Possibly the most pressing reason for invading Iraq, at the time (along with your number 1 and 2), was that as the war in Afghanistan progressed the bad guys were melting across the border into Iraq and Iran. Perhaps, to return intermittently and inconveniently to strike at our interests.

As in Vietnam, they were learning to use our respect for boarders, in a borderless war, against us. In a wider sense, they are still using our respect for law and civilization against us.

You can say what you want about having gone into Iraq but what we do tomorrow starts from where we are today; not where we wish we were; and, not where we were 5 years ago.

If the left won't listen to the connections between Saddam and terror, then don't expect the right to listen to the connections between Oil and the Iraq war.

Really, both are true, and in similar ways. Intertwined or entangled, you could say, by the shape of history.

There are those that believe rewritting history will remove the chains of the past. The reality is that the chains of the past always remain, and revision removes only our ability to learn from them.

Jay, the key flaw in your argument is your assertion that to attack Iraq is to attack militant Islam. Iraq under Saddam was the greatest enemy of the greatest force for militant Islam -- Iran. All our invasion has accomplished is to elevate Iran's status in the region.

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 05/30/2007
A short recon of what's out there that might draw your attention.

Brad: "You can say what you want about having gone into Iraq but what we do tomorrow starts from where we are today; not where we wish we were; and, not where we were 5 years ago.

Very true, but the decision about who leads us today and tomorrow is certainly informed by the realization of how we got to where we are today.

Jay Tea: "I can not recall a single statement by Bush or any top administration official tying Saddam to 9/11"

(published 9/18/2003

Distancing himself from remarks by Vice President Cheney, President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- disputing an idea held by many Americans.

...

Critics have said the administration has tried to create the impression of Saddam's involvement in the attacks, without directly making such a claim, in order to boost public support for the war against Iraq.

On Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney said that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC's "Nightline," White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons Mr. Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged."

In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.

"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.

Mr. Bush defended his No. 2.

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11," he said. "What the vice president said was is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."

Despite such assertions, the administration has never proved a prewar link between Saddam and the terrorist network.

JT - based on your sober thoughts, I almost completely agree with you. Those are my thoughts on this "war on terror" as well.

Alas, the plans (or lack thereof) after the toppling of Saddam have not gone well. What do to now?

But I always knew we are fighting radical Islam or quite possibly Islam itself. I have a life-long of experience living with arabs/muslims and it seems the only true muslims are the devout ones. The "moderate muslims" are simply not religious. We have to be very careful with the spread of sharia law - because it tends to develop when muslim immigration into an area is high.

His removal -- and replacing his regime -- could serve as a great blow in the fight against militant Islam.

Except that it has instead resulted in a significant rise in militant Islam. 'Splain that.

Possibly the most pressing reason for invading Iraq, at the time (along with your number 1 and 2), was that as the war in Afghanistan progressed the bad guys were melting across the border into Iraq and Iran. Perhaps, to return intermittently and inconveniently to strike at our interests.
Brad

The only problem with this statement is it's completely wrong, although it probably fits nicely with your ideology.

Pakistan is where "the bad guys" are melting across the border and back into Afghanistan. Iraq does not share a border with Afghanistan (they're about 1000 miles apart) and Iran was actually aiding us in enforcing their border and capturing Taliban/Al Qaeda members before the ol' "Axis of Evil" speech (they're probably still doing it, just not sharing any of the details with us).

Now of course, some militants may have evaded capture and found refuge in Iraq or Iran. But the vast majority did, and still do, travel in and out of Pakistan with much greater ease.

Brian:

Except that it has instead resulted in a significant rise in militant Islam. 'Splain that.

Right after an explanation is fourth coming in support of militant Islam remaining at the same level or receding in militancy without the Iraq war.

The fact your enemy would recruit when attacked would seem to be a given is it not?

And given one of Osama's prime motivations Iraq means about as much as the proverbial bear shitting in the woods:

"The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam." - Osama Nov 2002

"It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language." - Osama Nov 2002.

"'...the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11.'"

"...Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons Mr. Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in 'a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged.'"
from Lee, emphasis mine.

"Three, Iraq is ideally located as a vanguard in the fight against militant Islam. It is in the heart of the Middle East, with borders with Saudi Arabia (the source of the worst of the ideologies), Iran, and Syria."
from Jay Tea, emphasis mine.

So... the administration stated that terrorists, even the ones responsible for 9/11, originate from the Middle East and Jay Tea notes that taking out Saddam gives us a prime location to operate from in that area.

