Unprecedent Criticism!!!!!

[Maedhros]

Ex-officials lash Bush policies

Some accuse Bush's aides rather then the man himself
A group of retired US diplomats and generals has condemned the foreign policy of the Bush administration as ideological and callously indifferent.
Members of the 26-strong group of Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change demanded a major rethink in an open letter published in Washington.

"I think we will in time come to be very ashamed of this period in history," said one, Chas Freeman.

Another, Gen Merrill McPeak, talked of the "terrible disaster" in Iraq.

"Because [of] the Pollyann-ish assumptions that were made by the administration going in there, that bouquets would be thrown at us and so forth, we were totally unprepared for the post-combat occupation," the former chief of staff of the US Air Force said.

Mr Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, said the prisoner abuses at Iraq's US-run Abu Ghraib prison amounted to a "catastrophic disaster".

However, he suggested that blame for the abuses rested not with President George W Bush directly, but "some people in the administration".

'Callous indifference'

Another former ambassador, Phyllis Oakley, said the need for change was unprecedented.

"Today we see that structure crumbling under an administration blinded by ideology and a callous indifference to the realities of the world around it," she said.

"Never before have so many of us felt the need for a major change in the direction of our foreign policy."

The former officials have launched their call for change in a presidential election year, but the group is made up of both Democrats and members of Mr Bush's Republican Party.

Known critics of the administration were deliberately excluded from it.

Pressure for change

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says the group includes some who worked for the president's father, George Bush Senior, when he was in the White House.

They include William Crowe, who as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was America's top military officer, and Admiral Stansfield Turner, a former director of the CIA.

The statement follows criticism last month by former diplomats who accused the administration of undermining US credibility in the Arab world by its strong support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

The UK government has also come under fire, former officials attacking Prime Minister Tony Blair's support for Washington over Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Boost to Kerry

Several individual signatories to the open letter have said they will back Mr Bush's Democrat challenger, John Kerry, and others say that the document is in effect calling for the president's removal.

"It is clear that the statement calls for the defeat of the administration," said William C Harrop, former ambassador to Israel.

But supporters of the administration said the former officials who had signed the letter were simply trying to hide the inadequacy of their own policies.

Cliff May, president of the conservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, told the BBC:

"Largely, they are people who were in senior official capacities before 9/11. They are people who are responsible for the policies prior to 9/11.

"Those policies I think, failed spectacularly on 9/11," he said.

THE SIGNATORIES

Avis T Bohlen, President Bush's former assistant secretary of state for arms control
Adm William J Crowe, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff under President Reagan and ambassador to UK under President Clinton; has endorsed John Kerry
Jeffrey S Davidow, President Bush's former ambassador to Mexico
William A DePree, ex-ambassador to Bangladesh
Donald B Easum, ex-ambassador to Nigeria
Charles W Freeman, ex-ambassador to Saudi Arabia
William C Harrop, President Bush Senior's ambassador to Israel
Arthur A Hartman, ex-ambassador to Soviet Union and France
Gen Joseph P Hoar, commander in chief of US Central Command under Bush Sr; supports John Kerry
H Allen Holmes, ex-special operations chief
Robert V Keeley, ex-ambassador to Greece and Zimbabwe
Samuel W Lewis, ex-ambassador to Israel
Princeton N Lyman, ex-ambassador to South Africa
Jack F Matlock, ambassador to the USSR under President Reagan and President Bush Senior
Donald F McHenry, ex-ambassador to the UN
Gen Merrill A McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff; supports John Kerry
George E Moose, ex-African affairs chief
David D Newsom, former acting secretary of state
Phyllis E Oakley, ex-intelligence and research chief
James Daniel Phillips, ex-ambassador to Africa
John E Reinhardt, ex-ambassador to Nigeria
Gen William Y Smith, ex-deputy commander in chief, US European Command
Ronald I Spiers, ex-senior UN official and ambassador to Pakistan
Michael Sterner, ex-ambassador in Middle East
Adm Stansfield Turner, CIA director under Carter; has endorsed John Kerry
Alexander F Watson, ex-assistant secretary of state for Inter-American affairs

From BBC

It is interesting to note the differences between those former diplomats and military types against the current US administration.

