Imagine the election if we hadn't invaded Iraq..

Alternative time line

Published on October 19, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

Imagine if we hadn't invaded Iraq. How would the election be different?

Well, first we now know that the oil for food program was a total scam. We also know Saddam was in the process of bribing France, Russia, and China in the hopes of ending sanctions.

We still wouldn't have gotten Osama Bin Laden in all likelyhood so there would be this terrorist dictator in Saddam who was openly opposing us who, by all accounts in 2003, was in possession of WMDs with every intent to aid terrorists.

This article gives a pretty credible alternative timeline of how things might be.

Comments (Page 2)

drmiler

on Oct 21, 2004

Reply #14 By: bogiman - 10/21/2004 12:43:27 AM
Apparently, the limit of your reasearch is watching Fahrenheit 911. Why not move to France?

T B I've watched and read more than Fahrenheit 9/11 and don’t relay on Michael Moore to tell me what the truth is.
My conclusion comes from the obvious fact that a huge percentage of this administration is actually Jewish and has a great influence on our foreign policy (not that the same thing wasn’t going on in the Clinton administration). Jewish lobby in Washington is also very, very powerful and influential, with a lot of money to spare. Jewish representation in the congress (10 out of 100) and House of Representatives (27 which is 6.5% of the house) is disproportional to the percentage of people who declare themselves as Jews (2.2 % of us population). But saying anything about that is taboo in this country, especially for politicians and anybody involved in Hollywood. God forbid if you mention a Jew and to much power or influence in the same sentence, or the treatment of the Palestinians, you are automatically declared an anti-Semite and it is demanded of you to publicly apologize or else… Again, sad but true…

What an unadulterated load of BS! Gimme a break. A jewish conspiracy theroy? What will they think of next?

bogiman

on Oct 21, 2004

Can we all agree that "money makes the world turn" then. As a staring point.

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 21, 2004

You do know that the last time I heard a person talking about Jewish people owning all the money was in a History book.

Get real Jewish people do not control all the money.

- Grimerican X

drmiler

on Oct 21, 2004

Reply #17 By: bogiman - 10/21/2004 1:22:30 AM
Can we all agree that "money makes the world turn" then. As a staring point.

Nope. Because it's not always true.

drmiler

on Oct 21, 2004

CrispE

on Oct 21, 2004

bogiman:

Well, I for one would agree with the premise that economic concerns among nations overrides any other, especially among Western democracies. I think in despotic countries and dictatorships the argument could be made that the wealth of the leadership (however that is defined) is paramount but not the same thing as someone who must go to the polls periodically to be reaffirmed as leader.

CrispE

on Oct 21, 2004

To those who think Saddam and Osama were in bed:

These 2 men were polar opposites on both the intentions of terrorism as well as the means to accomplish it. Saddam "dabbled" in terrorism by means of monetary contributions (but not to Osama). Saddam tried very hard to put up a smoke screen of invincibility that no one in the Arab world bought for a minute. You know people, consider the role of the Saudi's for a moment in the Middle East. We hear nothing about it but the Saudi's had infiltrated Iraq's government on just about every level and knew what Saddam did and didn't have and we will find out that indeed, the Saudi's knew that Iraq had no weapons and no capacity to build any AND told us so.

So much for Bush believing his friends the Saudis....

T B

on Oct 21, 2004

I assume you're familiar with PNAC, which has as one of its primary objectives the overthrow of Iraq

The Iraq War Resolution (October 10, 2002) stated in no uncertain terms it is the policy of the US to overthrow Saddam (passed 77 - 23 in the Senate). What's the point? Apparently a super majority of our Senators supported it (including Kerry and Edwards).

T B

on Oct 21, 2004

Jews in the Bush Administration

I'm surprised Richard Perle didn't make the list (though I suppose technically since he isn't on salary he is only an advisor - trying to maintain arms length)

T B

on Oct 21, 2004

To those who think Saddam and Osama were in bed:

Hey.. I don't care what consenting adults do behind closed doors!

These 2 men were polar opposites on both the intentions of terrorism as well as the means to accomplish it

There is plenty of documentation to make a credible argument there was an "operational relationship" from the early 90's through early 2003. It really isn't too relevant if the met face to face, if it is done through envoys.