Then you link an article with the President explicitly stating that Saddam was NOT responsible for 9/11, and clarifying that the VP's remarks did not imply he was, either.

I don't think you accomplished what you hoped to....

I also like Brians assertion that dealing decisively with terrorists results in a "...significant rise in militant Islam." Especially since a few years ago, on a clear September morning, it was undeniably demonstrated that ignoring terrorists results in a catastrophic rise in militant Islam.

I can not recall a single statement by Bush or any top administration official tying Saddam to 9/11

Read this Jay -- and, this time, remember:

"WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney revived two controversial assertions about the war in Iraq on Thursday, declaring there was "overwhelming evidence" that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Al Qaeda and that two trailers discovered after the war were proof of Iraq's biological weapons programs."

This just says it all for me. Everytime I look into one of your "historical facts," you've got it wrong.

Jay, you're usually stupid, you're almost always wrong -- you're not worth reading.

Goodbye.

I also like Brians assertion that dealing decisively with terrorists results in a "...significant rise in militant Islam."

Do you deny that there has been a significant rise in militant Islam since we entered Iraq? Even moreso than there was "a few years ago, on a clear September morning"?

This must be some new definition of "decisively" that you're using.

As others have previously shown, the Bush administration did as much as it could to mislead the public into this Saddam-9/11 connection.

And the irony is, with this very article, you're *still* trying to make this connection. You're just trying an indirect route.

And since Osama Bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia, and hid in Afghanistan, and had support and cohorts in Jordan, Egypt and Syria, invading Iraq had absolutely jack to do with the war on Terror.

To use your WWII analogy, invading Iraq would like responding to Pearl Harbor by invading Indonesia.

I also like Brians assertion that dealing decisively with terrorists results in a "...significant rise in militant Islam."

Invading Iraq was not dealing decisively terrorists. That's what you're not connecting to.

See, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Islamofascism, or anything else. Saddam Hussein was a straight-up atheist in the Stalinist mold, who fought against religion because it threatened his power.

Understand? That's reality.

Especially since a few years ago, on a clear September morning, it was undeniably demonstrated that ignoring terrorists results in a catastrophic rise in militant Islam.

And invading Iraq is *ignoring* terrorists. Do you understand that?

astigafa, ties to Al Qaeda do not equal ties to 9-11. Jay Tea pointed out both things in the original post here. Saddam *did* have ties to Al Qaeda. Almost certainly, he knew nothing about and had no involvement with the attacks on 9-11.

Saddam *did* have biological weapons programs in the past and probably thought he had more than he actually had in the present. But he certainly had them.

Lee Ward: I do not think the quotes prove that the Administration was making ties. Instead it shows that the MSM was trying to twist the Administrations words or at least embellish and extrapolate their actual words to make it seem like the Administration believed there were operational ties which could be discredited.

To put it plainly, the MSM was trying to put into the Administrations' mouths: "Saddam was involved with 9/11 so we took him out". Then they could attack Bush on that point. Look at your quote again. It shows that Bush immediately fought the notion and clearly stated: "...no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved..."

The MSM would not be deterred however, once Bush shut down that line of attack the MSM would re-direct the argument. Have you heard: "Saddam had no involvement in 9/11, so why are we there?" Its masterful jujitsu by the MSM, but not indicative of any shenanigans by the Bush administration.

In fact, as Jay Tea is pointing out, the administrations attack on Saddam goes to the argument that it is part of the overall war against Islamic terrorists (or state sponsors of terrorists). After all we attacked Afghanistan's Taliban regime who had no operational link to 9/11 and that was considered the "good war on terror".

What is the difference between attacking the Taliban who harbored al-qaeda and attacking the Baathists who were sponsoring Palestinian suicide bombers ($25,000) and even harbored some al-qaeda elements? Yes, I said it. Does Zarqawi sound familiar? There are others too. You can do your own research.

Right after an explanation is fourth coming in support of militant Islam remaining at the same level or receding in militancy without the Iraq war.

This is the logical fallacy known as the "Appeal to Consequences of a Belief".

The fact your enemy would recruit when attacked would seem to be a given is it not?

You mean like the rise in power of the Taliban and Saddam after we attacked them?

"And invading Iraq is *ignoring* terrorists. Do you understand that?"

And that's where myopia comes in.

Saddam *did* support terrorists. But that's not really all that important. It's not disputed, either, unless someone is making a deliberate choice to ignore the fact.

Yet Iraq is not *ignoring* terrorists at all but dealing (or attempting to deal) with what touchy-feely sorts like to call "root causes."

