Please read this article. Richard Clarke, in 1999, was insistent on this connection. What happened? Did these connections dissolve? Not exactly. What happened is that Mr. Clarke was fired from his job and was trying to sell books. What better way to boost your book sales than to insinuate that the guy who just fired you is a liar.
If you truly believe this war is about oil and Halliburton, then why would we be concerned with Iran? They don't have the oil reserves of other Middle-Eastern states. They're not a dominant player in OPEC. What past contracts do they have with Halliburton?
You can also find other info re the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection here, here and here. Oh yeah, and here.
Why is it when someone doesn't agree with a certain point of view (Clarke, Moore, etc.), they're labeled "a liar"?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it possible that Clarke is telling the truth now that he's out from under the oppressive thumb of his former place of employment?
No, of course not...
As to Iran, sure they're not a major player--but involved. Halliburton is being investigated right now for their dealings over in Iran. Iran isn't "on board" with the U.S., so we gotta "keep digging" for those terrorist ties...
What about this article?
ReplyDeletehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3814111.stm
That's just a number of articles that I found that supported that there was no evidence of Iraq-9/11 connection--including one found in the Toledo Blade!
The first article you cited contained many quotes by Bush and Cheney. Not very convincing.
But it also had other quotes and facts. If these things are true, then why did the 9/11 Commission fail to recognize them?
The Commission's report ruled that there was no Iraq link to the horrific events on 9/11. THE COMMISSION that was in charge of determining such. THE COMMISSION had nothing else to do but to search through the evidence.
Yet, they found nothing.
From the official report of the 9/11 Commission:
ReplyDelete"Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke’s office sent a memo to Rice
on September 18, titled “Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq
Involvement in the September 11 Attacks.” Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan,
Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda.The memo found no “compelling case” that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons."
(You can download the report off the web.)
I guess government commission's are never wrong and not politicized. Strange we can't get more problems solved.
ReplyDeleteDo you suggest that we do nothing with respect to our foregin policy with Iran? (Do you remember the hostages held there for over 400 days? I guess that's better than beheading.)
You'd think a guy against big government would be inherently suspicious of any goverment commission.
ReplyDeleteDude, now wait a minute...
ReplyDeleteYou're saying that I should take the government's word on things (the reason we went to war with Iraq, the war on terrorism, etc.)--that, albeir flawed, the government is doing a good job.
But now, in regards to the 9/11 Commission, I should question its compentency.
Well, which is it?
"I guess government commissions are never wrong and not politicized. Strange we can't get more problems solved."
Your sarcasm was not wasted, my friend! I got it. But why are they never wrong or politicized when they support one's own point of view?
Yeah, we have a problem with our foreign policy with Iran. But what about other places like North Korea? Which one poses a bigger threat?
Yeah, I remember the hostages being held in Iran. Over twenty years ago. But we're just now getting around to that, right?
Just like one of the reasons we were told why Hussein had to go--"He gassed his own people!" Yeah, back in the eighties. But we've just recently got around to that problem, right?
And I AM suspicious of the 9/11 Commission--all that investigating and they didn't undercover anything about Saudi Arabia? Hmmmmm.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWithout sounding too juvenile, same to you. Either the commission (as extension of government) is right or it isn't. You cited it as basis for you're argument against Iraq-al qeada connections. Seems you believe one branch of gov't and not another.
ReplyDeleteYou still didn't provide a solution for Iran. Again, do you suggest we do nothing for another 20 years and see how it goes? Or maybe you don't believe there's the potential for a problem there? You're Libertarian foreign policy is thus far confusing or not stated, please elaborate.
As far as the bigger threat, using your argument, North Korea isn't a problem at all, I mean they haven't done anything to warrant foreign policy concern since the 1950's! At least by citing the Iranian hostages, I pointed to something in our lifetimes. I do think N.Korea is a problem. At the least the current administration is containing that threat. Good thing they know we aren't f--king around anymore, right?
