stable democracy, but that isn't going to happen unless we get help (lots of help), and we get out troops out. As long as we're seen as an invading army the Iraqis will be too busy hating us and blaming us. And until that ends they'll never move on and rebuild.

I'm not saying we drop everything and run away. I'm saying we need to declare the war over, get the right people involved (like people with some diplomacy skills, or people with some understanding of Iraqi culture), and get our troops out.

We look really stupid at this point, and it's time to do the right thing.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:13 AM on July 24, 2003

Well, I don't view the war as a resource grab. I view it as a way to make resources available. Its not a grab because the Iraqi oil isn't now owned by US companies. That's been clear all along. What was needed (and was only part of the rationale for the war in my opinion) was a way to get Iraqi oil flowing back onto international markets, but outside of the control of Saddam. Oil for Food was a joke. The regime had to be removed.

I don't consider myself a conservative at all. I do strongly believe America is at war with an ideology, and, in a way, with a region that preaches violent anti-Americansim. The root causes in my opinion are the complete failure of Arab/Islamic economic development over the past fifty years and the propensity of that region to blame its troubles on the west, on America in particular, an argument that has incited more and more spectacular violence over the years. I don't like everything the Bush administration is doing with its foreign policy. I wish in many ways both the wider war and the war in Iraq were handled differently. But I do think that both wars had (have) to be prosecuted. Which makes me a reluctant supporter of some of this administration's policies.
posted by pjgulliver at 9:15 AM on July 24, 2003

PJGulliver

1) Pearl Harbor isn't such a bad analogy except that for the shoe to fit we would have had to attack the party responsible, Japan, and some other country that contains people who cheered when the bombs fell on the harbor but who otherwise had no hand in the dropping of said bombs(allied with Japan), and wasn't attacking anyone else, or doing anything which would warrent the immediate invasion/subjugation of their country.

2) The difference between then and now is that at some point Iraq surrendered and the U.S. didn't make the removal of S.H. mandatory during the peace negiotiations. You can't invade a country 12 years later and say, peace netiotiations be damned, you gotta go, unless you've got some real, new, tangible justifications for doing so.

3) Tangible justifications is what this thread was about and how this administration invented theirs and how you still won't answer the question of the ends justifying the means.
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 9:18 AM on July 24, 2003

I've been there with the soldiers
Who've gone away to war
And you can bet that they remember
Just what they're fighting for

Even if that memory is false...
posted by soyjoy at 9:21 AM on July 24, 2003

Why is WWII such a false analogy? More American's died on 9-11 than in Pearl Harbor, and 9-11 was an attack on two separate US states, rather than a US territory.

As has been pointed out, Japan=Country, Terrorism=Idea. In addition, Target=Military vs. Target=Civilian. And further, Reason They Attack(j)=Japanese Imperialism vs. Reason They Attack(a'q)=Western Imperialism.

How does Iraq figure into any of this? I'm really glad to read this piece, because it's one more phony reason shot down. So far we got:

1. Weapons of Mass Destruction - None found.
2. Buying nuclear material to attack us - Nope, sorry.
3. Link to 9/11 - Try again.

What were the other reasons? Oh yeah:
4. Saddam is a bad man.
5. Saddam killed lots of his people.

Which reminds me of a certain African dictator that the U.S. is, unsurprisingly, not trying to oust. Way-to-go, USA.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:35 AM on July 24, 2003

Yes, those damn arabs and their Anti-Americanism, here in the US, we'd never fall for something that silly. It's not like we'd blame arabs that have absolutely no link to Al-Queda for 9/11. It's not like 60% of americans believe Saddam is responsible for 9/11. Also, we'd never blame them for our economic troubles either -- that'd be silly. The economic troubles are due to the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq.
posted by nads at 9:35 AM on July 24, 2003

Bush's mistake was not phrasing this way: "We've learned from (the British/ the Smoking Man/ a little bird) that Iraq has connections to al Qaeda." Then, when the connection turns out to be bollocks, he could just blame faulty British/ Smoking Man/ little bird intelligence!

Magic!
posted by Ty Webb at 9:40 AM on July 24, 2003

pjgulliver, here is my WWII analogy:

1939 - Germany launches a series of attacks to establish its hegemony across the world

2003 - The US does exactly the same.

You're right - it's the same thing. Now take your place back in the harem or you will not be getting your oil.