[jerseydevil]

I don't really get the point of this is. It seems as if it's tryign to say - "see even people who were ambassadors under Reagan or Bush 41 are against Bush" But the thing is - that doesn't mean they are republicans or democrats. Just by posting this - doesn't really say anything at all. It doesn't tell who these people are or what they're past beliefs were. This is a political year - in a period where the mud is slinging from both sides - I want more information than just an open letter like this.

I find it funny that now people basically say that what was stated by the Bush administration was that "the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms with no problems". They did initially welcome us - for quite a while too - but it was also stated repeatedly, if people watched the news, that problems would develop from multiple sources by people who did not want Iraq to be democratic or to succeed. That also happened - maybe it was greater than what was expected, but that doesn't mean it should have been expected to be worse.

It has only been a little over a year since the downfall of Hussein - it has been 3 years for Afganistan and there are still problems there. You can't turn a country around in less than a year or even three years.

As for the callousness toward the world around us - it was a lot of Clinton's listening to European and world opinion that got us 9/11. It was them that kept complaining everytime Clinton did something against Al Qaeda and bin Ladin. Anyone remember that babyfood plant in the Sudan that just happened to have english on all their signs? Clinton was so in bed with Europe that he listened to them instead of putting America's national security first. I don't put my faith in Europe or world opinion. I especially don't put my faith in three countries who were against the war in Iraq but has now come out that they had underhanded deals with the Oil-for-Food program and Hussein. It's amazing - the UN scandel doesn't get much press - I wonder why.

By the way - here is this...

UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, June 11, 2004

The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.

UNMOVIC acting executive chairman Demetrius Perricos told the council on June 9 that "the only controls at the borders are for the weight of the scrap metal, and to check whether there are any explosive or radioactive materials within the scrap," Middle East Newsline reported.

"It's being exported," Perricos said after the briefing. "It's being traded out. And there is a large variety of scrap metal from very new to very old, and slowly, it seems the country is depleted of metal."

"The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks," Perricos told the council. Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags.

He said the Iraqi facilities were dismantled and sent both to Europe and around the Middle East. at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month. Destionations included Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey.

The Baghdad missile site contained a range of WMD and dual-use components, UN officials said. They included missile components, reactor vessel and fermenters – the latter required for the production of chemical and biological warheads.

"It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax."

The UNMOVIC report said Iraqi missiles were dismantled and exported to such countries as Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey. In the Dutch city of Rotterdam, an SA-2 surface-to-air missile, one of at least 12, was discovered in a junk yard, replete with UN tags. In Jordan, UN inspectors found 20 SA-2 engines as well as components for solid-fuel for missiles.

"The problem for us is that we don't know what may have passed through these yards and other yards elsewhere," Buchanan said. "We can't really assess the significance and don't know the full extent of activity that could be going on there or with others of Iraq's neighbors."

UN inspectors have assessed that the SA-2 and the short-range Al Samoud surface-to-surface missile were shipped abroad by agents of the Saddam regime. Buchanan said UNMOVIC plans to inspect other sites, including in Turkey.

In April, International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Mohammed El Baradei said material from Iraqi nuclear facilities were being smuggled out of the country.

If this is true - it seems as if there are fears in the UN that Iraq did have the weapons but were and are being shipped out of the country. But I wonder - why isn't it making it on the news?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
... Anyone remember that babyfood plant in the Sudan that just happened to have english on all their signs?...

I think it was actually a baby formula plant. Funny thing is - that guy who wrote the book and was so critical of Bush in recent months (Clark or whatever)... I think HE'S the guy who told Clinton that was a target to hit.

I don't really see the point to this thread either.

(OK - one down, two to go! )

(Hey JD - maybe THAT'S what's going on... three different people start three different loopy threads, get you to respond to each... then can carry on in a fourth thread all day without your counter-points! Don't answer me here though! )

[Radagast]

'Blinded by ideology' is damn right, and I am glad some senior figures are saying it. Bear in mind, I am for the war in Iraq, just not in the erratic and damned silly way the Americans are managing it. The flaw comes in their belief that they have sold to the American public that America can pull out soon. To do that would be fatal and typical of the gutless, hit 'n run style invasions of the U.S. since the 1960's. If the Americans can't take rebuilding Iraq, then surely here is were Britain's colonial successes will come into their own. Leave it to the British, we at least should be able to stick establishing an administration that is stable, under British control.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
'Blinded by ideology' is damn right, and I am glad some senior figures are saying it. Bear in mind, I am for the war in Iraq, just not in the erratic and damned silly way the Americans are managing it. The flaw comes in their belief that they have sold to the American public that America can pull out soon. To do that would be fatal and typical of the gutless, hit 'n run style invasions of the U.S. since the 1960's. If the Americans can't take rebuilding Iraq, then surely here is were Britain's colonial successes will come into their own. Leave it to the British, we at least should be able to stick establishing an administration that is stable, under British control.

