Hindsight

hind·sight P Pronunciation Key (hndst)
n.
Perception of the significance and nature of events after they have occurred.
The rear sight of a firearm.

Hindsight -- the factor in the democrats and Bush haters in attacking the President over Iraq.

Hindsight is a good thing, it keeps us from putting our hand on the hot burner a second time, the first time finding out it was not a good idea to begin with.

There are many times we think: woulda’, coulda’, shoulda’, if I’d only known…

We all make decisions based on erroneous input. Then when the outcome is less than optimal, we quote Homer “D’oh!” When everything works out, and we find out the information was flawed, wipe our brow and “Whew!” dodged that one. Or if we never know that the input was faulty, blithely go about our business none wiser.

Problem for the opponents of the President…

NONE OF THAT APPLIES

What? You say.

The President’s foes on Iraq, the War on Terror, US Security are floating a canard when they try to impugned the war and progress in Iraq based on the faulty intelligence made GWB lead US into a war on false pretenses. The have the area of criticism that no stockpiles of WMD were found, and attempt to extrapolate that into the whole Iraq war and by extension the War on Terror is in error.

It is obvious that the prewar intelligence was wrong on one main point, the existence of stockpiles of WMD . My question to the Bush Lied crowd is, what happened to the stockpiles of weapons that Saddam had and used? The frightening truth is no one knows for sure. But that discussion is for later.

First the War in Iraq was a correct decision. It was based on 21 points covered earlier , in those 21 points stockpiles of WMD are included in 2 points. Let’s see if it were a test in school that would rate a 90.48% score, low A high B depending on the instructor or school. If we were playing ball a hitter with 0.905 average would be a baseball god.

Bush Lied.

lie2 P Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.
To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

Let us say you read in the morning paper a story. On your morning coffee break you tell the story to your co-workers. Unbeknownst to you the paper retracted the story.

Did you lie?

You are expecting a very important order at work, the vendor has promised a ship date of the 1st, you figure shipment time and plan on arrival of the shipment on the 7th. The schedule calls for the shipment to be in house before the 15th. You have a meeting with the boss about the project. You call the vendor and confirm shipment on the 1st. In the meeting you tell the boss that the material will be in house on the 7th in plenty of time for the deadline. What you don’t know is that the vendor’s plant is burning as you speak. They will be lucky to ship to in 6 months.

Did you lie to your boss?

According to the logic of the President's opponents both times you lied.

Conveying information or making statements that at the time are thought to be accurate – IS NOT LYING!

In the lead up to the war the UN, democrat politicians, the intelligence service of most of the world all concluded that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD.

So when Kerry or Pelosi get up and say the President lied, they are accusing the UN, the collective intelligence opinion and themselves of lying.

So let’s get over that one.

The crux of the accusation is that Bush lied about WMD and lead us into a war. Okay let’s review.

Bush lied – not according to the definition of lying. Once that accusation breaks down, the rest of their complaint kinda’ goes poof. But just for the fun of lets continue the argument.

Their argument goes since Bush lied (we’ve shown he didn’t) the war in Iraq is illegitimate. However of the 21 casus belli points in the Resolution only 2 mention “stockpiles.” If we concede the entirety of those two points that means 19 of the 21 are still valid reasons for going to war.

The entirety of argument against President Bush and the decision to go into Iraq breaks down into at best flatulence.

Who voted for conflict in Iraq?

There are 3 key congressional votes leading up to the invasion of Iraq:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Senate Roll Call
House Roll Call
Signed by President Bush

IRAQI BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS (Public Law 105-235)

Passed by Unanimous consent in the Senate.
House roll call.
Signed by President Clinton.

IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998 (Public Law 105-338)

Passed by Unanimous consent in the Senate.
House Roll Call
Signed by President Clinton

Prominent legislators and their votes on the above bills:

Legislator	liberation Act	Breach	Use of Force
Sen. Kerry	Yea	Yea	Yea
Sen. Clinton	Not in Office	Not in Office	Yea
Sen. Biden	Yea	Yea	Yea
Sen. Daschle	Yea	Yea	Yea
Sen. Feinstein	Yea	Yea	Yea
Rep. Pelosi	Did not vote	Yea	Nay
Rep. Murtha	Did not vote	Yea	Yea
Rep. McDermott	Yea	Yea	Nay

These legislators who almost on a daily basis get up and proclaim "“Bush Lied, Bush made a mistake, wrong war." Are also on the record agreeing that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were a threat with WMD, ties and links to terrorists and should be removed from power, many voted to use force to remove Saddam.

A few voted no on the use of force, after they voted to make the Liberation of Iraq Public Policy and that Iraq was in breach of all the UN resolutions. Tough words and nothing to back it up, yeah Saddam should go, yeah he is giving the finger to the UN, but we'’re not gonna'’ do anything about it.

The response from them is "“Bush sent the military to war." That response is so ignorant of 5th grade civics as to be laughable. We have 3 branches of government, separate but equal. The president cannot use military force without the agreement and authorization of the Congress. They agreed and authorized.

