“Ties To Terrorists” — Invade or Do Business Deal?

I want to make a comment on the “UAE port deal” controversy. We invaded Iraq based on less evidence of al Queda and other terrorist ties than there is of UAE ties. Yet, the Bush crowd insists that we have nothing to worry about from handing control of our ports over to the UAE.
Let me make this clear: I am NOT saying that UAE is a terrorist state, or even a terrorist-supporting state, I am pointing out the fear-mongering nonsense that Bush and the right spew for the lying, fear-mongering manipulative propaganda nonsense it is. The Bush crowd has spent four years whipping Americans into a state of absolute fear and paranoia over anything to do with Islam, Arabs, etc. Now they reap what they have sown.
According to the Bush/right-wing narrative, the invasion of Iraq was justified because Iraqi “had ties” to al Queda hijackers many years before 9/11. For example,

President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week’s finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.
“The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,” Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers’ meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. “There’s numerous contacts between the two,” Bush said.

See also here, here, here, here
Meanwhile,

President George W. Bush calls the nation behind the port-security controversy a trusted ally, but the Sept. 11 commission offers another take – saying the CIA believed top United Arab Emirates officials had cozy relations with Osama bin Laden before 9/11.
The United States even believed it had a lead on bin Laden two years before the attacks but passed up on an air strike to kill him.
The reason: fears of taking out UAE princes or other senior officials believed to be hosting bin Laden at a remote hunting camp in Afghanistan, the commission’s report said.

Which is it going to be, George? Do “ties to terrorists” mean we invade, or don’t they matter? Or, maybe that wasn’t it at all — maybe there were other reasons we invaded Iraq — reasons that you haven’t shared with us? Was “ties to terrorism” just a cover-story? Your reasoning sure doesn’t mean much when you want to do a business deal with UAE.

9 thoughts on ““Ties To Terrorists” — Invade or Do Business Deal?

  1. At this point I’m more worried about how we manage to block the UAE deal than I am about why we invaded Iraq. We know why we invaded Iraq. Oil. I knew that Iraq and bin Laden were natural enemies without the remotest chance that they were allies because of the Islamic religious sects involved. Bush plays on our fear and ignorance to persuade us to invade Iraq, then tries to tell us that the country that funded the 9/11 attack is our good buddy. He’s selling us out.

  2. This is sort of off topic but it does tie in.
    I read the transcripts of a speech that rumsfield gave and it addressed the misinformation that the “so called terroists are using.” All thru the article I was reminded of what our government is doing, the same thing. Spin after spin, I don’t know who or what to believe anymore, I’m against this port deal I think it’s bad for our country, they should be managed and owned by Americans.
    My solution is a revolution, we as Americans don’t need this shit,being spewed out by the neo-cons.

  3. Dave,
    I disagree with your contention that “The Bush crowd has spent four years whipping Americans into a state of absolute fear and paranoia over anything to do with Islam, Arabs, etc.”
    It seems to me the administration has gone out of it’s way to seperate the terrorists from law abiding Muslims. I would welcome any specific information you have to the contrary.
    Also, just like the President said “there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda”. I hate to keep bringing this up, but it is your reluctance to see this obvious fact that makes it seem like your are weak on national defense. It makes it seem like you are siding with Iraq. Even if there were no link, a person who was strong on national defense would err on the side of condemning Saddam Hussein, not the Commander in Chief.
    As to “ties to terrorists”, of course it matters. Sometimes we use people with ties to terrorists as double agents. They appear to work both sides, but actually provide our side with useful information. Of course this holds risk, but welcome to the real world. It has been this way since the first war was fought. The people that are in charge of making the decisions about who we deal with and why are the very people who made this decision. Believe it or not, you and the media don’t know enough about this to even have an informed opinion, not that it matters to either of you. The commander in chief runs the war. If you don’t like it, you have the opportunity every four years to convince the voting public to put in a new commander in chief. But when you lose, you need to suck it up and support the winner.

  4. Even the Republican-dominated 9/11 Commission found that there were absolutely no ties of any kind between Iraq and al Queda. Saddam’s government and al Queda were ENEMIES. Saddam ran a SECULAR government. One of the GOALS of al Queda was to oust Saddam from Iraq.

  5. Dave, I just want to point out that Maha has two of the most butt kicking posts I’ve seen so far. BOP news has a couple more excellent posts up that could use a few more eyes and I’m tired of arguing about flag burning or steroids in baseball and Clinton’s penis.
    There is a (seemingly)really good Republican in thesoutheastern part of the country who is on the same page. I don’t agree with everything he is saying, but I don’t syncophant Rep. Ron Paul either, but I respect his viewpoint and I am greatful to have his voice in the mix.
    The UAE is just the first knock of the first bill collector at the door. If we hope to have any chance to save our country, everybody needs to pull their heads out of their holes and look at this situation for what it is now.

  6. Dave…Dave….Dave,
    The 9/11 Commission was dominated by POLITICIANS, not Republicans. The reality is that the 9/11 commission was mainly interested in CYA, at the expense of past and future victims of terror.
    As for Saddam’s connections to Al Queda, “actually, there were many connections, as Stephen Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn, of the Weekly Standard, spell out under the headline “The Mother of All Connections.” Since the fall of Saddam, the U.S. has had extraordinary access to documents of the former Baathist regime, and is still sifting through millions of them. Messrs. Hayes and Joscelyn take some of what is already available, combined with other reports, documentation and details, some from before the overthrow of Saddam, some after. For page after page, they list connections–with names, dates and details such as the longstanding relationship between Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Saddam’s regime”.
    “But in the debates over Iraq, that has become far too muddied. Documents found in Iraq are doubted; confessions by detainees are received as universally suspect; reports of meetings between officials of the former Iraqi regime and al Qaeda operatives are discounted as having been nothing more than empty formalities, with such characters shuttling between places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan, perhaps to share tea and cookies. Any conclusions or even inferences about contacts between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda are subjected these days to the kind of metaphysical test in which existence itself becomes a highly dubious philosophical problem, mired in the difficulty of ever really being certain about anything at all”.
    Remarks in quotations copied from:
    Saddam and al Qaeda
    BY CLAUDIA ROSETT
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006953
    So Dave, the only conslusion I can arrive at concerning your most recent post is that your ideas and beliefs are completely idealogically motivated, with no thought given to any facts which don’t support your view.
    I would suggest you allow yourself the freedom to explore the idea that George Bush may be right about how to fight terrorism, and how to run a country.
    You’ll be suprised at how good you feel, once you begin thinking outside the liberal box. As someone once said “The truth shall set you free.”

  7. Dave,
    All my posts have the blank lines I put in removed. This makes for a less attractive presentation. I think it also makes them harder to read. So this is a test I’m copying from a Word Document to see if the post retains my intent.
    Testing.
    One line.
    Two lines.
    Bold.

  8. Bummer,
    Dave, can you e-mail me and let me know if there is a way I can put in blank lines and bold etc, to add a little pizzaz to my posts.
    Much appreciated,
    Happy

  9. To HappyOD, I respectuflly believe that infact you are the one moitvated by idealolgy. There is plenty of evidence to show that not only is Bush not running the country well, but that the majority of the people also believe that he is not running the country idealy. With the recent news of the UAE in the bidding for the 6 U.S. ports, and Bush’s saying that he will allow the UAE to take control no matter what congress wants, the country is in a massive uproar, Republicans and Democrats alike. In a recent CBS news poll, Bush’s approval was down to 34%. So i believe that you are infact the one motivated by idealology and are the one ignoring the facts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


1 − = zero

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>