Garry

Hi Shek, for me it is not important to prove that they were selling it wrong... what statements were made.... and which were then drawn back later. The blaiming game will go on now with or without our will.

The problem is that it was BOUGHT on wrong arguments... Many really were relating Iraq to 9/11 and WMD.... and that is why it is harder to sell support to the operation now when those arguments turned wrong.

I am trying to understand now - IF AMERICANS WILL STAY.... or if they would leave..... Unfortunatelly, the problems with initial pre-war campaign is that it makes very hard to gain support now and that is why probability of early leave is rather high => The international fundamentalist community you are facing now would search for new playgrounds (probably start from Afghanistan/Pakistan).

The operation needs domestic support.... as it would be a lot of PR strickes from insurgents before situation gets stable... when nation is united it can withstand much more.... however when it is divided over the basic question - Why we are there? PR war from insurgents may be effective.

ps. How is situation in Bagdad? Do you estimate that enforcements would be capable to stabilize situation in a year?

dalem

Roll your eyes all you want, there was a relationship, and Saddam's son pursued it. The Project Harmony documents show at least that much, but it doesn't look like it ever got beyond the initial stages.

-dale

dalem

Lies? List them.

Nope. 9/11 was never connected to Iraq. If you're going to continue to believe that, or if Shipwreck is going to keep linking to old Safire articles, I can't help you.

Nope. You are repeating myth. The war was about a lot of things, and was sold on the basis of a lot of things, but 9/11 wasn't one of them.

That's two questions.

1) Attacking Iraq without 9/11? MUCH harder. I think it's extremely unlikely that it could have happened without the overarching doctrine of going after rogue states who support international terrorism. 9/11 was the punch in the nose that showed the American people that we had been at war for years.

2) In 2003 plenty of people knew plenty of things. So what? Congress knew what the justification was about, and none of the justifications have anything to do with 9/11.

No doubt.

-dale

Shipwreck

Did anyone say there wasn't a *relationship* ?

I was under the impression that what was being said was that "sporadic contacts, however, hardly amount to a 'mature', let alone 'symbiotic relationship'." (Report Number 07-INTEL-04).

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9)

Shipwreck

And Perle, and Feith, and Wolfowitz,...

If you're going to continue to peremptorily claim that *No one ever linked Saddam to 9/11* (post #31) or that *No link was made connecting Iraq to 9/11* (post #50), I can't help you.

dalem

So when did the executive stand in front of the American people and make the connection? The best anyone in your camp has ever been able to give me in the last few years is the Cheney interview.

-dale

Shipwreck

Cheney is not high enough in the food chain for you ?

Bluesman

LOVE the eye-rolling smiley. Proves your point every time you use it. QED - an argument-winner that shuts down any comeback, obviates any answer. The advocate's nuclear weapon.

So dam' LOGICAL.

You're simply awesome in a debate, man. You must be a master debater.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

dalem

Only because it's a poor support for your position. At BEST an exercise in semantic jerking off.

-dale