Did torture lead to the wrong war?

[WhoWee]

I guess in the context and spirit of THIS (nonsense rant of a) thread you could assert that Clinton was responsible for the terror attacks of September 11, 2001?

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905090003

 

[Al68]

If it is so clear cut please explain how the Geneva Conventions and its numerous qualifiers apply to KSM.

You're not going to get any good answer to this one, due to the simple fact that believing that how we did or didn't treat terrorist prisoners could "violate" the Geneva Conventions and understanding the basics of the Geneva Conventions are mutually exclusive.

 

[Gokul43201]

About my statement that a police state is not easy to enter?

No, about your assertion that it would have been hard for Zarqawi to enter Iraqi Kurdistan in 2002 without Saddam's help.

In part common sense, http://slate.msn.com/id/2108636/" that travel there for another:

How can you take that article seriously when Hitchens says things like this:

"To the contrary, I used to have to argue every day with antiwar forces who said that Saddam would be able to liquidate tens of thousands of coalition troops, not to mention many Israelis, with his mighty arsenal."​

That's just a silly strawman ruse. Who cares if Hitchens argued every day with uninformed idiots?

And the argument about about Zarqawi needing Saddam's help to enter Kurdistan is just as specious. Please! Zarqawi wasn't exactly applying for an Iraqi visa at a consular office. He likely crossed the Kurd controlled border with Iran. He would probably have had to worry more about getting caught by Kurds than by Baathists.

Yes. And Zarqawi left Afghanistan, traveling eventually to Iraqi Kurdistan to start killing Kurds, something that would make the Bathists quite happy, for what reason?

For the possible reason that Ansar, being a Sunni/Wahhabi fundamentalist group determined to impose Sharia rule was ideally aligned with his philosophy? You've got a better speculation?

I have little interest in rehashing again at the moment the post Iraq invasion Senate Intel 2004 and 2006 report details on the scant link between Zarqawi and the Bathists, or how the administration should have done a better job on the intelligence. I was responding to the common 'Aha!, the real reason' revisionist nonsense du jour without sources in this https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2206502#post2206502", presenting the fact that Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war *, and that is indisputably part of public record (Powell's UN speech) that terrorists like Zarqawi in Iraq were a reason articulated for the war.

Saying that terrorists were in Iraq and even saying that a lot of these terrorists were directly supported by Saddam is trivially true (Saddam was pretty public and vocal in his support) but misses the nuance involved in establishing this one specific relationship. For one thing Saddam's support was primarily for Palestinian jihadists like Abu Nidal (who, like Saddam, and unlike Zarqawi, was a secular militant). And secondly, he preferred to support them after they were dead (by offering rewards to the families of martyred suicide bombers). He wasn't really crazy about letting big mercenary terror organizations thrive inside Iraq (and let's not forget it was almost certainly Saddam that had Abu Nidal killed). But all that is only tangential to the issue, which is the importance of the intel behind Zarqawi.

The Joint Resolution by Congress specifically gave permission to invade any nation "who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations", so it was important that the White House make the case that Saddam's Iraq had harbored a person or organization that was responsible for 9/11. That was the importance of Zarqawi - he came closest to fitting this description. But to make this case, they first had to dress him up as al Qaeda (which he wasn't, though he was funded by them at times and interacted with them regularly), and then produce the photo of him in Saddam's bedroom. But the photo turned out to be more of a painting based partly on intel and partly on speculation.

PS: Would you agree then, that an assertion that arguments about Saddam's links with terrorism were more of hints and hopes, rather than an important part of the case for the war, should just as well qualify as revisionism (if not just ignorance or forgetfulness)?

 

[LowlyPion]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.09/index.html"

What makes you think they leveled with Powell? Seriously, you can't believe that Powell was anything more than the loyal soldier sent on a suicide mission without knowing that he was sent out to lie.

Cheney recently said Powell wasn't his kind of Republican, that Limbaugh was more of the Republican Party. I guess Powell's problem is that he has integrity.

 

[mheslep]

...The Joint Resolution by Congress specifically gave permission to invade any nation "who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations", so it was important that the White House make the case that Saddam's Iraq had harbored a person or organization that was responsible for 9/14.

You may have mistaken resolutions? That is the 'go get em' language a week after 9/11 from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00023:@@@L&summ2=m&" is specific to Iraq. There is still 9/11 terrorist wording, but it reads as a tag along.
Edit: A clarification - The 'harbored' language appears in both resolutions, but in the Iraq resolution its up in the 'Where As' preamble, a reference back to their earlier 9/14 resolution, it is not in the 'Authorizes..' section as it was in 9/14.

Back to the rest later.

 

[WhoWee]

What makes you think they leveled with Powell? Seriously, you can't believe that Powell was anything more than the loyal soldier sent on a suicide mission without knowing that he was sent out to lie.

Cheney recently said Powell wasn't his kind of Republican, that Limbaugh was more of the Republican Party. I guess Powell's problem is that he has integrity.

Do you really believe that Powell is that naive and uninformed?

Maybe Powell is the ONLY one that knew the "truth"...if we're going to spew nonsense...afterall, Powell was the one hard wired to the military.

 

[LowlyPion]

Do you really believe that Powell is that naive and uninformed?

They fooled a majority of the Nation to get elected, didn't they? Why would they be all truthful with Powell, if it suited their purposes to mislead the Country, into a war they couldn't otherwise justify?

 

[Phrak]

No. The Bush-Hussein family feud led to the war--the Bush's were determined to defeat Saddam and sons. ''He's got to go,'' George H. W. Bush. One may not be wrong to claim that it was the loverly mosaic of George Bush senior's face on the entry to Bagdad International Airport that tipped the balance. Of course it could have been the 1993 assasination attempt. It was through the actions of Osama bin Ladin that the means-to-an-end happily droped into their laps. The administration was able to generate a salable laundry list of reasons constructed for the digestion by both Congress and the voting public eye. Through the excited legislation that resulted, the means to Infinite Freedom were obtained.

 

[Gokul43201]

You may have mistaken resolutions? That is the 'go get em' language a week after 9/11 from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00023:@@@L&summ2=m&" is specific to Iraq.

I may have gotten the name of the bill wrong, but I did intend the first one. It's not like the WH waited until after the Iraq War resolution was passed to start making the case for invading Iraq. No, it was the other way round - the case was made so that Congress would permit the invasion on the grounds that it was merely in keeping with a resolution that they had already passed.

 

[Gokul43201]

FYI: Some interesting reading - since Clinton was called to the stand earlier in this thread - can be had in the Clinton directive that first spelled out language relating to renditions.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm

 

[mheslep]

FYI: Some interesting reading - since Clinton was called to the stand earlier in this thread - can be had in the Clinton directive that first spelled out language relating to renditions.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm

...
o Return of Indicted Terrorists to the U.S. for Prosecution: ...

If we do not receive adequate cooperation from a state that harbors a terrorist whose extradition we are seeking, we shall take appropriate measures to induce cooperation. Return of suspects by force may be effected without the cooperation of the host government, consistent with the procedures outlined in NSD-77, which shall remain in effect. (S)
...

Marked as secret. Wow, would really like to lay eyes on NSD-77.