US invasion of Iraq based on false report of Al-Qaeda's ties with Saddam

[ChoakMyDee]

The days, months and (yes) years following 9/11 had to have been frighteningly chaotic for the Bush White House. They had just experienced one of the worst attacks on US soil, and they had no idea if another was coming. It seems clear now that they overreached, but hindsight is obviously a luxury they didn't have at the time.

You're too kind. I knew the war was wrong right from the start and I'm a nobody with access to nothing but the nightly news.

[up-country_sinclair]

The days, months and (yes) years following 9/11 had to have been frighteningly chaotic for the Bush White House. They had just experienced one of the worst attacks on US soil, and they had no idea if another was coming. It seems clear now that they overreached, but hindsight is obviously a luxury they didn't have at the time.

You're too kind. I knew the war was wrong right from the start and I'm a nobody with access to nothing but the nightly news.

I take your point (and had some reservations at the time myself) but we didn't didn't have any of the immense responsibility on our shoulders. I think the overreach I mentioned in my previous post was due to a sense of guilt over not preventing the first attack and utter fear that they would be held responsible for a second. The American people rightly gave the Bush administration a pass on responsibility for 9/11, but if something similar happened again on their watch, sentiment would have changed considerably. Thus the overreach. I imagine they would do things differently if they had to do it all over again.

[how241]

I don't know how this could be news. I guess because it's no longer merely conjecture alone. I can't see how it will be a good thing... just make some more people angry because so many died as a result of what?

+1...Nothing good will come from this.

[petercool]

Post discussing moderator actions removed. see forum rule ...

10) Do not discuss moderation publicly in the open forum; this includes individual actions, and specific or general policies and issues. You may send a PM to a moderator to discuss individual actions or email support (at) thaivisa.com to discuss moderation policy.

[ubonjoe]

Also a off topic post with racial comments has been removed and a reply to it.

[greenchair]

Anybody with any sense knew the whole thing was a farce years ago. This news really is nothing new.

[atyclb]

Make up your minds, Dems. Was it a false claim of WMD's or was it a false claim about Al Qaeda?

Keep your stories straight.

Hey Dinosaur ....wake up! Its was BOTH!

Oh and in the process, you killed 150.000 innocent people - thank you for bringing in democracy(that you don't even have yourself.).....everything is fine after you left....good job.

Uh, best have a talk with Tony Blair about the "you" stuff. Australia was there too. Twice.

So thank you UK and Australia for killing all of those people. Good job.

“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”

Leo Tolstoy

"even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" M. Gandhi

[wwest5829]

Make up your minds, Dems. Was it a false claim of WMD's or was it a false claim about Al Qaeda?

Keep your stories straight.

Not one or the other...that would make two false reasons. Blame it on poor intelligence if you wish. Double meaning intended.

[manarak]

Make up your minds, Dems. Was it a false claim of WMD's or was it a false claim about Al Qaeda?

Keep your stories straight.

It was both.

What's scarier than Saddam being friends with Al-Queda and having WMD at his disposal ?

People responsible for these lies should be prosecuted.

[Daniel Boon]

There was a YouTube clip playing Australian, Canadian and UK leaders make a 'speech to their respective parliaments where they all said exactly the same thing ...'coalition of the willing' liars, trying to curry the favor of the bullyboy rogue state aka USA ...

[manarak]

How do people get off blaming the US or "Bush" for something they were up to their eyeballs in too?

Hypocrites.

what b*******t

22 countries provided troops for the war in Iraq and I'll bet yours was one of them. Even Thailand provided troops.

Your comment stands (for you) if your country wasn't one of them, but for others blaming all on the US, they are full of bullshit.

Nah, we don't blame it on the US. We blame it on Bush, Cheney and their Carlysle Group cronies.

About the other 22 countries... well, all criminal gangs have leaders and followers. Some have been duped by Bush & Co. while others were accomplices (Blair).

Anyways, leaders always get sentenced much harsher than followers and rightly so.

[pattayasnowman]

There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam's intelligence services had contact with AQ, but AQ would have been the sworn enemy of a leader like Saddam, so any contact would have been about nothing substantial. Iraq was a Republic.

The decision was made and then the excuses were invented.

It's sad that so much good will was wasted. It might be a situation of crying wolf one too many times.

al-Qaeda is as much a frabrication as WMD. There is no and never has been any centrally controlled terroris organization. It came into 'existance' with 9/11 as part of the the whole propoganda to justify the Afghan and Iraq wars

[Ulysses G.]

It's all a conspiracy.

[F430murci]

Duh, so is this dumb arrssee over the hill politician just now realizing this? Or is he just trying to remain relevant or rally the base to save the Democratic Party at a time when the President's popularity is at its lowest point ever.

We have had these same discussions on here 2 years ago and it was not new news or any revelation then. Congrats to Sherlock for figuring something out that has been in the news and a topic if discussion for 5 to 10 years.