Leave it to the British ways? That is where you screwed up the Middle East to begin with - with that attitude. if you read about the history of the Middle East anyway and the grand super Empire history.

And where do you get this information that we are being "sold the idea" that we can pull out soon. There has NEVER been a time table for us pulling out. It has always been when Iraq is stable. Right now it's not even until 2006. It's not exactly tomorrow or anything. We're not colonialists like you trying to take over people's countries.

As for your "gutless hit n run" comment - oh yeah - that's us. How many troops does the maginificent Britain have compared to us? You might not be aware of this - but we took on the most dangerous part of the country - which was the Baghdad/Sunni area. We are also still in Afganistan and except for people against the war - we are staying there - and staying in Iraq to rebuild.

You're comments here are truly ignorant - when talking about your own history and that of the Middle East as well as what the US is doing or what has been talked about here in the US.

[The Gaffer]

( wouldn't be too quick to hold up British colonialism as a model of international relations, since so many of the world's conflicts can be traced to the legacy of our occupation.)

There is a point in this thread, which is in the title: whether or not you agree with them, it is completely unprecedented for such an august, independent group to come out with such an explicit condemnation of current policies. It would be interesting to hear people's views on how that might affect the credibility of the administration.

The UN story, if true, doesn't really provide much succour for Bush et al. If indeed Iraq was and is shipping weapons out, it raises a number of issues:
- firstly, that's pretty clever since Saddam's in jail;
- secondly, it's happening under the noses of the US and British administration, which hardly commends their ability to find and neutralise the WMDs they were supposedly sent in for in the first place;
- thirdly, it suggests that the war led to an increase in the trade in WMDs, as predicted by many of its opponents.

Anyway, I think we can be pretty confident that if there were any real evidence of WMDs, it would be all over the news in a flash.

[Maedhros]

'Blinded by ideology' is damn right, and I am glad some senior figures are saying it. Bear in mind, I am for the war in Iraq, just not in the erratic and damned silly way the Americans are managing it. The flaw comes in their belief that they have sold to the American public that America can pull out soon. To do that would be fatal and typical of the gutless, hit 'n run style invasions of the U.S. since the 1960's. If the Americans can't take rebuilding Iraq, then surely here is were Britain's colonial successes will come into their own. Leave it to the British, we at least should be able to stick establishing an administration that is stable, under British control.

Let me respond with a GWB quote:

"We ended the rule of one of history's worst tyrants, and in so doing, we not only freed the American people, we made our own people more secure."

Now to serious stuff:
The argument for the war turned out to be wrong. Oops. It remains to be seen if what happens to Iraq turns out for the better.
Clearly the Bush administration was not prepared for the aftermath of the war. The big question is: Did it contribute in a positive way to the war against terrorism?
For now not, there seems to be more people willing to join the ranks of terrorist organizations, and the US has managed to anger the muslim population in the Middle-East beyond the Israeli-Palestinian problem. They are not closer in capturing the leaders of Al-Quaida than before.
Britain in charge would be better IMO, just because of the tact of the current British administration in regards to the current US one. Really, there is a great gap in the qualities between a Tony Blair and a GWB. One can speak correctly his language and the other can't.
Of course the solution is to bring the UN to the table and for they to take over the process.

The unprecedented thing is that I had a conversation with someone who was trying to explain something about the way the US along with it's citizenry works. I was told that the population stand by the leadership of the country. But then it turns out that they do. Because I'm ignorant in some things about the us, I was wondering if ever before there has been a group of diplomats and military types who have attacked as they had the current Administration.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
There is a point in this thread, which is in the title: whether or not you agree with them, it is completely unprecedented for such an august, independent group to come out with such an explicit condemnation of current policies. It would be interesting to hear people's views on how that might affect the credibility of the administration.

