“Okay I am just wondering, what do you mean by ability to attack the US was in fact quite correct?”

Perhaps when referring to “ability to attack the US” it’s a reference to Saddam’s WMD capability (albeit not in the form of stockpiles, but in what the Duelfer Report and pre-Bush Admin reports describe as “Breakout capabilities”) coupled with the now confirmed relationship between Saddam’s regime and Al Queda groups (later those groups would unite under the banner of Al Queda in Iraq as well as two-three others that keep changing their names but keep the same leaders and members). WMD+Al
Queda…it’s described as a “Nexus of evil” scenario

“Could, and more importantly, would Saddam have attacked the United States? Wouldn’t that seem to make absolutely no sense for him? If he were to provoke a war against our country, he knew the US would destroy
his military and have no problem ousting him as leader.“

If he thought he could covertly attack the US and get away with it, sure-absolutely. Definitely. What totalitarian dictator in history who considered themselves to be at war with the US wouldn’t attack if they thought they could get away with it via an aire of deniability through the use of proxies? After all, what other purpose is there for states to sponsor terrorist operations rather than to use their own covert or
conventional forces? The purpose is deniability and the survivability that the deniability would provide.

“Why would he attack us knowing full well it would mean the end of his reign as leader of Iraq.“

Beyond the survivability through deniability aspect, it’s very clear-in Saddam’s own pre-war rantings-that Saddam (like Bin Laden and every other world leader) believed that a large enough portion of the American people have no stomach for war and would demand a cut and run/declare
victory then runaway attitude.

SADDAM:

“Our missiles could not reach Washington. If they could reach Washington, we would strike.”
-Saddam Hussein 9/3/98

“Iraq will continue to face American aggression against its cities and installations and, in the same way the Americans were forced to declare directly or indirectly their failure in Vietnam,….they will be forced to declare their failure in Iraq.”
-Saddam Hussein 6/11/00

BIN LADEN:

“After a little resistance, The American troops left after achieving nothing. They left after claiming that they were the largest power on earth. They left after some resistance from powerless, poor, unarmed people whose only weapon is the belief in Allah The Almighty, and who do
not fear the fabricated American media lies. We learned from those who fought there, that they were surprised to see the low spiritual morale of the American fighters in comparison with the experience they had with the Russian fighters. The Americans ran away from those fighters who
fought and killed them, while the latter were still there. If the U.S. still thinks and brags that it still has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Somalia, then let them go back to those who are awaiting its return. “
-Osama Bin Laden Interview with Peter Arnett Late March 1997

It’s very clear that the post-Kennedy US policy of disengagement from threats vs engagement and resolve (a policy that seeks to earn respect through actions aimed at a peace-at-any-price idea) has not yielded the respect of tyrannical leaders and enemies of the US.

“Also, all of your facts mean nothing unless there is a reliable, if not definite connection between Iraq and 9/11. “

To do this, we’d need to have a clear understanding of what you are looking for by “connection?” Do you mean a rhetorical connection like the one between Germany and Japan that was in rhetoric only and almost no operational cooperation? Do you mean a hand in hand connection like
when the US and UK take action anywhere together? Do you mean a connection in terms of casus belli where entity A and entity B both hate the US, both cite the oppression of the other as their own reasons for war with the US, and in turn cooperate as much as possible without compromising their relationship (ie, state sponsors of terror sponsor terror to maintain deniability, and thus are not going to have a lot of evidence of cooperation-though we’ve found lots between Saddam’s regime and Al Queda). For more, please read my articles:

Iraq and 911, not the same battle, but the same war

Media Reports Connect Iraq to 911

“Now of course you can find some information that suggests that there were meetings between Al Qaeda and Saddam. However, when an investigative panel like the 9/11 commission says there is no credible link, I am going to believe the panel over you. If we went to war because of raw intelligence, then the cold war would have ended much differently “

Welp, the 911 Commission says that Bin Laden waged war on the US for three reasons:

1) presence of US forces in Saudi (forces which were there to wage war on Saddam)

2) US attacks and oppression of Iraq through bi-annual attacks, constant no-fly-zones, immoral blockade of the Iraqi people, and so forth

3) US support for Israel (this is kind of a requirement for any group of Islamic Holy Warriors, and wasn’t part of UBL’s theme or his casus belli against the US until 1996 when Egyptian Islamic Jihad merged with Al Queda and 2/3’s-3/4ths of AQ’s leadership was suddenly filled by
anti-Israel terrorists).