[HerbalEd]

Make up your minds, Dems. Was it a false claim of WMD's or was it a false claim about Al Qaeda?

Keep your stories straight.

What are you talking about? It was never an either-or claim. One doesn't exclude the other. They were both lies and Bush and Cheney knew it.

[quidnunc]

Make up your minds, Dems. Was it a false claim of WMD's or was it a false claim about Al Qaeda?

Keep your stories straight.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Clearly, it's both and a lot more.

[HerbalEd]

How do people get off blaming the US or "Bush" for something they were up to their eyeballs in too?

Hypocrites.

what b*******t

You make a very eloquent and compelling argument.

[quidnunc]

"It hasn't made our world anymore safer."

There is really no way to know that.

I suppose in the sense that there's no way to ultimately know the definitive outcome of anything. But we do know that it massively destabilized the region and that where terrorists once could not operate, now they do so freely.

[F430murci]

"It hasn't made our world anymore safer."

There is really no way to know that.

I suppose in the sense that there's no way to ultimately know the definitive outcome of anything. But we do know that it massively destabilized the region and that where terrorists once could not operate, now they do so freely.

Our world is safer since 911. Our government's job is to act in the best interests of the US. We have done that and I am satisfied that we are safer and things are better.

As far as ME, that place was a disaster long before 2001. Sadam slaughtered anywhere between a 1/4 to a 1/2 mullion. Shitty place before, shitty place now. Time for these people to step up and right their own ship.

Look at all of the other countries that were gutted or had restructured leadership after wars and conflicts. They restructured, rebuilt and bettered their countries. Not the ME though.

The problem in the ME is the people in the ME countries, not the US, not the Israel's, not the Russians, not the Europeans, not the Australians or anyone else potentially within their cross hairs for terrorist acts.

Edited December 12, 2014 by F430murci

[Ulysses G.]

Hear, Hear!

[skippybangkok]

And this is "news" ? Thought it was common knowledge

[ggt]

Historically. all US intervention into foreign countries is based on false or fabricated intelligence information...the decision is made to invade...they just need to come up with a "moral" justification to keep the court of world opinion from seeing the attack for what it really is...US flexing its muscle...in the name of national interest...because it can...

The lack of support by friends and foes alike is brought about by US hubris and bullying in foreign affairs...

[jdlancaster]

The WMD thing was kinda a BS reason to go.... but to be fair..... there were chemical weapons in Iraq and many US soldiers were exposed at chemical weapon storage facilities in Iraq.... these were the subject of investigation as possible sources for iSIS use of chemical weapons.... symptoms being related to use of blister agents.... blister agents tend to be more.stable than nerve agents... not that it excuses anything. ... was a waste of lives and resources to go

[chuckd]

Historically. all US intervention into foreign countries is based on false or fabricated intelligence information...the decision is made to invade...they just need to come up with a "moral" justification to keep the court of world opinion from seeing the attack for what it really is...US flexing its muscle...in the name of national interest...because it can...

The lack of support by friends and foes alike is brought about by US hubris and bullying in foreign affairs...

Are you including Pearl Harbor, North Korea invading the South, Saddam invading Kuwait and the 9/11 attack, to name only a few, on fabricated intelligence information?

A rather strange comment using an awfully wide brush.

[iReason]

"...relied on a false report of Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 attacks alleged meeting with an Iraqi intelligence agent to justify the US' invasion of Iraq in 2003."

Another false report.

Should read: Mohammad Atta, the alleged leader of the 9/11 attacks.

Atta, is that the guy whose passport they found miraculously intact lying atop the rubble at the WTC site?

Yes.

Undamaged.

[iReason]

Historically. all US intervention into foreign countries is based on false or fabricated intelligence information...the decision is made to invade...they just need to come up with a "moral" justification to keep the court of world opinion from seeing the attack for what it really is...US flexing its muscle...in the name of national interest...because it can...

The lack of support by friends and foes alike is brought about by US hubris and bullying in foreign affairs...

Are you including Pearl Harbor, North Korea invading the South, Saddam invading Kuwait and the 9/11 attack, to name only a few, on fabricated intelligence information?

A rather strange comment using an awfully wide brush.

I'll go with, Pearl Harbor, the Korean War, Bay of Pigs, Viet Nam, 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan.

S.O.P.

[manarak]

Historically. all US intervention into foreign countries is based on false or fabricated intelligence information...the decision is made to invade...they just need to come up with a "moral" justification to keep the court of world opinion from seeing the attack for what it really is...US flexing its muscle...in the name of national interest...because it can...

The lack of support by friends and foes alike is brought about by US hubris and bullying in foreign affairs...

Are you including Pearl Harbor, North Korea invading the South, Saddam invading Kuwait and the 9/11 attack, to name only a few, on fabricated intelligence information?

