Sunday, 12 January 2014

Re: Back to Iraq? You Bet!

Good Morning Michael, and Happy New Year!
 
First, a question for you:  "Do you ever read some of the articles that you post here?" 
 
I have avoided getting into debate with at least the last fifteen or twenty that you have posted,  of which I disagreed with at least eighty percent of,  but this one I kept on my desktop until I had a moment to fully digest it.
 
The line which was supposed to be one of two premises:  "Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before 2003, as we all know";  is debatable, but clearly, there were numerous terrorist organizations and entities that Saddam Hussein,  his two fine sons Bryl and Cream,  as well as the Iraqi Baath Party supported and harbored in Iraq prior to 2003.  Mr. McAdams fails to acknowledge this important point, and never gets to his second premise, or if he did,  I missed it.  
 
As stated, I don't know whether you read this article or not, but it's literally foolish, and/or Anti-American.
 
As for John McCain and Lindsey Graham?  I will agree that both are buffoons and should not be taken seriously.  That doesn't take away from the fact that McAdams is either spewing far left Anti-American spin, or doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
 


On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:28 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

I realize the neoconservative haze prevents clarity ...

Could you kindly define WHAT 'American' might entail (along with 'Anti-American') so it will be more than nationalistic jingoism.
Additionally, what is 'far left extremist'. Is that *ANYONE* who does not swallow the neoconservative Kool-Aid?

WHAT -- specifically -- premise do you imagine to be 'incorrect'?

Just trying to 'see through' the fallacy spew.

Regard$,
--MJ

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -- George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004




At 11:18 AM 1/12/2014, you wrote:
As is typical with Anti-American, far left extremist spin and propaganda,  the premise is incorrect.  By example:
 
  • Journalist Stephen Hayes reported in July 2003 that the official Babylon Daily Political Newspaper, published by Saddam's eldest son, Uday, had printed what it called a "List of Honor" in its November 14, 2002 edition. This list gave the names and titles of 600 leading Iraqis, including this entry: "Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan." According to Hayes, that name matched that of Iraq's then-ambassador to Islamabad.
  • Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell. He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan.
  • Ramzi Yousef, the Kuwaiti-born ringleader of the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing plot, first arrived in the United States (on September 1, 1992) on an Iraqi passport.

  • Author Richard Miniter reported on September 25, 2003, that U.S. forces had discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, showing that Iraq had given both a house and a monthly salary to al Qaeda member Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was indicted for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded beneath the World Trade Center in 1993.
  • Along Iraq's border with Syria, U.S. troops captured Farouk Hijazi, Saddam's former ambassador to Turkey and suspected liaison to al Qaeda. Under interrogation, Hijazi admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994.
  • While sifting through the bombed ruins of the Iraqi intelligence agency in April 2003, three investigators – the Toronto Star's Mitch Potter, the London Daily Telegraph's Inigo Gilmore, and their translator -- discovered a memo dated "February 19, 1998" and marked "Top Secret and Urgent." It said the agency would pay "all the travel and hotel expenses inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden, the Saudi opposition leader, about the future of our relationship with him, and to achieve a direct meeting with him."
  • On January 5, 2000, Ahmad Hikmat Shakir — an Iraqi airport greeter reportedly dispatched from Baghdad's embassy in Malaysia — welcomed Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi to Kuala Lampur and escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later, according to Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared. He was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001, six days after al Midhar and al Hamzi had slammed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 216 people. On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered papers tying him to the 1993 World Trade Center plot and to "Operation Bojinka," al Qaeda's 1995 plan to simultaneously blow up 12 jets over the Pacific Ocean.