Indeed its quite a list and I have heard a number of conservative media types genuinely effected by this formal declaration by the likes of Admiral Crowe and Ambassador Harrop and General McPeak and such. Theres just no getting around that its a big blow to the administration. The last thing you ever want is dissent within your ranks.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Maedhros
[edited out due to character limit and 3 post per day limit]
...Britain in charge would be better IMO, just because of the tact of the current British administration in regards to the current US one. Really, there is a great gap in the qualities between a Tony Blair and a GWB. One can speak correctly his language and the other can't.
Of course the solution is to bring the UN to the table and for they to take over the process.

Bush tried to bring the UN to the process - 6+ months worth of negotiations. Now TODAY Putin comes forward with intelligence that he had given to Bush BEFORE the war that Hussein had plans to attack the US. Now I want to know WHY Putin if he now says he gave us this information - why did he side with the US and then after meeting Chirac - he changed his tune.

We don't control our national security based on the United Nations or the rest of the world. The problems in the Middle East have hardly been the US - and these attacks are because Bin Ladin and others know that a democractic successful Iraq will be a blow to them. That is why they are trying to bomb and cause problems. If people in Britain think they can do such a better job - then go and call on your governments to put more troops in there.

Here is this by the way...

Appeal to Osama: 'Holy warriors' are in a race with time

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Wednesday, June 16, 2004

ABU DHABI – Abu Mussib Al Zarqawi is regarded as the most lethal insurgent in Iraq, but he has again appealed for more help.

In a message posted on Islamic websites, a message said to be from Al Zarqawi betrayed hints of desperation at prospects for the Islamic insurgency against the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. In the nine-page message to Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden, Al Zarqawi reiterated that his insurgents were racing against time to destabilize the post-Saddam Hussein government and its security apparatus.

"We are not competing with you," Al Zarqawi said in his message. "We just want to be the head of the spear, a bridge by which the [Islamic] community can reach victory."

This was the second message by Al Zarqawi to Bin Laden in less than a year, Middle East Newsline reported. In October 2003, U.S. intelligence intercepted a message by Al Zarqawi to Bin Laden that also appealed for help and warned of victory by an emerging U.S.-sponsored Iraqi government.

In his latest purported message, entitled "The Text of Al Zarqawi's Message to Osama Bin Laden About Holy War in Iraq," Al Zarqawi reviews the Islamic strategy as well as his organization's achievements. He said his group, "Monotheism and Holy War," plans to continue targeting Iraqi police and security forces in the effort to destabilize the U.S.-supported government in Baghdad.

"We are planning to heavily target them during the coming stage before they are in full control," the statement said. "What is coming will be more [attacks], God willing."

On Tuesday, Al Zarqawi claimed responsibility for the previous day's suicide car bombing in Baghdad that killed 13 people, five of them foreign contractors. Al Zarqawi pledged to launch additional attacks.

Western intelligence sources said they could not determine whether Al Zarqawi actually wrote the message. They said the Jordanian-born Islamic insurgent has mastered the use of the Internet for psychological operations against the U.S.-led coalition. The sources cited the videotape posted on Islamic websites of the beheading of U.S. national Nicholas Berg, a contractor in Iraq.

Many of the themes in Al Zarqawi's purported message reflected that of his letter to Bin Laden in 2003. They included the need to spark a civil war in Iraq and the fear that an effective Iraqi security force could end the Islamic insurgency.

"The room for maneuver has started to become smaller," Al Zarqawi said. "The grip is getting tighter around the necks of the holy warriors. With the deployment of soldiers and police, the future has become frightening." Al Zarqawi said his group was trying to organize battalions to take over Iraq before national elections, scheduled for January 2005. Once again, he raised the prospect that Islamic insurgents would fail and either be expelled or killed.

"[If we fail,] we will have to leave for another land to uphold the Islamic banner, or until God chooses us as martyrs," the statement said.

Al Zarqawi said his group has carried out 25 suicide operations against a range of targets in Iraq. He cited Shiites, Iraqi police and security forces and U.S. troops. He said the Shi'ites, the largest sectarian group in Iraq, remain the key to Iraqi stability while he dismissed the Sunnis as politically unaware and divided.

"If we succeed in dragging them [Shi'ites] into sectarian war, we could wake up the Sunnis," Al Zarqawi said.

Britain - nor the UN can do anymore than what we are doing there. I can NOT believe that you think that the hatred of the west was just because of the Palestinian-Israeli. You seem to ignore their entire curriculum of hatred there.

The Middle East HAS TO CHANGE - and that is it.