Your point about Saudi Arabia is well taken. Did some reading last year about the bureaucracy at the State Department, I'll see if I can find it. It's one of the issues that I disagree on with the current administration (GASP!). However, I believe it's more about having an ally in a strategically sensitive reigon than about Arbusto (see various other past presidents that kow-towed to the Saudi's).
Well, that is the dilemna, isn't it? When to believe the government and when not to?
ReplyDeleteI'd have to say that I take it on a case by case basis, taking into consideration what people's motives are. In this case, what would the Commission have to gain by lying or leaving out information? To discredit the Bush administration? I must admit here, perhaps you can help me--what is the history of the Commission? Who appointed them and what individuals hold seat on it?
As far as the solution to Iran--what's the problem? Is there any current infractions that they've committed that I'm unaware of? If not, then we leave them alone.
The Libertarian foreign policy is to stay out of foreign affairs, to adopt a policy of neutrality and non-intervention. I'm all for attacking countries that attack us or our people. It's very sticky, I know. Who says the United States has to police the world? I know that some situations call for our involvement, but I think many we should stay out of them. I mean, you don't see terrorist attacks in countries like Canada, Switzerland, or Sweden.
And I understand that North Korea isn't a problem. I only brought it up because of all the talk about "pre-emptive striking". If we did that in dealing with Iraq, why don't we do that with North Korea?
Fact is, you're never going to get along with everyone. Not all countries believe in our way of life. Destroying the country by massive bombing isn't going to make them come around, either.
We believe in freedom, capitalism, and democracy. Others don't. That's just the way it is. Until they start something with us, I think everyone should stay on their own side of the street.
I answered my own question.
ReplyDeleteAbout Iran--seems like there's more evidence that Iran was involved with events leading up to 9/11 than Iraq was.
Gotta keep digging!
But our condolences to Iraq: "Our bad!"
Well it seems you've sorta abandoned your earlier ode to Spiderman that along with great power comes great responsibility.
ReplyDeleteWe are the only superpower. How should that affect our foreign policy?
This is a simplistic argument, but I don't think we should have to wait until a foreign power commits an "infraction" before we do something. An "infraction" of what? The UN? Please. I take your statement to mean that we have to wait to be attacked before we do anything. I disagree.
Check this guy. I agree with him. Call it digging or whatever, but I don't want to wait till Iran's "infraction" is bombing us with a nuclear weapon.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/214698p-184881c.html
I think our great responsibility should be to our country, its people.
ReplyDeleteI think that we're slipping down that slope into nuclear paranoia (COLD WAR II: REVENGE OF ALLAH)--
"We can't wait until something happens! ATTACK! ATTACK! ATTACK!"
Dude, when's it gonna end?
I think we have to first look at the reason why countries like Iran would want to use nuclear weapons against us. I think a big reason is because we keep meddling into situations that don't involve us.
So, yes--it's a fine line to get involved and to wait until something happens. Whatever happened to Reagan's Star Wars program? Where is our developing technology that can "shoot" down nuclear weapons in the sky?
I think we're wasting precious resources (including human lives) by screwing around in the Middle East. And for what? Oil. Why don't we push forward to develop some other mode of power?
Oh, yeah. The oil companies would lose money. And seeing how they're great campaign contributors, we can't have that!
So what I'm suggesting is maybe not to hole up, cutting contact with the world--but maybe back off a little bit. Step back and try to understand why these people want to harm us. And in the meantime, sink money into defense.
But if we do have to attack countries, we should certainly make sure we attack the right one.
Well, just as an off the top of my head answer, they want to harm us becasue they hate us. They hate us because of our religions. They also hate us because of our freedom, capitalism and democracy. Their stated goal is to destroy us. I don't think a prudent strategy is to back off and give them space. This is a crisis and at this point it doesn't seem like it's going to end any time soon.