  • The Czech Republic stands by its claim, rejected by some opponents of the war in Iraq, that in April 2001, 9/11 leader Mohamed Atta met in Prague with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim an-Ani, an Iraqi diplomat / intelligence agent. An-Ani was expelled two weeks after the suspected meeting with Atta, for his apparently hostile surveillance of Radio Free Europe's Prague headquarters -- from which American broadcasts to Iraq emanate.
  • Saddam paid bonuses of up to $25,000 apiece to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. On March 13, 2002, Reuters reported that Mahmoud Besharat, who was entrusted with dispensing these funds across the West Bank, gratefully said: "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."
  • According to the State Department's May 21, 2002 " Patterns of Global Terrorism," the Abu Nidal Organization, the Arab Liberation Front, Hamas, the Kurdistan Worker's party, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization, and the Palestinian Liberation Front all operated offices or bases in Saddam's Iraq. The dictator's hospitality toward these mass murderers placed him in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which prohibited him from giving safe harbor to or otherwise supporting terrorists.
  • Coalition forces found, alive and well in Iraq, a number of key terrorists who enjoyed Saddam's hospitality. Among them was Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old, wheelchair-bound American Jew whom Abbas's men threw to his death in the Mediterranean Sea. Another terrorist who took refuge in Baathist Iraq was Khala Khadr al-Salahat, accused of designing the bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 (killing 270 people). Yet another was the Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, who resided in Iraq from 1999 to 2002. According to the Beirut office of the Abu Nidal Organization, Nidal had entered Iraq with the full knowledge and assent of the Iraqi authorities.
  • Coalition troops destroyed at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq, including a base near Baghdad called Salman Pak. This camp featured a passenger-jet fuselage where, according to numerous Iraqi defectors, foreign terrorists were taught how to hijack airliners with utensils.
  • The Philippine government expelled Hisham al Hussein, the second secretary at Iraq's Manila embassy, on February 13, 2003. Cell-phone records indicate that the diplomat had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, leaders of Abu Sayyaf, just before and just after this al Qaeda-allied Islamic militant group had conducted an attack in Zamboanga City. Those phone records bolster Sali's claim that the Iraqi diplomat had offered these Muslim extremists Baghdad's help with joint missions.


Adapted from " Saddam's Terror Ties," by Deroy Murdock (October 21, 2003).


On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 9:43 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

January 7, 2014
Back to Iraq? You Bet!
Daniel McAdams

As usual, the interventionists who run the US foreign policy establishment are drawing all the wrong conclusions from the news that the former "al-Qaeda in Iraq" (now "al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria") has set up shop in the notorious Fallujah. Sen. John McCain and his sidekick, Sen. Lindsey Graham, issued a joint statement over the weekend which unsurprisingly blamed the whole development on President Obama's decision to withdraw US forces form Iraq in 2011.

Wrote the Senators:

When President Obama withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011, over the objections of our military leaders and commanders on the ground, many of us predicted that the vacuum would be filled by America's enemies and would emerge as a threat to U.S. national security interests.

There are two things wrong with this analysis. First, the phenomenon of al-Qaeda in Iraq was created by the invasion that the two Senators championed. Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before 2003, as we all know. So if anyone is responsible for al-Qaeda in Iraq it is McCain, Graham, and the coterie of cakewalk neo-conservatives who pushed for the war. Secondly, as the Moon of Alabama blog so deftly points out, the whole "power vacuum" argument is a reality vacuum ­ making no sense:

It was the U.S. attack on Iraq that set off the sectarian war in Iraq and beyond. It was the removal of Saddam Hussein that changed the balance between Saudi Sunnism and Iranian Shiaism which then motivated the Saudis to unleash the Jihadist forces. It was not a 'power vacuum' that created the strife that continues today and will continue in the future. It was the insertion of U.S. forces into the Middle East that led to overpressure and the current explosions.

McCain and Graham and the neocons want to have it both ways. They want us to believe that the "liberation" of Iraq produced a successful, positive result ­ a brave new society eager to spread its democratic, tolerant, and multicultural wings. That would justify their decade long (and more) advocacy of such an attack.

But at the same time they tell us that the US military can never leave Iraq lest a "power vacuum" be created that would allow "America's enemies" to establish themselves. But was the attack itself not supposed to rid Iraq of "America's enemies"? These new enemies seem far worse than the enemies the initial intervention was supposed to eliminate.

How awkward for them to face the fact that their preferred action (invasion) produced a result worse than the problem. Their Straussian answer, of course, is to ignore that glaring fact and just scream for more intervention!

The real question now, as article after article is written about how horrific the "fall of Fallujah" is to the US military who participated in the brutal pacification of that luckless town back in 2004, is to what degree the US military will be going back to Iraq.

Secretary of State John Kerry is sending what are no-doubt designed to be mixed signals, wrapped in the enigma of State Dept-speak. He says:

"We are not, obviously, contemplating returning."

But then a qualifier it seems:

"We are not contemplating putting boots on the ground."

Ah, so that opens the door to much possible US military activity in Iraq. As he goes on to say:

"This is their fight, but we're going to help them in their fight."

Yes, sounds like Vietnam over again, perhaps even worse than 2003. The US "hellfire" missile shipment to Iraq has been " fast-tracked." This time the US is claiming to attack the same ISIS in Iraq that it is supporting (along with the Saudis) next door in Syria.

Back to Iraq? You bet!


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.