Oh and Maedros - I love your damn sarcastic little signature.

“What does the term american refers to” asked the boy, and the wise man answered: “Lets look at the dictionary then.”
As an adjective American is:
1. Of or relating to the United States of America or its people, language, or culture.
2. Of or relating to North or South America, the West Indies, or the Western Hemisphere.
As a noun American is:
A native or inhabitant of America.
A citizen of the United States.

Then the boy asked, “What is America then?”, and the wise man looked at the dictionary again:
1. The United States.
2. also the A·mer·i·cas. The landmasses and islands of North America, Central America, and South America.

Confused, the boy asked, “Does the term american refers solely to a us citizen or to any person in North, Central or South America?”
The wise man replied: “What do you think?”, and the boy answered: “It is clear to me that while the term american is used to refers to us citizens, one can also use it to refer to any person who is from that continent too,” the boy thought for a while and asked the wise man, “Am I right?”, and he replied: “But of course.”
The boy wondered, why is it that some people refuse to acknowledge the fact that the term american refers not only to US citizens but to anyone of the American continent?, but then sadly, the boy understood, that it is the calamity of ignorance.

How often do YOU call yourself AMERICAN????? Why don't we all start having wars in our signatures now. THE AMERICAS refer to the continents of North, South, and central American. American is not used to DESCRIBE citizens OUTSIDE of the United States.

A·mer·i·ca
1. The United States.
2. also the A·mer·i·cas (-kz). The landmasses and islands of North America, Central America, and South America.

Oh - and if you try to look up US American - there is NO such thing. I suppose since the person that thinks that American refers to all the Americans is the wiseman - that Americans - are idiots - right?

[Radagast]

Jerseydevil, according to you has America ever done anything wrong? At all? Answer with a 'yes' or a 'no', avoid the use of the smiley and respond promptly.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Maedhros

The unprecedented thing is that I had a conversation with someone who was trying to explain something about the way the US along with it's citizenry works. I was told that the population stand by the leadership of the country. But then it turns out that they do. Because I'm ignorant in some things about the us, I was wondering if ever before there has been a group of diplomats and military types who have attacked as they had the current Administration

Well, feel free to say that the conversation you are so sarcastically talking about was with me in an IM. I just love how people feel the need to bring a personal conversation off the board, on to the board. I have the IM if you would like it posted in full. You resented being called an "outsider" of the US. Well, aren't you? You are as much of an outsider as I am of your country. You asked: what do I know of your government, and I replied, "not much" the same as you know about mine. Your reply was: "that's sad" You have a lot of nerve IMO.

Btw, Your sig sucks IMO.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
Jerseydevil, according to you has America ever done anything wrong? At all? Answer with a 'yes' or a 'no', avoid the use of the smiley and respond promptly.

Now this will be my 3rd post of the day for this thread....

Yes -as I have said MANY TIMES in the past - America has done things that were wrong - as have all countries. I just don't disagree with the war in Iraq - I also don't think it is going terrible. There are ups and downs in it - as in all wars.

Concerning Putin - I wanted to post this...

Russia 'warned U.S. about Saddam'

Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 12:46 PM EDT (1646 GMT)

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.

However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks.

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said.

He said the information was given to U.S. intelligence officers and that U.S. President George W. Bush expressed his gratitude to a top Russian intelligence official.

"This information was indeed passed on through our partner channels to our American colleagues and, moreover, President Bush had an opportunity and used this opportunity to personally thank the leader of one of the Russian special services for this information, which he considered to be very important," Putin said.

Putin made his comments in response to a question from reporters seeking clarification on similar statements leaked by an unnamed intelligence officer in a dispatch by the Interfax news agency.

Russia opposed the invasion of Iraq and Putin said Friday the information did not effect its stance on the war.

He said there were international norms and procedures that weren't observed regarding "the use of force in international actions."

Regarding how the information might have been related to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Putin said, "Whether or not this was sufficient basis to state the United States was acting within the boundaries of self-defense, well, I don't know. This is a separate issue."

The United States, meanwhile, never mentioned the Russian intelligence in its arguments for going to war.

Hours after Putin spoke, Bush addressed troops at Fort Lewis in the U.S. state of Washington, but he didn't react to the Russian leader's remarks.

He repeated his position that Saddam's regime was a threat to the world and that dangers it posed were the grounds for the invasion last year.

