The Taliban allowed and supported the operation of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. However, Al Qaeda operates all over the world and goes far beyond Afghanistan. AFTER we deposed Saddam Al Qaeda begin operating in Iraq.

Removing a cancerous tumor does not cure cancer. But it helps, one step at a time.

Clinton DID not Invade Iraq!

Yes, I think I mentioned something about cojones.

Powell told Bush if you break it is yours!

And Bush I felt constrained by the UN mandate, which only allowed for the restoration of sovereignty to Kuwait, not overthrowing Iraq's sovereignty. Wrong answer, UN.

It was also Bush that controlled the Classified Intel that showed Saddam had NO NUCLEAR program or means to deliver any such weapons!

You do not have any idea what you are talking about.

AFTER we deposed Saddam Al Qaeda begin operating in Iraq. Where the Taliban screwed up is when we identified the faction that planned the 9/11 attack was located in Afghanistan we ended their rule. That is just why a Rogue State Dictator will not attack any major power and will be careful to allow terrorist factions like Al Qaeda from launching or planning operations in their Rogue State for fear of what happened to the Taliban.

BULL!

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Another abandoned thread by col. This is how he escapes the questions asked to him.

IslandDog

I did not say Bush made up intelligence. What I said and what Zinni and the CIA section chiefs have said is that Bush selectively released the Intel. The Intel that said Saddam did not have the capacity to attack any other country. The Intel that said he had no viable nuclear program. The Intel that said he most likely only had old artillery shells that may not be useable. The Intel that said the Al tubes were NOT part of a nuclear program The Intel that discredited the mobile gas labs. All this was kept classified until AFTER the vote in Congress. Saddam had a very weal Army, No Air Force, No Navy and only a few short range missiles. He was only able to operate in the central section of Iraq. How the Hell was he a danger to the United States? As to Israel, they have a very powerful military and would have been able to destroy Saddam if he had been stupid enough to attack them. There was no valid reason for the Unites States to Invade Iraq!

What I said and what Zinni and the CIA section chiefs have said is that Bush selectively released the Intel.

And I ask for documented facts, not something someone says in a book they are trying to sell.

There was no valid reason for the Unites States to Invade Iraq!

Then the democrats were wrong when they said it?

Zinni is a hack.

Yet, the value of intelligence gained over a decade of engagement operations by Zinni and his predecessors would later prove problematic (as Zinni now claims) when Gen. Franks was formulating plans for his campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of the War on Terror. One would think that Zinni’s conclusions on Saddam’s capabilities were based on a multitude of classified bits and pieces that were analyzed and ordered into a sound threat evaluation. But in response to a question from incoming commander Gen. Tommy Franks about enemy threats in the AOR [Area of Responsibility], Zinni said, “I wish I could tell you.” Tony spread his hands in resignation. “You’ll find our intelligence picture for this region is pretty sad. That’s another reason engagement is so important. We need friends out there who can give us the true picture. I’d like to know a lot more about what’s happening in Iraq, and with Osama bin Laden and AQ [al Qaeda]. But the fact is I do not.”[emphasis mine] So, what changed between Zinni’s Senate testimony and his handover briefing to Gen. Franks? Why had he been so confident of the enemy situation in February of 2000 and a short while later, complained of a woeful intelligence picture? In reality, Zinni had been right all along. Yet, the charge of a lack of a casus belli persists even with the release of the tens of thousands of documents seized in the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom. These recordings and papers actually confirm Zinni’s earlier warnings about Saddam and his relationship with Al-Qaeda and Iraq’s pursuit of WMD. Zinni was right, then; but years later, the President’s rationale for going to war was wrong. Why? The policy of engagement was supposed to substitute for a lack of intelligence assets on the ground, but this also meant being buddies with leaders who the next day might turn around and slit our throat. Pre-9-11, Zinni and other previous CENTCOM commanders publicly viewed the CENTCOM AOR as being the most dangerous area on the planet. But it’s clear that Zinni and many of his his current top brass anti-war cohorts held to the school of thought that the flawed concepts of engagement and containment could keep a lid on the Islamo-fascist cauldron. If engagement and establishing rapport with the region’s rulers gave CENTCOM’s leaders valuable information, we cannot be so naïve as to forget that loyalty flows both ways in this part of the world. Information and favors are granted, but much is expected in return on the part of the powerbrokers in the kingdoms of the Central Region. The benefits of being taken in by legendary Middle East “hospitality” and admittance to their exclusive club of friends often include lucrative career opportunities upon retirement from military service. In his 2000 testimony, Zinni cited the promotion of democratic values in the CENTCOM AOR as being one of the critical aspects in securing the interests of the US and providing stability to this volatile region. Now that President Bush and his national security team have actually had the courage and will to do just that, the General still slams the administration for implementing a key concept in his own operational plan. And the influence of his Central Region buddies is evident in his parroting of the “we did this all for Israel” criticism. His anti-Israel stance is also reflected in his subtle anti-Semitic complaints against people in the administration who did the heavy lifting to deal with the very real threats he spoke about over six years ago. When the history of the Global War on Terror is written, perhaps decades from now, the lesson for the American people should be that we need to pay attention to what our political and military leaders say, versus how they actually conduct their business. Prior to 9-11, we were lulled into a false sense of security based on canned, formulaic assessments of our national security posture, or we ignored the truth of our enemies’ capabilities when it was right before our eyes while we depended on phony reassurances from leaders with questionable motives. As one of those leaders during the Clinton years of bread and circuses, it’s obvious that Zinni’s two years of continual carping and troubleshooting about our war effort now rings hollow. The good General needs to jump on the bandwagon to win this thing, or he should take the advice of a more distinguished military leader and just fade away.