ReplyDeleteIt's not possible to sit down with these people and discuss our feelings, they don't understand that by their culture and religion. From a pragmatic standpoint. and I hate this phrase, but our relationship with this area of the world, "it is what it is." I think your policy is a tragedy waiting to happen.
"Star Wars" technology doesn't do a thing for a suitcase bomb. No relavence.
ReplyDelete"They hate us because of our religions. They also hate us because of our freedom, capitalism and democracy."
ReplyDeleteActually, they don't. At least not until recently. The nation of Islam is historically a very tolerant country. In Muslim countries, they've allowed Judaism and Christianity to flourish. Ask any Jew who used to live in Iraq, Syria, or Egypt--until 20/30 years ago.
But what recently has changed? Are they the ones that have invaded our countries, propped up dictators?
They hate us because of our actions.
I disagree with those reasons. It always reminds me of W stating, "They hate us because of our freedom." This is totally wrong.
I do agree that it is now a huge can of worms. I think that we can alleviate some of the pressure on this crisis by pulling back a little bit. Show them that we respect their right to their way of life. I know that there's massive human rights atrocities in these countries, but what can we do? We don't have the resources to police the world. No one helped us in the birth of this counrty. I think that the change is going to have to come from within.
In the meantime, we should do everything possible to protect our citizens. How much money is being spent to fight this war in Iraq--which will end up in a Vietnam-like conclusion--that could be spent to actually protect this country in defense? "Star Wars" programs or otherwise?
And yeah, I understand that a "Star Wars" program wouldn't defend us against a suitcase bomb. That falls under other screening systems/techniques.
But, again, I ask you: if we go after Iran, then North Korea--then where? Where does it all end? We're never going to get everyone to get on "our side".
And as a final note, when I argue these policies, I'm thinking of my brother-in-law (who leaves again in January) and our nephews. I hope that they never have to experience war.
If that's true, then why did they fly only one plane into the Pentagon and two into the towers? Wouldn't they have directed their hatred at the epicenter of our hegemony? I mean, they got one to hit the Pentagon, couldn't they have flown all four into it?
ReplyDeleteActually, they don't. At least not until recently. The nation of Islam is historically a very tolerant country. In Muslim countries, they've allowed Judaism and Christianity to flourish. Ask any Jew who used to live in Iraq, Syria, or Egypt--until 20/30 years ago.
ReplyDeleteActually they do. Your history needs refreshing. There’s nothing to suggest that the Islamic faith is any more peaceful than any other. In fact, their history is quite violent and aggressive, from the Ottoman empire to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Islam has throughout history tried to expand its influence, by going to war and conquering people. At one point, the Ottoman Empire under Suleyman The Magnificent (1520 - 1566) covered more geography than the British Empire at its peak. Just like any occupying/conquering force (except modern US), they imposed their religious laws and culture. It’s not the nirvana you imply. Flourish? Not quite. Tolerate at best, but with restrictions that definitely don’t fall within the Bill of Rights.
Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race.
The elaborate legal superstructure of dhimmitude in Islamic law is founded on the Qur’an’s Sura 9:29, which calls on Muslims to “fight” against the “People of the Book” (primarily Jews and Christians) “until they pay the Jizya [special tax for non-Muslims] with willing submission, feel themselves subdued.” A vast body of Muslim theology and jurisprudence guaranteed dhimmis relative security as long as the jizya was paid; if payment ceased, jihad would resume.
The native “infidel” populations of lands conquered by Islamic armies were required to pay the jizya, recognize Islamic ownership of their land and accept laws forbidding them to own weapons, ring church bells, build new places of worship or repair old ones, testify in Muslim courts, or dress like Muslims. If they complained about these inequalities, they risked forfeiting their “protection.”
No one helped us in the birth of this counrty. I think that the change is going to have to come from within.
You must have forgotten your American history. Massive assistance from the French (ugh), both military (they provided troops and ships as well as supplies) and monetary made our bid for independence successful. Other European countries also provided military advisors and assistance. We did most of the heavy lifting, but we certainly had some help along the way.