Suddenly, of course, social justice, equality, economic justice, etc., opposing tyranny and oppressive dictators is so very *not* a liberal thing to do. Now it's all about respecting other cultures. Never was before, but now it is.

So we look to root causes. Systemic cultural and economic realities. And now liberals don't believe in those things anymore. Now they want to narrow it down, down, down, to this tiny little slice of it all and insist that no one but the single person named Bin Laden counts.

I agree with the other'liberals' on the thread..The contagious myopia was the adminstration thinking one, that Saddam was a militant Islam regime and not a secular Muslim dictator as Jay described and two, converging or conflating this observation with the idea that Saddam's regime had much in common with our 9/11' enemy the fantically religious, Al-queda and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. A cleverer administration would have tried 'to divide and conquer' instead of wildly uniting 'our enemies' by confronting and branding them all as part of an indistinguishable axis of evil, especially in the Middle-East, where the the actions in one country can have many so unintended consequences on its neigbors.

Now it's true Clinton and many other Democrats were taken in by Saddam's brinkmanship and blustering, but I don't recall anyone seriously proposed that we undertake a full-scale invasion on Iraq, only a continuation of Clinton's reprisal policy of limited air strikes...yes,limited success but limited risk.

Synova, do you honestly think that the Bush administration didn't encourage the public to think Saddam was involved with 9/11?

I'm not even arguing at this point, I just want to know if that's actually how you think things are.

So we look to root causes. Systemic cultural and economic realities. And now liberals don't believe in those things anymore.

Are you kidding? Do you know how many liberals are called traitors and lunatics by conservatives for even suggesting the possibility of cultural and economic root causes behind 9/11? I mean heck, you've even started jumping on your own (Ron Paul) for even mentioning such a thing!

Saddam *did* support terrorists. But that's not really all that important. It's not disputed, either, unless someone is making a deliberate choice to ignore the fact.

Here come the facts that you are not aware of. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Saddam's support of terrorists:
- sending checks to Palestinian bombers. $35 mil total

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

Saudia Arabia's support of terrorists:
- $100 Mil to Palestinian bombers IN ONE TELETHON. !!!!

http://www.jcpa.org/art/brief1-23.htm

- supporting terrorist training camps with knowledge, within Saudi borders

- funding Al Qaeda

So, which was the bigger threat? Hm?

Steve Crickmore: So, are you in support of the Clintons reprisal policy? As I recall this allowed him to starve his people whilst collecting his oil for food checks and continue to actively persue genocide in his own contry at the rate of 300,000 per year (gotta fill all those empty mass graves ya know). One of the great benefits of attacking Saddam was ending the genocide.

Jim: You may be right that the next step should have been to attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq. But at least I am glad to see that you agree that there are other supporters of terrorism that need to be dealt with.

So we look to root causes. Systemic cultural and economic realities. And now liberals don't believe in those things anymore. Now they want to narrow it down, down, down, to this tiny little slice of it all and insist that no one but the single person named Bin Laden counts.

Root causes. Riiiiight.

Since no terrorists were coming from Iraq, and Saddam was not Islamofascist, and his country wasn't threatening us in any way - invading Iraq country, killing tens of thousands of civilians, destroying the infrastructure and flooding the Middle East with angry refugees is fixing the root causes.

And now I read that once-proud Iraqi daughters are going into prostitution to keep their families alive - would you EVER forgive a nation that caused that to happen?

Think about it. Which would you have - no freedom of speech but relative freedom from death; OR some freedom of speech but you can die with the snap of a fingers, and your daughter is forced into prostitution??

http://www.keralanext.com/news/?id=1017442

All studies and basic logic shows that this *creates* more terrorists than we are possibly killing. Can you understand that?

Listen - the root causes of anti-US sentiment is not that those who hate us 'hate our liberty'.

So freeing Iraqis from Saddam so they can face car bombings, horribly deteriorating life conditions, and the possibility of needing to sell your body to survive, does not make the Iraqis love us and will not result in less terrorism.

Does that make sense to you?

"Look at your quote again. It shows that Bush immediately fought the notion and clearly stated: "...no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved..."

At the time that these quotes were pulled together -- September 2003, 70% of Americans believed that there was a tie between Saddam and 9/11. Some of this was the result of chowderheads like Cheney and Rice dancing with the truth, and some of it is explained by the "guilt by association" -

We knew Bush wanted to prosecute those responsible for 9/11.

Bush told us that he would get those responsible.

Bush said we need to take out Saddam.

therefore Saddam must be reponsisble for the 9/11 attacks.

Yes, Bush told the truth when asked by reporters, but he was asked in response to Cheney's "stretching of the truth" -- The fact that Bush told the truth doesn't mean that Cheney did as well.