---------------------

"Its not a grab because the Iraqi oil isn't now owned by US companies"

This is surely a joke (did't Bush mention something about not honoring existign oil contracts with France and Russia without consulting the Iraqis?). Another good joke is the fact that your analysis on the anti-Americanism found in the Middle East does not even mention Israel, or the Cold War, or the lack of US initiatives to promote democracy in the region while it goes to extreme pains to make sure that the oil flow, even at the price of not following 9-11 leads.
posted by magullo at 9:43 AM on July 24, 2003

So when's Bush going to be impeached then?
posted by Blue Stone at 10:16 AM on July 24, 2003

What was needed (and was only part of the rationale for the war in my opinion) was a way to get Iraqi oil flowing back onto international markets, but outside of the control of Saddam. Oil for Food was a joke. The regime had to be removed.


So are you saying that oil was the justification for the war after all?
posted by bshort at 10:51 AM on July 24, 2003

A justification. A minor one. An explanatory reason as to why Iraq and not Saudi Arabia.

And what's wrong with a vital international interest like the free flow of oil (NOT the American control by American companies) being a rationale for war?
posted by pjgulliver at 11:02 AM on July 24, 2003

re the hearts and minds of the iraqi's comment, there is a very good reason.

America can indeed go in and win any war, but to do this it throws around a very great deal of muscle and flattens everything in sight. Watching your city getting flattened doesn't make you think "Wow, these guys are the good guys."

On the flip side, the British have a better (although not perfect) grasp of their areas. This is quite possibly because the British army tends to do things in a much more controlled manner, so the intended targets get taken down but the civilians stay (relatively) intact.

As for should the US and UK have gone in? Not a chance in hell. Is there a link to terror? No more than in a thousand other countries that aren't being targeted. Should the US get the hell out? Possibly. While I believe that you guys should be made to clear up your own mess, I really don't think that you have a chance of managing it. While the people still see you as conquerers rather than liberators you will get no respect from them. The best thing that could be done is the complete removal of all American servicemen from the area and their rapid replacement with UN troops to try and sort things out.

While we talk about 9/11 - I understand that the main reason for the attacks was to try and stop America from being the world's policemen - to try and stop them from meddling in things that were nothing to do with them. And you know what? 9/11 was more successful than you can imagine. America's instant response is to try and take over the middle east. What signals do you think that sends to every young arab who wants a flag to stand behind?

Give it a couple of years and you'll realise just how much of a problem you have caused for yourselves and our sorry ass country as well.

Fuck, I'm depressed now.
posted by twine42 at 11:14 AM on July 24, 2003

GhostintheMachine: Hitler declared war on Dec 11. The US declared war against all of the Axis powers on Dec 8. So, technically, the US started a war with Germany, though Germany had not attacked the US.
posted by kablam at 11:35 AM on July 24, 2003

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

DATED DECEMBER 11, 1941, REQUESTING THE CONGRESS

TO RECOGNIZE A STATE OF WAR BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES AND GERMANY, AND BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES AND ITALY

that's from your link kablam.... on decemeber 8th, the US declared war on Japan.
posted by Stynxno at 11:42 AM on July 24, 2003

OK pjgulliver, I'll bite.

Your explanation of the invasion of Iraq being all about securing the planet's second-largest proven reserves before we try and do something about the nation with the largest proven reserves makes a lot of sense, and mirrors other things I have read. Though I'd caution you that this indeed makes the invasion all about oil.

More than that, though, this all goes back to: It's the economy, stupid.

But if in fact this was a major rationale behind our invasion of Iraq - and I think it probably was - where the administration has gone afoul is where it tries to put forth other reasons that may or may not have been grounded in reality, the implied al Qaeda-Iraq link being a big one. I've said it all along: There was a case to be made for this war, but it wasn't the case the administration made. Instead of leveling with the American public, they instead went for the emotional gut-punches that would move public opinion solidly behind the conflict, because very few would have supported a war that was all about securing a reliable source of petroleum so that we can clean house in the Middle East with relative impunity.

Valid though the war may ultimately have been, the public rationale is falling away like the house of cards it was. Live by the sword, die by it. Just a damned shame so many American soldiers have to keep dying, as well.
posted by kgasmart at 11:43 AM on July 24, 2003

Kablam: another thing from your link - from the senate readings where the President asked Congress to declare war on Germany

"On the morning of December 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. "

But besides the little disagreement about dates, that really is a great link. Thanks.
posted by Stynxno at 11:48 AM on July 24, 2003

kablam: Don't read your own links too carefully, do you? I guess I shouldn't have expected you to actually check your facts before using them in your State of the Union address posts.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:02 PM on July 24, 2003

And what's wrong with a vital international interest like the free flow of oil (NOT the American control by American companies) being a rationale for war?

Because that's not what the president told us the war was about.