You can read more about this in the 911 Commission’s report on pages 48 and 49. HOWEVER, if one wants to point to the 911 Commission as a reputable source (and I include myself here), I’d point out that most of the 911 Commission members have looked at the documents captured in Iraq and called for a re-investigation of the Saddam’s ties to Al Queda issue. You can read a lot more about this specifically here:

Saddam’s Ties to Al Queda Debunked?

Specifically:

At first glance it sounds like the commission members are saying that no evidence exists, but that’s not it at all as some of the 911 Commission members later elaborated.

“John Lehman, a 9/11 commissioner, spoke to The Weekly Standard at the time the report was released.”

There may well be–and probably will be–additional intelligence coming in from interrogations and from analysis of captured records and so forth which will fill out the intelligence picture. This is not phrased as–nor meant to be–the definitive word on Iraqi Intelligence activities.””

Upon seeing just a glimpse of the 18% of the millions of documents and thousands of hours of tapes captured from Saddam’s regime, 911 Commission member, Sen. Bob Kerrey (D) said,

“This is a very significant set of facts,” former 9/11 commissioner, Mr. Kerry said yesterday. “I personally and strongly believe you don’t have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the
September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States.”

Other 911 Commission members have spoken out as well and made clear that the lack of evidence cited in their report was a reference to a lack of evidence gathered.

“I don’t understand how you believe in pre-emptive war, when there are other means to end a bad situation. Like…the cold war! Amazing how that works.”

I fully understand and agree with your point here, but I think it’s kind of a cross between an argumentative comment and one that doesn’t really grasp a concept. It’s kind of like saying, “I don’t understand why the greatest football team in the world can’t score a touchdown when the greatest baseball team in the world can win the World Series.” Not all wars are the same. A conventional war (World War 1 and 2) are hardly the same as an unconventional war (Vietnam). A naval war is not at all the same as a land war. Tactics, strategies, resources, the nature of the enemy, and the objective of the war are all different. Sure, aircraft might be necessary for all types of war, just as all sports have balls of some sort, but the objectives-touchdowns, runs, captured capitals, killed despots, etc., differ greatly. Now, having said all that, your next question is a great one (seriously).

“Also, if al qaeda is as bad as we all feel it is, then why if the man who orchestrated those 9/11 attacks still uncaptured? Because he is in an allies country? Does that make any sense at all? The man who had planes flown into the WTC and Pentagon gets to roam the Earth as long as he stays in an allied country. So, if he was in Great Britain, we would just let him shop around the malls because I mean, jeez, we don’t want to mess with an ally! “

I really liked this question. Seriously. Now, many people might look at the question and agree (which is why I’ll toss in my idea of an answer in a moment), and others would look at it and see a complete ignorance of the war against Al Queda as it is fought in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Waziristan, (recall that those three were for hundreds of years a single nation-one that was never conquered in world history, and has the dubious nickname of “the Graveyard of Empires”). Where in the world is Osama Bin Laden, and why hasn’t the US gotten him in fifteen years (recall that his first attack against the US was in December 1992 perthe 911 Commission)?

1) modern generals and historical generals dating back to Alexander the Great have all said that you could put an endless number of soldiers in the area where UBL is hiding, and you would lose the soldiers rather than take the area.

2) While Pakistan can be doing more, they can’t be doing much more, and to pretend that the US/Pakistan are just kicking back and “letting” UBL/AQ live comfy/cozy in caves is to ignore the fact that more Al Queda members have been killed/captured in Pakistan by Pakistanis working with
the US than almost anywhere else in the globe (save US/Afghan forces in 2001/02 and Coalition forces which have killed tens of thousands of AQ in Iraq since 2003).

3) American soldiers and Marines are great. American Special Forces are even more highly trained and more dedicated than your average grunt. American Special Operations Forces are the next level of skill and commitment. And where does one go when they want to be more than a Green Beret or Navy Seal (ie, Special Operations Forces)? They retire and join a contracting firm like Blackwater or they move up to the CIA (which has
levels of secretive special forces/special activities division kinda guys etc). My point is that America’s absolute finest, most-skilled, and most committed warriors are in the area, are doing great things, and to pretend like no one is trying to get UBL/AQ in the unconquerable region of the planet is to deny their great efforts (hardly a support the troops perspective). Could we use more? Sure, but as I said earlier…from today’s modern generals all the way to Alexander the Great, the consensus is that more is not better in this area, in this kind of war.

More “troops” is as effective a counter-insurgency strategy in this area as tasking a battleship to fight there.

