11 Gitmo recidivists on Saudi’s Most Wanted List
I know. You’re shocked, shocked:
A Saudi government spokesman says 11 of the Saudis on its recently issued most wanted list are former Guantanamo detainees.
Gen. Mansour al-Turki of the Saudi Interior Ministry told The Associated Press on Wednesday that among the 85 people listed by the government, 11 had been released from the U.S. detention facility in Cuba and passed through government-sponsored rehabilitation programs.
(link)
More at the Long War Journal.
Here’s a snippet of the “broad strata” mugs of most wanted Saudis:
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Eric Holder: Seriously, We’re Going to Close Gitmo Pretty Soon
September 20, 2011 04:07 PM by Doug Powers
40 CommentsCharges to be re-filed against KSM and Company
May 30, 2011 11:10 PM by Michelle Malkin
53 CommentsWaPo: Family Visitations For Gitmo Detainees Under Consideration
May 12, 2011 04:08 PM by Doug Powers
105 CommentsWaterboarding Point/Counterpoint: National Security Advisor vs. CIA Director vs. Attorney General
May 3, 2011 08:27 PM by Doug Powers
48 CommentsThe suicide stunts at Gitmo revisited
April 25, 2011 10:12 AM by Michelle Malkin
117 CommentsObama administration retreats (again) on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed civilian trial; Holder blames Congress
April 4, 2011 11:50 AM by Michelle Malkin
129 CommentsHarry Reid & Lindsey Graham: Afghanistan Riots Might Be Due to Too Many Freedoms in the US… or Something
April 3, 2011 03:49 PM by Doug Powers
169 CommentsOmar Khadr: Guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty
October 25, 2010 10:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
17 CommentsGitmo Horrors Continue: Detainees Limited to One Ice Cream
September 26, 2010 10:21 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Redstate
» Morning Briefing for February 14, 2012Betsys Page
» Cruising the WebPundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad joke
These are the one’s authorities felt safe releasing.
Imagine the one’s the Bush Administration didn’t think were safe to release, and their impending transfer to the United States and civilian trials.
Unless, of course, Obama’s acceptance of the Clinton policy of rendition means all the Gitmo prisoners can be disappeared to Egyptian and Saudi prisons, where there human rights are so preciously protected.
Well clearly that is bushes fault some how.
The real solution is to release all of the remaining terrorists and HOPE that they CHANGE.
/obamabot mode off.
Yah….we know how good those rehab programs work with murdering thugs.
Don’t have to imagine. They’re all going to John Murtha’s 12th district of Pennsylvania, aren’t they?
But they work so well with phedolphiles… oh wait…
We need to take the saudi approach. Behead them and let allah reform them.
I honestly think that Obama would be capable of making sound decisions regarding such issues if he hadn’t made such crazy campaign promises.
Unfortunately, he’s now forced to balance important decisions with the stupid rhetoric he’s been spouting for years. This makes me nervous.
No one, not even the US government, believed these killers would be rehabbed. This was just political cover to justify releasing them to get them out of our hair. Obie will just ramp this up. What this means is no future jihadi prisoners will be be brought in alive.
Are you now just seeing that?
It’s been obvious from the start that all his rhetoric is doomed to failure.
Their mistake was to go home. A clever jihadist would have applied for asylum in the US or Canada and started a cell, I mean a coffee clutch.
He knew what he was doing when he made those promises, so where was the sound mind then?
He had no executive experience before he took office, so the rhetoric was what he had to offer.
Hope and Change: America elected a mantra. Now the man without previous actions to back up his words is forced to act. Our safety is determined by just how closely he abides by those crazy campaign promises.
We al lknow of course that these folks were perfectly ok normal hard working people until George Bush personally kidnapped them from their vacations in Pakistan and Afghanistan and herd3ed them off to Gitmo. In Gitmo they instantly turned into freedom fighters.
>I honestly think that Obama would be capable of making sound decisions regarding such issues if he hadn’t made such crazy campaign promises.
Corkie — I have come to believe that Obama did not think he would win the nomination. I think he figured he could set up a facebook/my spasce linked network of fervant young supporters who in 4 or 8 years would be the army he needed to win the White House. Hence he could say things (and early on he really said some things) without worrying about repercussions, because in 4 or 8 years the world would be different, and maybe terrorism would not be the big issue anymore (as it is not really now).
I think his plan was after losing the nomination, to do the following. He would have an easy time for reelection in 2010, so that was not going to take up much time. He would spend the next 2 years (if a Republican won) or 6 years (if HRC won) doing the “Senator Statemen” circuit — going on fact finding tours, speaking to the English Labour Party convention, doing rounds at Davos and Bilderberg and the rest. He would also jetison his questionable friends.
What threw his plan into disarray was that he actually won. I imagine a scene not unlike the movie “The Candidate” whereby he is standing around with his advisors and says “Now what?”