"This is a regime which gave cash rewards to families of suicide bombers. This is a regime that sheltered terrorist groups," Bush said.

He also cited Musab Abu al-Zarqawi, the wanted insurgent in Iraq suspected of many terrorist bombings in Iraq, as an "al Qaeda associate."

Asked about Putin's remarks, U.S. National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said, "We don't typically comment on intelligence matters. We do have an excellent record of cooperation in the war on terror with the Russian government. And a big part of the cooperation is information and intelligence sharing."

Putin's comments come two days after members of a U.S. commission looking into the September 11 attacks found there was "no collaborative" relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The panel also found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers.

Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, have strongly disputed suggestions that the commission's conclusions contradict statements they made in the run-up to the Iraq war about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam's regime. He said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible." (Full story)

Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday.

The president said that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said. (Full story)

In the lead-up to the Iraq war, Bush made stronger statements alleging cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda.

In a October 2002 speech he said, "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

The 9/11 commission's report said bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime."

It says the contact was pushed by the Sudanese, "to protect their own ties with Iraq," but after bin Laden asked for space in Iraq for training camps, "Iraq apparently never responded."

The report also said, "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

CNN Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty contributed to this report.

What I also find interesting is how people here have repeatedly said that bin Ladin woudl have nothing to do with Iraq because he hated hussein. Now even the 9/11 Commission says that it was BIN LADIN who tried to make contact and deals with Hussein. My support for the war has just increased.

As I have said - there is A LOT of stuff out there that NO ONE knows about - and now Putin comes out with this. I would like to know why after Chirac went to see him - why he changed his tune toward the US and war?

[BeardofPants]

" "... that's all I have to say. These damned political threads with the same damned players sniping at each other all the time are just getting feckin' tiresome. You people need to pull yer undies out of yer feckin' arse and LIGHTEN UP.

[The Gaffer]

Yeah, it's descended into the usual tit-for-tat, off-topic copy and pasting and outright slagging in record time.

How about answering the question?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Btw, Your sig sucks IMO.

Err... did I miss something? What side of the bed did you get up in?

[Cirdan]

Not unprecedented at all... The media is still playing to ratings and with the swing in public opinion now the war is "bad". It's those bleeding parasites that helped the administration into whipping up that terrible fear of "mushroom clouds". Now, instead of a weak, crippled enemy, we have a weak, dependent satellite state. And all it cost was hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of lives, international credibility, worse terrorism casualties, and an over extended military unprepared for unforeseen requirements.

Why would anyone criticize that?

When you fall back on what Putin has to say you *are* truely desparate to prove a point that cannot be made. Even the administration won't touch that one.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Radagast
'Blinded by ideology' is damn right, and I am glad some senior figures are saying it. Bear in mind, I am for the war in Iraq, just not in the erratic and damned silly way the Americans are managing it. The flaw comes in their belief that they have sold to the American public that America can pull out soon. To do that would be fatal and typical of the gutless, hit 'n run style invasions of the U.S. since the 1960's. If the Americans can't take rebuilding Iraq, then surely here is were Britain's colonial successes will come into their own. Leave it to the British, we at least should be able to stick establishing an administration that is stable, under British control.

Lol! I would also be very disappointed if we didn't stick out the situation with Iraq. I just find the reference to British colonies highly amusing, forgive me .

The war in Iraq was done wonderfully, in my opinion. We neutralized the enemy without pounding thousands of drafted civilians to pieces, as in the Persian Gulf War. Jerseydevil is right, it does take a long time to rebuild a country. Like you Radagast, I certainly hope America sticks this out!

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Err... did I miss something? What side of the bed did you get up in?

Well, I got up on the same side of the bed I always do, but of course you have no idea why I dislike his sig. It is in total reference to a private conversation that we had off the board, that he apparently felt the need to bring onto the board, and make a big deal of it, by commenting, but even going one arrogant step further by taking our conversation and making it into a little story telling signature. Does that answer your question?

[Cirdan]

Just answer the question which side of the bed... huh, oh it was rhetorical... nevermind.

And BoP, I'm not wearing any undies.. eh, what, metaphor??? but the other part was literal, right?


Remember when we used to have fun together?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Just answer the question which side of the bed... huh, oh it was rhetorical... nevermind.

And BoP, I'm not wearing any undies.. eh, what, metaphor??? but the other part was literal, right?


Remember when we used to have fun together?

Was I speaking to you?