“What a moronic thought, if Bush were to find and kill Bin Laden I would give him much credit. I do not give him credit for going to war in another country for no reason. But there really were a million reasons to invade iraq, right guys? “

There were lots of reasons to invade Iraq:

Primary reason:

* to prevent a Nexus of Evil situation

* to prevent UBL from setting up headquarters in Iraq as Saddam had annually and bi-annually requested for 5 yrs. UBL had turned down each offer based on the idea that he was safer in Afghanistan, but driven from Afghanistan in 2001/2…the possibility of UBL moving AQ HQ to Iraq was much more likely and easily a worst case scenario for the war on terror (see also 911 Comm report and SIC 911 report and SIC Iraq investigation report for details OR multiple RR threads on “AQ’s ties to Iraq per _____”)

Secondary reason:

* to remove/resolve the hundreds unresolved WMD issues (any one of which could kill thousands in the hands of an Iraqi trained terrorist-like Abu Musab Al Zarqawi (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

* to get the hundreds of AQ terrorist who fled Afghanistan to Iraq (IN PROGRESS)

* to end Iraqi support for terrorists in general (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

Tertiary reasons:

* to create a battlefield against terrorists made of America’s
choosing-not the terrorists preference (UBL’s preference was Afghanistan, the Graveyard of Empires where he felt he had already destroyed one superpower) (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED-tens of thousands of AQ killed in Iraq)

* to create a bastion of democracy in the middle of a region plagued by tyranny and oppression…things that spawn terrorism (IN PROGRESS)

* to drain the swamp of terrorists in the region; ie, to draw terrorists into a fight against the US military and not the Springfield, Ohio police Department (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

* to offer the Iraqi people a chance at restoring their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-rights that some Americans believe are endowed to all men by the creator (IN PROGRESS)

* to end the 4000-5000 Iraqis per month who were dying because of UN sanctions per the UN’s claims (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

* to prevent Saddam from continuing to terrorize the Iraqi people and his neighbors (all but one of which he had attacked) (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

* to support a legitimate govt in Iraq. (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

* to position US forces in a more threatening/deterring position to Iran, Syria, etc. (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

* With Al Queda’s #1 and #2 leaders pinned in Waziristan/Pakistan, as a means of going after the Al Queda’s #3 man, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who had already attempted to kill hundreds of thousands in London, Rome,
Paris, and Jordan using chemical and biological weapons via training he had been given from Saddam (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

* To end the funding of Palestinian terrorists by Saddam and thus help deter bi-weekly suicide bus bombings that had completely derailed the peace process (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

* to prevent the funding of Al Queda by Iraq through the mega-corrupt UN Oil-for-Food program (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)

* to shift American oil dependence (and funding) from
terrorist-breeding-ground of Saudi Arabia to a Democratic and representative govt in Iraq (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED)
and so on…

“Why don’t you all sign up and go fight this war if it’s so important?”

Everyone’s probably got their reasons. Maybe some feel their best way to serve is to be a cop, or a firefighter, or a politician, or a writer. A question as deserved as that would be, if the war is so wrong and unjust, why not go to Iraq and protest the troops, be a human shield?

“One more thing, what would Iraq be like if we hadn’t invaded?”

According to 2002 intelligence estimates, Saddam would have a nuclear bomb by 2007-2009.

According to the DoD’s post-war findings, there were terrorists inside Iraq working with Iraqi Intelligence planning a series of attacks called, “Blessed July.”

According to the Duelfer Report, sanctions would be completely eroded and useless by now, and diplomatic efforts to restore them or make them more enforceable would be irrevocably gone.

According to the Clinton-era reporting on Iraqi civilian casualties caused by those sanctions, as many or more Iraqis would be dead as a result of the US blockade.

According to the Clinton/Gore Administration’s comments post-Desert Fox in 1998, as well as according to former UNSCOM chairman Richard Butler, Saddam would have a WMD capability long before 2007.

Now, would 4000 Americans be dead, and 30,000 wounded? I dunno. I dunno how many would die in Al Queda attacks done on behalf of Iraq, but the list of thwarted Al Queda attacks is huge, and if any one of them
succeeded….then yes we would have that many casualties and more.

“Would there be Al Qaeda in Iraq? “

Al Queda groups were in Iraq before the war, so yes. Training camps galore (were there NAZI training camps outside Tokyo in 1941?). I could go on a lot here, but instead direct readers to the section here at Flopping Aces describing Al Queda in Iraq, and again refer to the 911
Commission members who post-report have asked to no avail that the issue of ties be re-examined in light of the new evidence from detainees, documents, etc).

