Monday, June 27, 2005

After War

Will: So the memo states that "US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Aaida [again, their typo] is so far frankly unconvincing."

In Jan 2003, Bush told America, "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda." Prior to that, 9/28/02, Bush said, "The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq."

Billy Joe: Wait just a second. Couldn't that just be coyboy talk? You know, tough talk. Man talk. Careless and reckless man talk.

Will: Well, he went on, "You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein when you talk about the war on terror."

Billy Joe: Now that's man talk.

Monique: But wait just a second. I thought that at that time, a leading terrorism expert said, "there is no substantial, noteworthy relationship" present between the two? (Daniel Benjamin, former terrorism adviser to the U.S. National Security Council). Furthermore, weren't the experts saying that Bin Laudin and Saddam are natural enemies because one is a religious nutbag and the other is a power hungry nutbag?

Billy Joe: Yeah. So there was some so called experts who disagreed with all this and all that. All experts agree you can find an expert to say anything. So what?

Will: Well, the memo gives some evidence that there wasn't a good case for going to war based on a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. That's what it means when the words say: "...a link between Iraq and Al Aaida [again, their typo] is so far frankly unconvincing."

Monique: But around the same time, Bush is telling the country that "You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein when you talk about the war on terror," without further qualifications - about doubt within his administration or among various experts for one, or that earlier that same year the Brits thought that the link was "frankly unconvincing."

Billy Joe: So what you're telling me is that there is some evidence that Bush had no or very little solid evidence that this connection existed, but he still said "You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein when you talk about the war on terror"?

Will: Well, my Midland friend, it just gets worse. Another memo states, "There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." So it looks like this memo states that facts were going to be fixed about the policy of removing Saddam from power.

Monique: Well, that's weird. Because didn't Bush say “[This nation fights reluctantly], because [we] know the cost, and [we] dread the days of mourning that always come.” I mean, if we fight reluctantly, then why does the memo seem to state that Bush wanted to go to war from the get go?

Billy Joe: That don't make sense to me.

Wing Zei Shin: So, how did all that turn out? I've been up here in the Chinese space station and haven't been keeping up. So were there ties to terrorism or not? I mean, if there were, then perhaps there was overwhelming evidence at the time that we mere mortals don't get a gander at. Then perhaps the memo is dead wrong, and Bush is dead right.

Will: The 911 comission found no connection. Since then, the Bush administration has publically admitted there is no evidence for a connection.

Lacov: hum... Well, it's just one memo. Perhaps it's just the rantings of some low level Bond wanna be.

Billy Joe: Sure. Could be that.

Will: Sure. Could be that, but it does hang together with all the other data, doesn't it? Also, it's very interesting that the memo states, 'the NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." Because that's exactly what occured.