Maybe they broke up when Osama called Saddam an infidel publicly. And yes I would say the Wahabi is a huge problem.

To make an argument that Iraq diverted attention from Osama, North Korea and/or Iran is plain silly. First off Iran has new neighbors (both east and west). What.. we would have used the troops deployed in Iraq in North Korea? Not. More troops in Afghanistan isn't particularly helpful if Bin Laden is in Pakistan (special forces is). Overt troop deployment in Pakistan is not an option.

The election would certainly be different... maybe the Michael Moore wing of the Dems wouldn't have taken over and we'd have a viable alternative choice.

CrispE

on Oct 21, 2004

T B:

"Credible evidence that there was an operational relationship"? Such as?

drmiler

on Oct 21, 2004

Reply #26 By: CrispE - 10/21/2004 3:47:47 PM
T B:

"Credible evidence that there was an operational relationship"? Such as?

This is just the first one I came accross. There are more.

Link

Here's another Link

And here's one more. Link

Bungy32

on Oct 21, 2004

This is just the first one I came accross. There are more.

Link

Here's another Link

And here's one more. Link

So let me get this straight....your "credible evidence" for the operational relationship is.

1) An article from 6/25/03 in the Tennessean that offers a word of mouth report about a newspaper story in an Iraqi newspaper that Hussein's gov't subsequently censored such that other copies are not available. How convenient that no copy of that paper exists for others to see. And...

2) A 4/27/03 story from the UK tabloid, The Telegraph, that is about top secret intelligence documents that only they have acquired. As I recall, these documents were later dismissed as highly suspicious (even without recourse to word processing analysis). And just to keep things in perspective, the current headline of The Telegraph concerns a scuffle Prince Harry had with paparazzi outside a night club. And...

3) An article from an 11/24/03 issue of The Weekly Standard by Stephen F. Hayes based on a leaked memo from the White House detailing intelligence supporting the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda from 1994-2003. Is anyone surprised that Cheney recommends people read this article or that Cheney is subsequently interviewed by Hayes? Is anyone surprised that this memo has not been made available to other news outlets? Is anyone surprised that the bulk of Heyes writing is critical of Kerry/Edwards and frequently endorses the Bush administration and its policies?

And that's it? That's not particularly persuasive, drmiler. You'll pardon me if I think the claim is significant enough (especially given that it drove us into a military action that is costly in lives and money) that it requires more independently verifiable support from more balanced and credible sources. Plus, well, maybe some of this evidence could come from this year, maybe?

drmiler

on Oct 21, 2004

Reply #28 By: Bungy32 - 10/21/2004 4:52:18 PM
This is just the first one I came accross. There are more.

Link

Here's another Link

And here's one more. Link

So let me get this straight....your "credible evidence" for the operational relationship is.

1) An article from 6/25/03 in the Tennessean that offers a word of mouth report about a newspaper story in an Iraqi newspaper that Hussein's gov't subsequently censored such that other copies are not available. How convenient that no copy of that paper exists for others to see. And...

2) A 4/27/03 story from the UK tabloid, The Telegraph, that is about top secret intelligence documents that only they have acquired. As I recall, these documents were later dismissed as highly suspicious (even without recourse to word processing analysis). And just to keep things in perspective, the current headline of The Telegraph concerns a scuffle Prince Harry had with paparazzi outside a night club. And...

3) An article from an 11/24/03 issue of The Weekly Standard by Stephen F. Hayes based on a leaked memo from the White House detailing intelligence supporting the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda from 1994-2003. Is anyone surprised that Cheney recommends people read this article or that Cheney is subsequently interviewed by Hayes? Is anyone surprised that this memo has not been made available to other news outlets? Is anyone surprised that the bulk of Heyes writing is critical of Kerry/Edwards and frequently endorses the Bush administration and its policies?

And that's it? That's not particularly persuasive, drmiler. You'll pardon me if I think the claim is significant enough (especially given that it drove us into a military action that is costly in lives and money) that it requires more independently verifiable support from more balanced and credible sources. Plus, well, maybe some of this evidence could come from this year, maybe?

Oh, I see when I find articles that support *my* position then they are suspect. But when the same types of articles support your position then they are ok. You don't want to believe that's ok. But who's to say the mainstream media is any better?

T B

on Oct 21, 2004

T B:

"Credible evidence that there was an operational relationship"? Such as?