“Would Saddam have attacked U.S. soil? I can’t wait to see these answers…”

According to Democratic Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee, yes. Various Iraqi Intelligence Service attacks on the US were thwarted in 2003, but I think the real threat doesn’t come from Saddam and/or his
7-9 different intelligence services, but rather from Islamic Holy Warriors taking action on behalf of Iraq (particularly when done in exchange for training, cash, documents, and most of all…the provision of an excuse)

Even more so when they totally ignore the point of the post which is abundantly clear, and instead play little games attacking the title.

It’s transparent that “cokane” can’t counter the conclusions which show an overwhelming political bias in academia favoring the Democrats.

And of course, if “cokane” was really interested in the subject, the link I provided earlier explores the topic further:

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/jplecnik_20040530.html

Look at the top academia donations given so far for the 2008 election:

And then I put together my own graph.

Not too bright are you?

And wasted time? It took 30 seconds, you know you punch a few numbers into a calculator and push add, or maybe divide…or hell, maybe times. But I’m sure you know none of this since the last time you actually put some thought to something was which bong to use.

Flaccid aces? Come on man, how old are you seriously? 15 I’m guessing.

YOu’re a huge dork, but interestingly a completely moronic dork. Your graph is not the contributions of “Academia” but only the top 10 schools. Or rather, only 1.3 million of the 7 million total. I.e. Your graph is mistitled. The fact that you wasted time adding up all that money, and still can’t see what a failure you are, is what makes you laughably stupid.

Carry on, I expect to see more stupidity from flaccid aces.

If we hadn’t invaded Iraq, the innocent people who are dying there at the hands of Al Queda and former Baathists would still be getting dumped into mass graves. And at higher numbers.

Saddam would still be paying suicide bombers to blow up men, women and children in buses and in shops in Israel.

Abu Nidal, who pushed wheel chair bound American Leon Klinghofer overboard from the Achille Lauro would still be in sanctuary.

Zarqawi would still be in Northern Iraq.

Saddam would still be holding meetings to help Al Queda with weapons and offer bin Laden Sanctuary.

And we could all thank “dontblameme” for helping another genocidal monster continue to kill and spread evil across the world.

Okay I am just wondering, what do you mean by ability to attack the US was in fact quite correct? Could, and more importantly, would Saddam have attacked the United States? Wouldn’t that seem to make absolutely no sense for him? If he were to provoke a war against our country, he knew the US would destroy his military and have no problem ousting him as leader. Why would he attack us knowing full well it would mean the end of his reign as leader of Iraq. Also, all of your facts mean nothing unless there is a reliable, if not definite connection between Iraq and 9/11. Now of course you can find some information that suggests that there were meetings between Al Qaeda and Saddam. However, when an investigative panel like the 9/11 commission says there is no credible link, I am going to believe the panel over you. If we went to war because of raw intelligence, then the cold war would have ended much differently. I don’t understand how you believe in pre-emptive war, when there are other means to end a bad situation. Like…the cold war! Amazing how that works.
Also, if al qaeda is as bad as we all feel it is, then why if the man who orchestrated those 9/11 attacks still uncaptured? Because he is in an allies country? Does that make any sense at all? The man who had planes flown into the WTC and Pentagon gets to roam the Earth as long as he stays in an allied country. So, if he was in Great Britain, we would just let him shop around the malls because I mean, jeez, we don’t want to mess with an ally! What a moronic thought, if Bush were to find and kill Bin Laden I would give him much credit. I do not give him credit for going to war in another country for no reason. But there really were a million reasons to invade iraq, right guys? Why don’t you all sign up and go fight this war if it’s so important?
One more thing, what would Iraq be like if we hadn’t invaded? Would there be Al Qaeda in Iraq? Would Saddam have attacked U.S. soil? I can’t wait to see these answers…

A + B = C

A = Getting a quality education

B = Not having your head up your ass

C = Not being a dumbshit who votes for dumbshits.

They must all think we’re as stupid as they are.

just saying

From the Article you quoted: “Seventy-six percent of the education industry’s total federal contributions for ‘08 has gone to Democrats”

Idiot

Total given = 1,317,710

Dem = 1,151,649

Rep = 166,061

166,061 is 12.6% of 1,317,710.

Or rounded down, 87% Dem, 13% Rep…..So actually I shorted the Dem’s one percent. Thanks for the heads up.

Nice to know the amount of braincells that exist inside the head of a SadlyNo reader.

Nice accurate graph you have there, where 76% becomes ~86% magically.

You are proof that wingnuts are moronic failures eking out livings behind a cash register and below their mom’s first floor.