In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.

"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.

If you recognize that Cheney wanted people to believe there was a connection, and you recognize that here on Meet the Press he bypassed an opportunity to set the record straight and say there wasn't a connection (which reinforces the notion that he wanted people to believe there was) and gave a fasle asnwer tot a direct question, you cannot say that the Bush administration was not guilty of spreading the lie that Saddam was connected to 9/11.

Lying by "not telling the truth" is still a lie.

Cheney chose to not tell the truth when questioned on Meet the Press, as cited above.

Well, thank you Scotty. I had just moved out of NY when 9/11 happened. I had several friends who could have been killed, but that morning all were very fortunate; one man I only met once was killed in it.

We all want something to be done about terrorism, and none of us want to die.

But the Bush administration is getting an incredible pass by this constant conflating the occupation of Iraq with the war on Terror. Their invasion of Iraq was inexcusably thoughtless, and they have ruined what miniscule chance there was with their *unbelievably* incompetent policies and management.

The sooner they are no longer allowed to keep using this ridiculous and obscene deceit, the better for our entire nation and the world.

"Goodbye." astigafa's leaving?

:D

"Do you deny that there has been a significant rise in militant Islam since we entered Iraq? Even moreso than there was "a few years ago, on a clear September morning"?"

Do you deny that terrorism wasn't going on in Iraq simply because CNN wouldn't report on it? Do you deny that terrorism hasn't been on the front burner for Islamic militants since long before Iraq and simply because it wasn't reported on all over the world as staple newspaper fodder because 9/11 hadn't occurred yet and wasn't really on anyone's radar, that it didn't happen at the same levels? Do you deny that Islamic militants have been killing people in numerous ways in Indonesia, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, India, etc. simply because you only started hearing about it since 9/11?

People have been kidnapped, murdered in their beds, killed on the streets, tortured and subjected to extreme oppression for a long time by Islamic militants everywhere. Since long before 9/11. Just because it's one or two at a time and not some grand, headline grabbing incident, it didn't exist at the levels we see more clearly now?

Do you really think Spain would have been spared a train bombing had we not gone into Iraq? Do you really think London's tubes would have been safe had we not gone into Iraq? Do you really think Beslan wouldn't have occurred? Do you really think ....

Meh, why do I even try.

Lee: Read the whole Cheney interview. He had already stated that there was no link and Russert was following up with whether he was surprised then that many Americans were making the link. Cheney did't lie by not setting the record straight. He had already said: no direct link.

I think Americans linking as you indicated is more likely a guilt by association then an Administration dancing with the truth. You cannot find a time frame where the administration went more than 24 hours without setting the record straight on the MSMs attempt to put words in their mouths.

But Jim, you didn't even bother to disagree with me when you were disagreeing with me.

At what point did I say that Saddam was a larger supporter than anyone else? I never did.

Saudi most certainly *is* a larger supporter in a lot of ways. But... and this is something I did more or less imply, there are *other* concerns than just this tiny little slice of who is guilty (or guilty-er).

This myopia (and what a perfect way to decribe it) leaves you arguing that Saudi is this huge threat for supporting terrorists. Okay. I agree.

And then what?

What now?

Are you suggesting that we invade Saudi Arabia?

Because it seems like no one ever really wants to go there. If someone like me supports the invasion of Iraq it's always this, "Look at Saudi!" Okay, dandy, I'm looking at Saudi. What do YOU think ought to be done about Saudi? Hmm?

This silly "why don't you support invading Saudi" (particularly coming from anti-war sorts who *also* don't support invading Saudi) is assuming that I support our decision to invade Iraq for a list of things that Saudi is more guilty of. Which I don't.

Either that or it's an assumption that *any* worthy cause is a worthy *military* cause. Only hammers and only nails.

Why is it that the variously anti-war anti-military sorts simply CAN NOT see other methods than military invasion? Huh? Only always military invasion, so why don't we invade Saudi? Why not Pakistan? Why not Syria or Iran?

Idiots, seriously.

It's not about who is guiltiest but about what might be accomplished to further the interests of our country.

Invading Saudi is so brain dead eff'd up moronic that, well, even a moron knows it. Up until the moment they want to use Saudi as a "If we were going to invade someone, Saudi is more guilty" argument.

Scotty..No, not that policy of wide spread sanctions..Actually, Bush had achieved something by forcing Saddam to bring back the inspectors. I t would have been a partial victory. It was at that point he should have backed off in February, 2003, I believe..but the war plans were too far-gone by that time.