Edwards has me confused

[MaxFisher]

Regarding the NY Times story about the missing weapons Edwards said today in Wilmington, Ohio: "These are exactly the kind of explosives terrorists want. They're the dangerous weapons we wanted to keep from falling in the hands of terrorists. And now these explosives are out there, and we have no idea who's got them."

So Edwards is now acknowledging that when we invaded Iraq Saddam Hussein possessed "exactly" the kind of "dangerous weapons" that "terrorists want." Does Edwards still believe that this was "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?"

 

[nbcrusader]

He would make the terrorists pass a global test before giving them a license for the weapons (except assault weapons - those are really bad).

 

[DaveC]

Way to twist words.

Edwards meant that the weapons should have been properly secured as soon as the complex was reached, as was advised by the IAEA.

If you mean WMD, that's not WMD. Nothing in those 348 tonnes was Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical. It was all standard conventional explosives. Saddam obviously had conventional explosives.

Oh, and isn't every weapon a "dangerous weapon"?

 

[sharky]

How many times do I have to say it? There is NO connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. These explosives were accounted for by the IAEA -- ya know, the inspectors that Bush didn't let complete their jobs. The IAEA knew these existed, they knew they were sealed and they left them there for use only for civilian use for civilian projects. We didn't protect them, giving free reign over 350 TONS of explosives for terrorists. Do you think Saddam is the one that is blowing off the limbs of our soldiers, killing our troops, sending them home brain dead because of crude roadside bombs? Where have you been for the past year and a half? We invaded Baghdad. We have Saddam in custody and yet more soldiers have died AFTER Huessin's capture than before. Saddam's troops never used roadside bombs on our troops the way these renegade terrorists have. And where do you think they got the materials to kill our troops?

 

[nbcrusader]

How many times do I have to say it? There is NO connection between al Qaeda and Iraq.

Except for the al Qaeda training camp located in Iraq referenced in the news report you posted this morning.

Maybe they didn't have an official permit for operating a terrorist camp signed by Saddam......

 

[anitram]

Except for the al Qaeda training camp located in Iraq referenced in the news report you posted this morning.

Maybe they didn't have an official permit for operating a terrorist camp signed by Saddam......

I'm sorry, did Muhammad Atta have an official permit for operating a terrorist cell signed by Bush/Clinton?

Is there a connection between the USA and al Qaeda we should be investigating?

 

[nbcrusader]

Was this meant to further the discussion? If so, care to point to the al Qaeda training camp we allow to operate in the US?

 

[sharky]

Except for the al Qaeda training camp located in Iraq referenced in the news report you posted this morning.

Maybe they didn't have an official permit for operating a terrorist camp signed by Saddam......

Umm...Saddam never talked with them, gave them money, or invited them into his country. They went because the no-fly zone had terrorists in it that supported as Qaeda. Are you saying the 9/11 commission was wrong? Are you saying Cheney and Rumsfeld are wrong when they INCORRECTLY tell us "We never said there was a connection"? Why would they feel the need to say "We never said there was a connection" unless inferring there was a connection is WRONG.

 

[sharky]

Was this meant to further the discussion? If so, care to point to the al Qaeda training camp we allow to operate in the US?

Well, according to your criteria for Iraq, Atta and Co. were allowed to operate in the U.S., hence 3000 people died. and since they were allowed to operate in the U.S. even though we didn't know about, we sanctioned terrorists.

Or are you using two different criteria for Iraq and the U.S.?

 

[anitram]

Oh, please, nbc.

You have no proof whatsoever that Saddam encouraged/permitted/willingly furthered the proliferation or existence of the al Qaeda camp in Iraq. They could have been there in the no-fly zone, operating fully and completely outside of the scope of the governing of Saddam. Hey, if al Qaeda operates in Saudi without the blessing of the royal family and that we're supposed to swallow with our afternoon tea, then this is even more possible.

Your government did not "permit" al Qaeda's terrorist cell (not camp, as you misread). You have no proof Saddam did either. So why is it fine to imply a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq but not the USA and al Qaeda? You have no proof to support either, yet you're feeding us one but spitting on the other.

 

[nbcrusader]

Based on the existance of the camp on Iraqi soil - do YOU think there is a connection? Or is there simply no other hard evidence of a connection, other than the camp?

 

[anitram]

I do not believe there is a connection based on the evidence at hand (ie. presence of terrorist camp). I also do not believe there is a connection to your government based on the evidence at hand (ie. presence of terrorist cell).