Besides, the oil for food program was a UN program, not an Iraqi program. I don't think the Iraqis had a problem selling their oil to anyone that would buy it.
So can we all just admit that the President lied and keeps on lying?

Also, wanting oil is not a valid reason for invading starting a war. This puts us in violation of international law and basically just makes the country look like a bunch of petty assholes who would rather take something than buy it.
posted by bshort at 1:01 PM on July 24, 2003

1. Weapons of Mass Destruction - None found.
2. Buying nuclear material to attack us - Nope, sorry.
3. Link to 9/11 - Try again.

4. ????
5. Profit!
posted by soyjoy at 1:58 PM on July 24, 2003

Congressional Reports: Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001

(Via the Agonist.)
posted by homunculus at 2:10 PM on July 24, 2003

It's interesting to reread Coleen Rowley's famous memo to Mueller in light of the report. I still think that if her efforts hadn't been hampered by her superior, she may well have have discovered what Moussaoui knew. (Dick Morris was on the Daily Show last night and conveniently forgot about this while trying to blame Clinton for the FBI's performance.)
posted by homunculus at 2:17 PM on July 24, 2003

1. Weapons of Mass Destruction - None found.
2. Buying nuclear material to attack us - Nope, sorry.
3. Link to 9/11 - Try again.
4. ????
5. Profit!

Soyjoy: Where did you find that? Must be an internal memo leaked from Haliburton.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 2:57 PM on July 24, 2003

Here's an interesting comment on all of this:

This UPI story suggesting that the Congressional Report on 9/11 would discredit the notion of a Saddam-OBL link has made the rounds in Blogovia, but searching through the actual report (with the find function, I haven't read the whole thing) I can't find anything that says anything like that. So what is the UPI talking about? From this weblog post.
posted by cell divide at 3:05 PM on July 24, 2003

what's more incredible, you're actually defending your commander in chief for lying about it.

Just FYI...the President is not your Commander in Chief unless you're in the military. He's the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, not the American people.
posted by fatbobsmith at 5:51 PM on July 24, 2003

Spanked again, eh kablam? You still haven't acknowledged that there was an official, formal link-- including a mutual defense agreement-- between Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.

To cite the Three Powers Pact: ARTICLE THREE

Germany, Italy and Japan agree to co-operate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict.

But far be it from me to let facts spoil your little fantasy. Carry on.
posted by Cerebus at 6:00 PM on July 24, 2003

GhostintheMachine: Naw, it just shows how little regard I have for you.

Oh, for anyone interested: Osama bin Laden declaring war against the United States.
posted by kablam at 7:05 PM on July 24, 2003

"it just shows how little regard I have for you."

Yes, it's apparent you have little regard for any reasoned, intelligent argument backed by facts.

And resorting to a personal attack now that it's clear there's no basis for your argument... that's awfully familiar, too.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 4:32 AM on July 25, 2003

I'm tired of constantly restating why it was necessary to invade Iraq. You all have read my arguments before.

I don't even have a fucking clue who you are!
posted by walrus at 6:45 AM on July 25, 2003

Kablam: "Oh, for anyone interested: I'm going to ignore all the holes shot in my previous, bogus claims and attempt to change the subject."

Nice try, anyway, but even your linked article fails to quote Bin Laden - who, once again, is a homocidal wacko, not a sovereign state - actually declaring war.

Next.
posted by soyjoy at 8:26 AM on July 25, 2003

White House, CIA Kept Key Portions of Report Classified
posted by homunculus at 12:31 PM on July 25, 2003

Sen. Max Cleland is going to be interviewed about the 9/11 report tonight on NOW.
posted by homunculus at 4:23 PM on July 25, 2003

Link as of 7:17 CST.

WASHINGTON, July 23 (UPI) -- On July 23 2003, United Press International published an article about materials believed to be in a report to be released July 24 regarding investigations into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. UPI cannot further stand by this story as originally filed and will have a corrected version soon.

Hmmm....
posted by skallas at 5:18 PM on July 25, 2003

Okay, the new Bush-friendly version is now up. Let's not kid ourselves about the "free press" anymore. I wonder who called who.
posted by skallas at 5:44 PM on July 25, 2003

Classified Section Of Sept. 11 Report Faults Saudi Rulers
posted by homunculus at 7:30 PM on July 25, 2003

"Saddam Hussein never got it. He didn't realize that personal schmoozing in Washington and spreading lots of money around to former and soon-to-be U.S. government officials were the keys to realizing his geopolitical ambitions. He, in short, never learned the Saudi lesson."
posted by homunculus at 12:57 PM on July 26, 2003