Perhaps reading this would help
BIN LADEN - The Man Who Declared War on America
By Yossef Bodansky (director of research of the International Strategic Studies Association and senior editor for the Defense & Foreign Affairs group of publications)

Sorry, I can't link to this one (you have to log in and subscribe to get to it ... blech)

January 11, 1999, Newsweek,
By CHRISTOPHER DICKEY, GREGORY L. VISTICA AND RUSSELL WATSON
With JOSEPH CONTRERAS in Jerusalem

Saddam + Bin Laden?

"According to this source, Saddam expected last month's American and British bombing campaign to go on much longer than it did. The dictator believed that as the attacks continued, indignation would grow in the Muslim world, making his terrorism offensive both harder to trace and more effective. With acts of terror contributing to chaos in the region, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait might feel less inclined to support Washington. Saddam's long-term strategy, according to several sources, is to bully or cajole Muslim countries into breaking the embargo against Iraq, without waiting for the United Nations to lift if formally."

"U.S. sources say [Saddam] is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden. [Bin Laden was] calling for all-out war on Americans, using as his main pretext Washington's role in bombing and boycotting Iraq."

Keep in mind, the US sources are from the Clinton administration (1999)

Hope these links work (I've never posted links before... a newbie here) if not I'll fix them

Link <--- Guardian Feb 6, 1999

Link

Link <--- CNN Saddam offers Bin Laden Asylum Feb 13, 1999

I have to post this one (or you'd have to buy it from the Herald, I'll truncate it so as not to take up so much room)

Iraq Tempts Bin Laden To Attack West

The Herald
By Ian Bruce
December 28, 1999

The world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq if his worldwide terrorist network succeeds in carrying out a campaign of high-profile attacks on the West over the next few weeks.

Intelligence sources say the Saudi dissident believed responsible for the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and a US military barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1998, is running out of options for a safe haven.

He is now thought to have overcome his initial rejection of Saddam Hussein, whom he regarded as an exploiter of the Islamic cause rather than a true believer, and is considering the offer of a bolt-hole from which he can continue to mastermind terrorism on a global scale.

A US counter-terrorist source said yesterday: "Our State Department issued a worldwide warning on December 11. We have solid information that many of the groups operating under bin Laden's patronage are planning 'spectaculars' to coincide with the period leading up to and through the millennium celebrations.

"They want to inflict maximum loss of life in return for publicity. Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying.

"We might be looking at the most wanted man on the FBI's target list gaining access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons courtesy of Iraq's clandestine research programmes."

The US intelligence community has been squeezing bin Laden's finances steadily for several years. His personal fortune of anything up to £500m has been whittled down to single figures, although funds continue to flow into the coffers of his Al Qaeda - Arabic for "The Base" - organisation from wealthy individuals in the Middle East.

According to Middle Eastern intelligence sources, bin Laden rakes off anything up to £500m a year from his pivotal role in the drugs' trade. It is more than enough to underwrite the cost of mujahideen training camps in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sudan and the provision of weapons for bin Laden's personal war against the US and its allies.

The spread of bin Laden's influence has spawned some strange alliances.

The Americans have also resorted to hi-tech destabilisation. Various agencies inserted "sniffer" software programmes into the banking systems of Europe and the Middle East from the mid-1990s onwards.

These were targeted on known or suspected accounts for bin Laden's front men in Holland, Britain, Switzerland, Italy, the US and the Caribbean.

When large amounts of cash were moved around, the programmes flagged up the transactions. Computer experts then transferred or deleted the cash electronically to starve Al Qaeda of funding.

Bin Laden has almost outstayed his welcome in Afghanistan. Despite the Taleban's public declaration of protection for a "guest", the regime is suffering from international sanctions as long as it harbours him.

Bin Laden is understood to have selected Yemen, his father's birthplace, as a first alternative. But the Yemenis could not protect him from the wrath of the West or Saudi Arabia. Chechnya was his second choice, but the province is being ground under Russia's military jackboot.

That leaves Iraq, and the potential for an alliance which would be everyone else's nightmare.

Link <-- Saddam/Bin Laden conspire? Oct. 19, 2000

That's enough space use for now. Need more? I'll be happy to provide it (if you want it on another site/blog tell me how to get there).

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!