 

[sharky]

Based on the existance of the camp on Iraqi soil - do YOU think there is a connection? Or is there simply no other hard evidence of a connection, other than the camp?

If a camp is the only evidence you need, I know there was at least one in an apartment building in Florida where Atta and Co. were renting space. So that means the U.S. supported the 9/11 terrorists. Oh wait, does it not count if they didn't make tents with the furniture and blankets laying around.

A camp isn't always a tent with sleeping bags in the desert.

 

[U2Kitten]

I really have next to 0 respect for a guy who runs against a candidate, dissing him all the way, then suddenly joins fists in the air, grins a plastic smile and kisses ass as soon as he's asked to be the running mate of his ex adversary. (not only Edwards, anyone in that position)

 

[deep]

George Bush Sr. ran much harder against Reagan than Edwards did against Kerry.

So, I guess you have less than zero, say negative 10 respect for G H W Bush?

 

[Flying FuManchu]

U2Kitten, to be fair, the Republicans do that as well... John McCain for example, though he is still unruly...

 

[nbcrusader]

If a camp is the only evidence you need, I know there was at least one in an apartment building in Florida where Atta and Co. were renting space. So that means the U.S. supported the 9/11 terrorists. Oh wait, does it not count if they didn't make tents with the furniture and blankets laying around.

A camp isn't always a tent with sleeping bags in the desert.

You and anitram really are stretching now with the comparison to Atta living in the US. The suggestion is laughable, but in todays pre-election environment, not unexpected.

Face it - you don't want to know the truth of a connection.

You only want to keep the bully point that refutes the idea of a connection between Iraq and 9/11. That is how the administration responded to the question.

Saddam supported terrorism (publicly against Israel).

He either supported or turned a blind eye to al Qaeda.

 

[U2Kitten]

Well guys to be fair see the last sentence in my post which said that not only Edwards, everyone who does that! See, it's there.

And I really do not have much respect for any politician anyway.

 

[anitram]

Face it - you don't want to know the truth of a connection.

You know nothing about what I want to know. Who are you to tell me how I feel? Stop projecting, it's offensive and unbecoming and presumptuous. When you assume, you make an ass....

 

[sharky]

You said despite not having an official permit for camps, Iraq supported al Qaeda. al Qaeda had camps here in the U.S. -- by your logic, despite not having an official permit for camps, the U.S. supported al Qaeda.

You said "Saddam either supported or turned a blind eye to al Qaeda." According to who? The 9/11 commsion said there was no connection between the two. But let's go with your argument that Saddam turned a blind eye to al Qaeda. Since Bush decided to attack Saddam in Iraq and moved troops away from al Qaeda in Afghanistan, does that mean he is turning a blind eye to al Qaeda?

And Bush continues to turn a blind eye to the fact that Saudi Arabia has in fact supported terrorists and we have proof of that. In fact, Bush classified 20 pages of a report that said as much. Does that mean he's turning a blind eye to al Qaeda by not releasing that information? According to your argument, the answer is yes.

 

[nbcrusader]

You know nothing about what I want to know. Who are you to tell me how I feel? Stop projecting, it's offensive and unbecoming and presumptuous. When you assume, you make an ass....

Get defensive all you want. You've done your fair share of "projecting" in your posts. But, if the shoe fits.....

 

[nbcrusader]

al Qaeda had camps here in the U.S.

This statement is ludicrous. You've done a far better job supporting your positions than relying on this attempted analogy.

But let's go with your argument that Saddam turned a blind eye to al Qaeda. Since Bush decided to attack Saddam in Iraq and moved troops away from al Qaeda in Afghanistan, does that mean he is turning a blind eye to al Qaeda?

Again, not much more than a Kerry talking point. If, from your knowledge of military strategy, come to the conclusion that we have moved too many troops from Afghanistan to Iraq - lets discuss that point.

And Bush continues to turn a blind eye to the fact that Saudi Arabia has in fact supported terrorists and we have proof of that. In fact, Bush classified 20 pages of a report that said as much. Does that mean he's turning a blind eye to al Qaeda by not releasing that information? According to your argument, the answer is yes.

The logical connection between my statements and the classification of documents isn't there. But, for the sake of discussion, let's take a look at Saudi. We've known of problems in that country for many years (we can safely predate GWB for that). We don't touch Saudi for many other reasons - including oil, Middle East stability and the fact that Islam considers Saudi soil the most holy - tough it and you have Jihad across the globe.

What do you think is the right approach in dealing with Saudi?