Comments Posted By Mark
Displaying 71 To 80 Of 94 Comments
Tubino,
Did you even read my previous comments or are you just so angry and emotional and stuck in your mindset that its NOT POSSIBLE in your head that the two sides overlapped in some cooperation that you either ignore all the evidence, don't know about it or just discount it all for some odd reason?Bush discounted the 9-11 connection not an overall connection.
I am done replying to you though because you can't even be honest with yourself. There's no way that you don't understand the separation of 9-11 and other al Qaeda activity. NOT EVERYONE IN AL QAEDA EVEN KNEW ABOUT THE PLOT. The guys within the plot didn't know about each other and the guys within each cell didn't even know their destinations yet you expect me to believe that all of the 10,000 members of al Qaeda are supposed to know every detail of every member of al Qaeda and what states the received support from?
I have no idea how you can justify such a position to yourself and I frankly don't want to know. It's just getting old to see the same stale arguments from people who aren't even sincere.
Comment Posted By Mark On 23.08.2006 @ 07:55
Tubino,
Go to the Brookings Foundations study on deaths per day now vs. under Saddam. It's far LESS now. I know your emotion won't allow you to believe so but it is true.What in the world does not having operational control of 9-11 have to do with not assisting al Qaeda on other operations? You libs are supposed to be so nuanced, why can't you distinguish that al Qaeda is larger than the 12 guys who carried out 9-11, for instance,I've seen estimates in the tens of thousands from Democrats on the Senate intel committee, so forgive me if I don't take your shallow argument about "either Saddam ran 9-11 or had no links to al Qaeda" very seriously. I don't really think you even believe what you are saying or if you do you are an intellectual midget. I'll assume it's the former.
I see a ton of emotion in your response yet there's a ton of facts about Saddam's terror links that you are either ignorant of or can't explain (detainee admission from both sides, documents confirming support, U.S. military finding the two sides fighting side by side in the early days of the war until today, etc.).
Either bring a decent argument to the table or just admit that you don't really know what you are talking about and are just an angry and emotional about the war and let that raw emotion dominate your thinking.
I could literally spend hours documenting the links but I've got tired of doing it in comments sections and made my own site, www.regimeofterror.com, which is thoroughly cited and you can read all the original sources for yourself.
Or you can read this
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/004954.php
www.husseinandterror.comThe info is there if you ever take down the emotional barrier
Comment Posted By Mark On 22.08.2006 @ 23:44
B. Poster,
Very true. I just think the idea of seeing a welcoming public (thankful for Saddam's removal) was involved in the planning and thus lowered the (or so they thought) need for more troops. Big mistake that, as Rick said, deserved addressing long ago.
I still think Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and the Saudis have a lot to lose if Iraq goes bad and better get in there and help.
Comment Posted By Mark On 22.08.2006 @ 17:35
B Poster,
Comment Posted By Mark On 22.08.2006 @ 14:52
Fair enough on your comments.
I am not saying that because of one certain thing or another we HAD to invade Iraq but I think the argument is incomplete if Saddam's sponsorship of terrorists, (including the thousands trained in his state run camps) is left out.
Andy,
I apologize if I came off rude in the initial response to your comments.As I said before, I've spent 3 years on this issue and literally thousands of hours. It is the ONLY issue I read about and I've read about it obsessively (ask my girlfriend) and read everything out there on the subject.
The notion that the two sides would cooperate because of an ideological block has been made to me so many times that I just did an entire post on it at my site (linked below). Basically, that's the mentality the intelligence community had (dangerously) in the years building up to the invasion of Iraq. Because they were so "sure" that Iraq wouldn't work with al Qaeda they didnt even feel the need to seriously monitor that situation.
That being said, there are HUNDREDS of al Qaeda and Baathist detainees in custody who have talked about the two sides cooperating. When responsible for protecting a country (particularly post 9-11) it's unbelievably dangerous to just say "Oh, those two have different ideologies and they wouldnt assist each other in attacking us, Ok, nevermind then, I'll leave him alone." I find that mentality dangerous to the point of being infuriating.
I'll ask you again, because I've seen enough evidence to be fairly certain about the answer, where did al Qaeda get their CBW manuals and know how?
Their actual cooperation means far more to me than what the two sides thought of each other, and it should mean far more to anyone looking at the issue.
Link http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/06/saddam_husseins_regime_and_isl/
I also have a piece planned for the next few days discussing the plans for attacks on the U.S. and it's allies that Saddam had attempted in 2002/2003, which for some reason have been swept under the rug.
Comment Posted By Mark On 22.08.2006 @ 14:49
Also Rick,
Comment Posted By Mark On 22.08.2006 @ 12:14
I say the hell with the polls and the political fallout. Bring in more troops and let Turkey, the Saudis, the Jordanians and Egyptians know that if they don't get in there and help they will be dealing this with this problem down the line when it might be worse. So they better get in there and help.
Good post Rick.
Andy, Saddam and AQ surely didn't like each other but they were CERTAINLY defacto allies and their cooperation made a deadly alliance that had to be dealt with.Who the hell do you think gave al Qaeda all of their CBW manuals in Northern Iraq and Afghanistan?
I've worked 3 years looking for honest answers on Saddam's regime and al Qaeda and it's quite complicated, but saying that the two were "enemies" isn't true at all. Iraq was the ONLY country in the region to NOT assist the U.S. with al Qaeda arrest post 9-11. Even Iran, Syria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia arrested some al Qaeda members. Saddam's regime arrested a few of Zarqawi's buddies and turned them loose while warning them that the Jordanians were after them. The rest were provided weapons, money, passports, access to safehouses, etc.
It's one thing to say the war isn't going well, it's a whole different thing to distort the events leading up to the invasion.
Comment Posted By Mark On 22.08.2006 @ 12:12
REDEFINING THE ALREADY DEFINED
Anyone hear from Lee Siegel lately?
Comment Posted By Mark On 23.10.2006 @ 19:43
Wow you chickenhawks sure turned into an army of Encyclopedia Browns in a hurry.
This guy Greenwald is really getting to you...
Comment Posted By Mark On 25.07.2006 @ 21:17
I hope you are still keeping an eye on this story and what develops with our new CIA director.
Comment Posted By Mark On 30.06.2006 @ 22:34
