?

Log in

No account? Create an account
For the last damn time: There was no pre-war connection between Iraq and Al Qaida. - Adventures in Engineering — LiveJournal
The wanderings of a modern ronin.

Ben Cantrick
  Date: 2007-04-06 15:31
  Subject:   For the last damn time: There was no pre-war connection between Iraq and Al Qaida.
Public
  Mood:Duh!!
  Music:Weird Al - Headline News
  Tags:  digg, iraq, politics

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html


Hence, if you believe that America going into Iraq had anything to do with the War on Terrah!, then you are wrong. And if you believe that we had any kind of moral justification, at all, to invade Iraq then you are a bleeding moron.
Post A Comment | 13 Comments | | Link






Coinneach Fitzpatrick: Fuck you too Georgie
  User: scarybaldguy
  Date: 2007-04-06 21:38 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Keyword:Fuck you too Georgie
But but but but... Cheney SAYS there was, therefore it must be true!
Reply | Thread | Link



Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2007-04-06 21:39 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Oh, naturally...
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



MegaZone
  User: zonereyrie
  Date: 2007-04-06 23:46 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Terror? Hell no.

*Any* justification? If we (meaning those in power, really) had said "Look, this guy is still killing his own people and we really should've done something about him 10 years ago. So now we're going to go knock him off so he stops with the genocide shit. OK?" Well, I probably wouldn't have objected to that. Of course, there is a long list of countries with dictators who enjoy knocking off ethnic groups, or just people they don't like, for sport - so we'd be pretty busy for a while if that was all it took.

The justifications presented were bullshit, and that bothers me more than anything else. I don't like being lied to, especially when it is a BAD lie and I can tell I'm being lied to. And the way the war has been run is just god awful bad.
Reply | Thread | Link



osmium_ocelot
  User: osmium_ocelot
  Date: 2007-04-07 01:03 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
"I don't like being lied to, especially when it is a BAD lie and I can tell I'm being lied to."

I forget who I heard it from first, but I've always liked the more colorful and coloquial way of saying the above.

'Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.'
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



MegaZone
  User: zonereyrie
  Date: 2007-04-07 01:05 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Yeah, I like that too.

It is worse when they lie, are caught in the lie, and then deny they're lying and repeat it. Or don't even bother denying it, just ignoring the people pointing out the lies and repeating them like some mantra.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



osmium_ocelot
  User: osmium_ocelot
  Date: 2007-04-07 18:09 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
I think they're taking a play out of the Nazi Propaganda for Dummies book; such "Repeat a lie often enough and the people will believe you."

The problem is, it works.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2007-04-07 01:57 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
"Look, this guy is still killing his own people and we really should've done something about him 10 years ago."

There was a reason Bush Sr didn't push onward into Baghdad during Gulf War I. Doing so would have been a really bad idea, and Bush Sr. knew it. Pity Dubya "doesn't read much" or he would have known what a bad idea it actually was:

"We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome."

-George Bush Sr, Mar 1998


To avoid confusion here, let me say (again) that I'm not in the least bit unhappy that Saddam's deposed and now dead. He was a bad guy who intentionally modeled himself on Stalin - mass killings and all.

However, invading Iraq was a bad, stupid idea. Period. And everyone with 2 cents worth of clue knew it.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



MegaZone
  User: zonereyrie
  Date: 2007-04-07 02:05 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
I know it is more complex than just knocking off the bad guy. Just that I could've at least backed that justification, unlike the pile of shit they fed us.

It is nice to think that sending in a sniper and killing the Bad Guy would fix the problem, but that just would've created a free-for-all power grab. Who knows how it would've come out in the end.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2007-04-07 02:38 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Just that I could've at least backed that justification, unlike the pile of shit they fed us.

Oh, I agree. If they had tried the humanitarian argument, they would have have a lot of liberals behind 'em. Particularly amusing to me, then, is the fact that among 27 arguments that the Dubya administration made for the war, the humanitarian arugment was never one.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Triggur
  User: triggur
  Date: 2007-04-07 02:36 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
...and in the end balance, it looks like the backlash from the occupation has killed north of a half million innocent Iraq civilians.

How's that for genocide?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Alex Belits: mona
  User: abelits
  Date: 2007-04-07 23:09 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Keyword:mona
But they died FOR FREEDOM!

And otherwise they would LIVE UNDER HORRIBLE DICTATORSHIP THAT WE CAN'T TOLERATE, SO THEY SHOULD'VE PREFERRED DEATH!!!

(Iraqi have an excuse that they cared more about their daily lives than about some ideology that happens to be popular on the opposite from them side of the globe. On the other hand, Americans who seriously think like this have no excuse other than mental deficiency)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Triggur
  User: triggur
  Date: 2007-04-07 02:34 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Every now and then I STILL run across someone who is absolutely certain of the Iraq/Saddam/Osama/Al Queda connection, that we shouldn't have stopped there, and we should have nuked them to glass.

And I wanna scream and rip their heads off.

So far they're almost all older, southern males.
Reply | Thread | Link



  User: (Anonymous)
  Date: 2007-04-07 04:59 (UTC)
  Subject:   Duh, duh and double duh...or is that triple?
Oi! If people still believe that ridiculous claim that there was a connection and that America NEVER had ANY interest in invading Iraq just look at PNAC's 1998 letter to Former President Clinton:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

What's really funny, sad and disturbing is that people still hold to this belief that there was a connection, in public, but in private they silently hold up their political ideology where they know the average American doesn't look...under their nose!

How can you believe the politicians in DC trying to make a connection 'real' when they stated their intentions 5 years prior to the invasion and still hold to that policy. It's not like the "writing on the wall" is in Farsi, they wrote it in plain ENGLISH!

Oi! My head hurts from all the stupidity.
cheers
- Liam
Reply | Thread | Link



browse
May 2015