Sponsoring this...


Consume this...

Supplement with this...

Polling this...

Legalize this...




Watch this...



  • Jihadwatch_1

Advocate this...

Support this...

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

« Running for this... | Main | Too much naiveté on this... »

June 18, 2004

Comments

woogie

Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing, or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training, and deploying against us?

"Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions. . . . Is our current situation such that 'the harder we work, the behinder we get'?"1

—Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

Such are the big-picture questions for the War on Terror, the kind that should have shaped Pentagon strategy from the start. Unfortunately, they apparently weren't asked by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld until 16 October 2003, in a private memo that he issued to his top staff. While the media focused on his admission of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq, contrary to the rosy predictions made earlier, the true surprise was that Secretary Rumsfeld questioned even whether we are "winning or losing the Global War on Terror." He described how his office had yet to enact a "bold," measurable, or even systematic plan to win the War on Terror, despite being two years and two ground wars into the fight. In short, what Rumsfeld's memo admitted was a shocking absence of strategic thinking.

staceyp

The connection"--neoconservative shorthand for the purported link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda--is crumbling. Two days after Vice President Cheney asserted that Saddam "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda" and one day after George W. Bush echoed his second-in-command, the independent bipartisan 9/11 commission said that no such bond existed. In a staff statement the commission notes, "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda...occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." According to the commission, bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" in the early 1990s ("despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime"), a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met bin Laden in 1994 and bin Laden asked Iraq for space where he could establish training camps and for assistance in obtaining weapons. But, the commission concludes, "Iraq apparently never responded." Regarding possible Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 plot, the commission states, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

With one paragraph, the commission decimates a primary rationale of Bush's war on Iraq. Before the invasion, Bush argued that Saddam was an immediate threat and war was necessary because (a) Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and (b) Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda and at any moment could slip bin Laden WMDs to use against the United States. As Bush proclaimed in November 2002, Saddam was "a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaeda." But he produced no proof then, and, according to the commission, he has none now.

Matthew Sevcik

Funny thing about the article you just sent me. Go back and read it, and you'll find that not a single one of these attacks is attributed to Iraq. Perhaps you don't have time to do the research, so I'll do it for you.

1979, Attack on U.S. Embassy in Tehran - ATTRIBUTED TO IRAN
President - Jimmy Carter

1983, Attack on U.S. Embassy in Beirut - ATTRIBUTED TO LEBANON
President - Ronald Reagan

1983, Attack on Marine Headquarters - NO ONE ATTRIBUTED, LEBANON SUSPECTED
President - Ronald Reagan

1983, Attack on U.S. Embassy in Kuwait - NO ONE ATTRIBUTED, but interestingly
Rumsfeld’s December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years. He met Saddam and the two discussed “topics of mutual interest,” according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. “[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world,” Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. “It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems.”

It OBVIOUSLY wasn't Iraq, because Rumsfeld was there in December at the SAME TIME the attack happened. Shall I continue?

1985, Restaurant attack in SAN SALVADOR (not Madrid like your chain letter said) - ATTRIBUTED TO THE FMLN, A SAN SALVADORAN LIBERATION GROUP THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ
President - Ronald Reagan

1985, Attack on Rhein-Main Air Force Base, ATTRIBUTED TO THE RAF, A COMMUNIST GROUP THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ
President - Ronald Reagan

1985, Achille Lauro Liberation Front, ATTRIBUTED TO THE PALESTINIAN LIBERATION GROUP
President - Ronald Reagan

1986, TWA Flight 840 Hijacked, ATTRIBUTED TO THE POPULAR FRONT FOR THE LIBERATION OF PALESTINE

1986, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland hijacked, ATTRIBUTED TO LIBYA
President - George H. Bush

Your article at this point talks about how Clinton didn't do anything, but as you know, Clinton didn't become the President until 1993. Don't be fooled by the author of this article, Grandma. Shall I continue?

1993, Attack on CIA Headquarters, ATTRIBUTED TO Mir Aimal Khan Kansi, WHO IS A PAKASTANI
President - Bill Clinton

1993, First Attack on World Trade Center, CONSPIRATORS HAVE VARIOUS NATIONALITIES, including EGYPTIAN, JORDANIAN, PAKISTANI, KUWAITI

1995, Attack on U.S. military compound in Saudi Arabia, NO GROUP CLAIMS RESPONSIBILITY, but Iraq wouldn't have done anything in Saudi Arabia

1996, Attack on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, ATTRIBUTED TO SAUDI DISSIDENTS, FUNDED BY IRAN

1998, Simultaneous Attacks on Tanzania and Kenya Embassies, ATTRIBUTED TO BIN LADEN, A SAUDI ARABIAN MILLIONAIRE (no ties to Iraq at all)
President - Bill Clinton

These attacks killed 13 people, not 224 like your article says. They didn't do any research at all when they wrote it, not like I did. We also didn't just "send two cruise missles and go back to sleep." There was nothing to send cruise missles to! We waited for the Kenyans to find the suspects. After they did, the Kenyans put them on trial and justice was done according to international law. Your article is full of lies. Shall I continue?

2000, U.S.S. Cole is attacked, ATTRIBUTED TO BIN LADEN'S TERRORIST GROUP, AL-QAEDA (no collaborative ties to Iraq)

2001, Second World Trade Center Attack, ATTRIBUTED TO BIN LADEN, AL-QAEDA, AND 14 of 19 WERE SAUDI ARABIANS (no collaborative ties to Iraq)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Reciprocate this...

Bearing this...


  • Bfllogo

Latest additions to this...


Rolling this...