Those who voted with the President on the use of force and the earlier bills are equally responsible for situation in Iraq. They agreed and vote that Saddam should be removed from power. They voted and agreed that Saddam had and was pursue WMD with links to terrorists. They voted and agreed that force should be used to accomplish those goals. The president could not have continued with the support of these yes votes in congress. They have no ground to stand up and say it was wrong, a mistake, that Bush got us into this mess. Wrong! They gave Bush the legislative support required by law to purse the goals of the legislation.

The naysayers supported and agreed on the record with President Bush and gave him the authorization of use force.

They now with the most cynical hypocrisy, holding a damp finger in the wind have determined that is more important for their own selfish and naked political ambition to turn back on their own votes and statements.

While there is room for criticism of the current state of the conflict in Iraq, acting as if they had no part is despicible political pandering. When a legislator voted for all the bills allowing the conflict to start they have no room to criticize the beginnings as if they were innocent bystanders duped by the dumbest man ever in the White House.

Now that we’ve dealt with the two big bugaboo’s of critics of President Bush on the War on Terror and the Battle of Iraq; Saddam’s WMD and Saddam Terror links. Let’s go point by point the 21 articles of the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

The table for the current conflict was set with Saddam’s invasion , occupation, rape and pillage of Kuwait .

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Since ’91 a cease-fire between the US coalition and Iraq has existed. A cease-fire cease-fire is merely an agreement not to shoot. It is not an end to hostilities. Cease-fires have conditions, as long as both parties abide by the conditions, no one shoots. Iraq repeated violated the conditions of the cease-fire. Repeatedly firing upon coalition aircraft , failing to disclose disposition of all MIA , specifically Michael Speicher, and failing to meet multiple UN resolutions tied to the cease fire in particular allowing UN WMD inspectors full and unfettered access to WMD sites in Iraq.

Any single violation voids the standing cease-fire and is casus belli for continuing the war. This clause alone justifies the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam’s regime.

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Violation of the ’91 cease-fire. Casus belli for war in and of itself. Critics leading up to the war said repeatedly, “let the inspection work.” Meaning (1) Saddam was in non-compliance, (2) that there was something (WMD) to inspect.

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Violation of the cease-fire. Casus belli.

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

“1998” the “President”, meaning President Clinton . Clinton and the Congress reached the conclusion that Saddam was continuing his pursuit and stockpiles of WMD.

“Appropriate action… to bring Iraq into compliance…” Iraq was not brought into compliance until 2003.

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

“International obligation.”
Multiple UN resolutions
WMD
Terror support

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Human rights violations , I always thought the democrats were supporters of human rights.

Kuwaiti citizens

Michael Speicher

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Iran

Hallabjah

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Assassination of a former President of any US government official. Casus belli.
Firing on US military units. Casus belli.
Violation of the fire. Casus belli.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 9/11 hunting al-Qaeda, if they are in Iraq authorization to go after them and the regime that harbors them.

The link between al-Qaeda and Iraq

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Terrorist and terror support by Iraq .

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

On 9/11 the world changed. No longer would a reactive law enforcement approach be a viable method of combating terrorism. Terrorist proved that had the will to use anything to inflict maximum damage and loss of life on US soil.

On the morning of 9/11 I woke to reports on the radio of a plane crash into the World Trade center. My first thought was some poor shmuck in a Cessna got lost in bad weather and managed to find one of the towers. As I listened reports remarked on the fine weather, that’s odd a pilot would have to very preoccupied or suicidal to drive a plane into a building on a nice day. They reports described the amount of damage and extent of the fire and confusion over type of aircraft and that it may have been a commercial jet. The damage and fire sounded too extensive for a light plane.

I wandered into the living room and flip on the TV.

First glance at the damage… the hole … recall the trade center is over 100 feet to a side… that hole… wing span 100 feet plus… commercial sized … not a light plane.

How does a big plane impact a building on a clear day… mechanical malfunction and seriously bad luck… or intentional?

Second impact…

2 are intentional…

Terrorist attack…

Osama…

He doesn’t have nukes yet…

That is what went through my mind on the morning of 9/11 in the seconds after the second impact. That the most likely force behind the attack was Osama and that he had not yet acquired WMD or he would have used them.

The 9/11 attack was designed to kill tens of thousands, if they had struck the towers an hour later they may have succeeded. Osama would not hesitate to use whatever means to kill as many Americans as possible. He would not hesitate to use a WMD.

Iraq had a WMD program and stockpiles, Iraq had contacts with al-Qaeda. Thousands of lives hang in the balance, can anyone risk those lives on the supposition that Saddam won’t give WMD to a terror organization?

The only sure way to find out is after it happens.

Does anyone really want to find out for sure?

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

WMD used in Iran, Hallabjah. Continued attacks on US warplanes, the continued pursuit of WMD and delivery systems. Just how long does one wait?