Misrepresenting what happened doesn't help your argument, Gene. The 'valid reason' was to prevent any & all of the above, to get rid of the jerk who was hell-bent on doing all the things that would enable him to become a threat to the US, something he was publicly vowing to do and privately arranging with some of our "friends."

And, at the risk of being repetitive and earning LW's ire( ), General Powell has repeatedly confirmed that all the pre-invasion intelligence was available to Congress, that no intelligence known to be accurate was intentionally withheld. You persist in maintaining this charade, anyway.

Daiwa:


How do you discount the statements of the former CIA Section Chief for Iraq (Paul Piller) and the former CIA Section Chief for Europe (Tyler Drumheller) who said the SAME THING AS ZINNI? I guess they are selling books and are not telling the truth. No matter how much evidence is presented, you and people like you on this Web Site refuse to accept the truth about Bush and this administration!

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/39306.html



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml


The Military Assessment which is a separate issue from WMD showed that in March 2003, Saddam did NOT have the capability to attack anyone. He could only operate in the central section of Iraq. How then was he such a danger that we had to invade him in March of 2003? Bush and Cheney told us that to delay taking action would risk mushroom clouds over American Cities. The Intel in March 2003 clearly showed that there was NO POSSIBILITY that Saddam had either nuclear weapons or the means to deliver any such weapons. How then would these threatened mushroom clouds appear from Saddam? This was all a bunch of LIES to scare the American People and push Congress to approve the War Resolution. Just because Saddam hated us and desired WMD is not a reason to invade Iraq. Hell there are many dictators through out the world that have stated the very same things (Iran and North Korea for example)

What our actions in Iraq are doing is accelerating the desire of Rogue States to obtain some nuclear weapons to deter the U. S. from doing what we did in Iraq. The way for these countries to obtain such weapons is not to go through the long and difficult process of building new weapons but with the money many of them have, like Iran, try to purchase a small number off existing weapons from the old Soviet Union. They would not be of any value to attack our country directly but would be a shield from the U. S. invading them and risking their use against our troops. The actions of this administration are NOT making our country MORE secure but placing the U. S. in greater danger. Our actions are accelerating the rush for Moslem countries to obtain nuclear weapons.

Gene, your misdirection play is good for a 2-yard loss. No one, not Bush, not anybody, ever said Iraq had the capability to attack the United States or anyone else at the time of the invasion intended to topple his regime. It was all predicated on his intent to regain the capability to create havoc in the region, his ongoing middle finger to the UN, and all the other shit you've been told countless times before.

What our actions in Iraq are doing is accelerating the desire of Rogue States to obtain some nuclear weapons to deter the U. S. from doing what we did in Iraq.

Yeah. Those rogue states would never have thought of that absent Operation Iraqi Freedom.

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Working in collusion with those who did attack us (remember that? does the date 09/11/01 ring any bells for you?) is reason enough to attack him. I think you've beaten this dead horse enough. You been proven wrong countless times but don't seem to recognize the fact that your arguments are baseless drivel.

Daiwa

Bush told Congress and the American people we could not wait to act because WE were in danger from Iraq and those mushroom clouds could appear over our cities from Saddam. That was a LIE. Saddam was not a danger to any other country in 2003. He could not even act in the northern and southern areas of Iraq.

If the United Dates was not is any danger we had no justification to invade Iraq.

Saddam has been proven to have NO connection to 9/11. Even GWB admitted that!

The facts show this war was not justified and we are less secure today then in March 2003.

ush told Congress and the American people we could not wait to act because WE were in danger from Iraq and those mushroom clouds could appear over our cities from Saddam. That was a LIE. Saddam was not a danger to any other country in 2003. He could not even act in the northern and southern areas of Iraq.

And so did the democrats. Why do you keep giving them a pass?

Saddam has been proven to have NO connection to 9/11. Even GWB admitted that!

Nobody said Saddam was behind Sept. 11. Saddam was a supporter of islamic terrorists and al-qaeda.

we could not wait to act because WE were in danger from Iraq and those mushroom clouds could appear over our cities from Saddam.

Could you please cite the reference? I'd like to read where he said precisely that.

Bush saying Iraq was a threat = misleading

Democrats saying Iraq was a threat = no comment

Sounds about right to col.

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda

And this week's Economist reveals that Zarqawi was in Iraq TWO YEARS BEFORE America invaded:

One reason Mr Zarqawi was successful in Iraq was because he started early. He moved there two years before America invaded, to join a local Islamist group, al-Ansar al-Islam, in order to plot the overthrow of Jordan’s government next door.