A rather strange comment using an awfully wide brush.

- Pearl Harbor: genuine casus belli

- North Korea: motivation was to not let the communist bloc extend its area of influence, so the US backed South Korea, clean casus belli for a geopolitical war between East and West for the third world.

- 9/11: an attack probably made possible by an intelligence mishap, we can't yet completely exclude the scenario of an intelligence operation ending in catastrophy as an unintended consequence.

- The background of Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait is arguable. As far as I know, Hussein may habe been misled into thinking the US would not intervene if he annexed Kuwait.

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait

On 25 July 1990, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border.

The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, “inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts".

She also let Saddam Hussein know that the United States did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". These statements may have caused Saddam to believe he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait.^[30][31]

According to Richard E. Rubenstein, Glaspie was later asked by British journalists why she had said that, her response was "we didn't think he would go that far" meaning invade and annex the whole country. Although no follow-up question was asked, one might assume that what the U.S. government thought in July 1990 was that Saddam Hussein was only interested in pressuring Kuwait into debt forgiveness and to lower oil production.^[32]

But that, of course, is the story that is told to the public.

There seem to have been many "misunderstandings" which eventually led the US to massively extend their influence over the region.

There was also this mystification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_%28testimony%29

One has to wonder what was really going on, since the false claims made by Nayirah were at the center of the US pro-war propaganda.

Wag the dog?

Edited December 12, 2014 by manarak

[Norvid]

I believe the war started (in 1982 ?), when Israelis attacked (preemptive stick on) Irak an bombed nuclear facility there.

[LawrenceN]

Make up your minds, Dems. Was it a false claim of WMD's or was it a false claim about Al Qaeda?

Keep your stories straight.

Is there some reason it can't be both? It was a total pack of lies to accomplish a predetermined goal. I remember the first time I heard Cheney's sabre-rattling in the summer of 2002, when he said Saddam was supporting Al Qaeda. It made no sense to me. I said to myself, "Saddam's is a secular regime, surely not friendly to the religious fundamentalists of AQ." Another immediate thought was, "What happened to the no-fly zone after the first war with Iraq? That country was under intense surveillance for 11 years, not even allowed to fly over their own country. Then suddenly they have 'weapons of mass destruction?' Who dropped the ball?"

I listened for answers to my questions throughout the autumn of 2002 (I was living in the US), but all we heard was fear-mongering. Anyone who attempted to question the party line (using the term loosely, as both political parties were complicit) was branded "unpatriotic." The story (or stories if you prefer) never added up, but the American people are sheep who will be frightened into submission rather than be labeled unpatriotic.

I'm not a pacifist, I thought that going after the Taliban in Afghanistan was the proper thing to do, given their support for AQ (not to mention the slavery of their women). War is a serious decision, and needs powerful (and true) reasons. The reasons for attacking Iraq were absent, and these revelations are long overdue.

[Daniel Boon]

"It hasn't made our world anymore safer."

There is really no way to know that.

I suppose in the sense that there's no way to ultimately know the definitive outcome of anything. But we do know that it massively destabilized the region and that where terrorists once could not operate, now they do so freely.

Our world is safer since 911. Our government's job is to act in the best interests of the US. We have done that and I am satisfied that we are safer and things are better.

As far as ME, that place was a disaster long before 2001. Sadam slaughtered anywhere between a 1/4 to a 1/2 mullion. Shitty place before, shitty place now. Time for these people to step up and right their own ship.

Look at all of the other countries that were gutted or had restructured leadership after wars and conflicts. They restructured, rebuilt and bettered their countries. Not the ME though.

The problem in the ME is the people in the ME countries, not the US, not the Israel's, not the Russians, not the Europeans, not the Australians or anyone else potentially within their cross hairs for terrorist acts.

What a crock of shit 'the world is a safer place' .... you obviously just listen to what you're told; try doing some research. The government acts in the best interest of the corporations, the population is necessary only to consume things (people are herded just like any other animal).

The Americans have slaughtered far more than Saddam Hussein. [America was a beautiful place, but its getting shittier by the minute; what you going to do about that?]

Name one country that is 'better off' than before America came along.

Long before criminals were sent to Australia, they were sent to America; the white collar criminals (due to class structures, wasn't the done thing to put upper crust in the stocks, flog them or hang them)

Just think how much better off everybody would be, how much cheaper, if America just paid for the oil (and other resources) instead of stealing it. When Clinton was in, the USA was out of debt and now, <deleted>; and why ? because corporations own the government and all the slippery politicians and use American citizens tax paid funds to fight their wars to steal ...

America would still be 'the brave', thousands of lives not squandered protecting corporations with sleaze bags like Cheney and his neo-con mates. These arse-wipes used America's good name to dupe people, interfere in regions where they could put puppet leaders in control and strip regions of their resources ...