In Law enforcement training for the use of deadly force has three justification elements : suspect has means, opportunity and intent to use lethal force against officer or another. This applicable in a general sense to threat posed by individuals and regimes.

Does the other party have:
The means to cause casualties and large-scale destruction?
Is there opportunity to conduct an attack?
Is there intent to attack?

With an individual means do they have an object that could cause life-threatening injuries, i.e. gun, knife, etc… With a nation state do they have the weapons?

Opportunity, with the individual are they in position to use the weapon. With Iraq were they in a position to deploy a weapon or transfer a weapon to a terrorist organization? With a gun the offender needs to be in line of sight of the victim. With a WMD it can be hidden form view until activated.

Intent to attack, either articulation of the desire or willingness to attack. Is a criminal point a gun and yelling “I am going to kill you.” Iraq had repeatedly attack US assets and articulated a desire to escalate the conflict.

Means? Yes.
Opportunity? Yes
Intent? Yes.

Casus belli. Use of force does not require the belligerent to shoot first.

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

One of the conditions of the cease-fire was compliance with UNSCR 678. Non-compliance is casus belli.

The rest of the violations are just further proof of Iraq’s intransigence.

How many resolutions need to be violated before enforcement takes place? Apparently 17.

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Clinton Administration with the support of Congress determined it was the policy of the US to remove Saddam from power.

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

UNSCR 1441 resulted from the US going to the UN. 1441 promised “serious consequences” if Iraq did not comply.

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Based on all the above casus belli force is authorized.

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Terrorists, their supporters, and patrons are legitimate targets.

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Continued efforts.

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

The use of military force is authorized for all the above-stipulated reasons and against the listed legitimate targets.

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Peace. What a concept. Peace is not the absence of conflict. As long as a regime with a history of expansionism, pursuit of WMD, use of WMD, violation of international agreements is allowed to continue the status quo Peace and Security are simply not possible.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

That covers the details of going to war in Iraq; among the reasons:
WMD
Terrorism
Failure to comply with the '91 cease fire
Fire to comply multiple UN resolutions
The threat posed by Iraq
US policy
US and regional security

Next up who supported this the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Saddam Hussein was linked to terrorists, terror groups and terrorist activities six ways from Sunday. Once again the evidence is abundant, overwhelming and included in captured Iraqi documents.

The President’s critics will say there are no proven links between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks.

That is true.

The President never said that there was.

From the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq:


Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;


The key phrase is:

… take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

…against …terrorists and terror organizations, including…the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,…

The stated enemy is inclusive of the 9/11 attacks and supporters. It does not exclude those not involved in 9/11.

Let’s knock out the easiest ones first:

Abu Nidal found safe haven in Iraq. Among Nidal attacks on the US was the ’82 Paris attack on American tourists. The Pam Am 73 hijacking in ’86. Nidal attacked and killed Americans, he was harbored by Saddam and living in Baghdad.

Abu Abbas is another known, wanted terrorist harbored by Saddam and living in Baghdad. His most notorious attack was on the Achille Lauro and the murder of wheelchair bound Leon Klinghoffer.

Saddam supported suicide bombings against Israel with cash to the families. Americans have died in the Palestinian suicide attacks.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi received training in pre-liberation Afghanistan. Refuge in pre war Iraq. With that training and harboring Zarqawi master minded the murder of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in Oct. ’02. Zarqawi entered Iraq before the beginning of the war. Just what are the chances of someone like Zarqawi operating out of Iraq without the knowledge of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and Saddam?

Terrorist training occurred in Iraq. Salmon Pak trained terrorist, including aircraft hijacking training.

Ansar al-Islam maintained camps and training in and around Biyarah. Ansar al-Islam is tied to the Taliban and al-Qaeda and was operating in Iraq before the war began. Ansar al-Islam conducted operation against the Kurds, something near and dear to Saddam.

So far we have Saddam harboring, supporting terrorists with a history of attacks on Americans. That alone meets the criteria set forth in the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Now let’s include al-Qaeda.

First off no one in the administration has linked Saddam or Iraq to 9/11. Once again it is not necessary according to the resolution. Saddam already meet the criteria with out even bringing up al-Qaeda.

There was however contact between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Ayman al-Zawahiri the al-Qaeda number two attended the Popular Islamic Conference in Baghadad in ’99. Iraq al-Qaeda ties were discussed and acted upon in the Clinton Administration. In October ’03 the CIA sent a memo to member of the Senate Intellignce Committee detailing the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

There is also the suspect link between the IIS and Mohammad Atta. While that link can neither be proven or disproven, Czech security remains confident that Atta was in Prague.

Consider some tenuous links by reading between the lines.
There was communication and links between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda is linked Ansar al-Islam which operated in Iraq.
Iraq had a hijack training facility.
Atta may have met with IIS agent(s).

Atta hijacked airplanes in the 9/11 attack.

Think about it.

Did Iraq meet the objective requirements under the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq?

Saddam funded, harbored and supported terrorists.
Saddam was linked to al-Qaeda.

I think Saddam clearly met the conditions set for in the resolution.