If we’d just stop capturing the terrorist we’d stop turning them into terrorist…
I think we need a Gitmo Count, the kind that shows how many people have been killed by former inmates. The number is only going to go up and up. Sad that we will have to kill so many people just to prove that Gitmo actually worked!
I guess fixing them up with jobs, houses, and wives…Was not enough for them to renounce violence.
His rhetoric is doomed to failure? Or his decisions are doomed to failure? I don’t understand what you’re trying to state.
I disagree. He was inexperienced and naive. He was talking out his behind.
Interesting theory, and it combines well with my statement in the preceding paragraph. He didn’t worry about being naive since he didn’t think he’d win the nom — I can see that.
How ironic that all of those terrorists look strikingly similar in dress and appearance, but if our Airport Security or Police stopped them for questioning, the officer would be charged with Racial Profiling and Harrassment.
Another great win for liberals that resulted in America becoming even more unsafe, much like closing Gitmo will be.
From your mouth to our soldier’s ears!
ABC News snort worthy comment this morning: (I paraphrase)
“The goal of closing Gitmo became more complicated today with the report that 11 released itmo inmates who supposedly had been rehabilitated in Saudi Arabia had rejoined the ranks of the terrorists.”]
Well shazam. What do you think would have happened if we had released 11 captured members of the Waffen SS and sent them home for “rehabilitation.”
I actually respect them for their dedication. They are hard core. They will fight us to the death. No problem as that can be arranged.
***
There is a lot of blame to go around on the Gitmo Jihadi problem. President Franklin Roosevelt showed how captured terrorists should be handled when a dozen WW2 German saboteurs were caught in the U.S.
***
Military trials were quick–most of the saboteurs were executed in a few months. A few were imprisoned and later released–after the war was over.
***
President Bush and his administration made a number of errors in handling the Jihadi prisoners. They should have been held “in country” by Iraqi or Afghan military forces and put on trial under their laws–not brought back to U.S. territory. Saddam Hussein’s trial and execution is the example of the right way to handle these criminals.
***
The U.S. military is not a police agency–they do not collect evidence, read Miranda rights, depose witnesses, etc. on the battlefield. They just take prisoners unless it it necessary to shoot them.
***
Intelligence information gotten from the Jihadis has a very short “shelf life”–after a few months it has “gone stale” and is not very useful any more. Holding these terrorists for a long time doesn’t make a lot of sense.
***
The U.S. justice system will be forced to release most of these terrorists after long expensive trials. Most will not have enough evidence or witnesses against them to prove a case. They should have been long ago sent back to the countries where they were captured.
***
Maybe the military will get the chance to shoot them on the battlefields on their next Jihadi missions. Or maybe we will capture them (or pick up their remains) after the next terrorist attack on the new U.S.S.A. after President O’Bummer guts our intelligence agencies and methods in the name of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.
***
John Bibb
***
I said the same thing a few weeks ago. I think it’s a great idea, but the MSM wouldn’t mention it, I’m sure.
Another good idea. I’m sure they violated local laws with whatever they were doing. Chances are they probably wouldn’t have gained as much weight as they have at Gitmo, though.
Alternatively, they could have been pumped full of estrogen and hooked on heroin before release. The girly-men would have been too busy saving their skins and trying to support their habit to rejoin the fight.
Holding prisoners does not make sense? We will be forced to release them?
POW’s who have committed no war crimes do not merit any kind of trial. They are combatants. You should hold them until hostilities end. If they don’t end well, sucks to be them.
Those who may have committed terroist acts against on U.S soil should be tried. Those who have committed crimes in another country, like Iraq can be sent their for trial if Iraq requests. The rest, no.
It’s a war, not cops and robbers.
Hi Flyoverman (#21)–Your comments are right on–if you assume that our O’Bummer government is thinking rationally. However, they are not.
***
If we are going to have to release them anyway–after long expensive trials–let’s save the money instead. Why enrich the parasitic lawyers any more than necessary?
***
We have lost already.
***
John Bibb
***
The problem is, our soldiers will do this and then Code Pink will get our Soldiers charged with murder and war crimes.
Until Americans realize that there is no such thing as a “fair” fight, we are destined to keep the handcuffs on our soldiers instead of the enemy.
rocketman,
My preferred release point for these guys is @ 400 miles west of the Azore Islands…… after chumming the water, of couurse.
CAN’T WE CONVINCE ONE OF OUR MONEY RECIPIENT NATIONS (EGYPT) TO TAKE THESE MORONS AND EXECUTE THEM FOR CRIMES AGAINST ISLAM IF THE WISH TO CONTINUE TO RECIEVE U.S. MONEY?
And just how, exactly, is this a problem?
First rule of fighting: If you find yourself in a “fair” fight, you’re doing it wrong.
Given Saudi Arabia’s track record, I am pretty sure not beating your wife with enough vigor would land you on this list. I’m not sure engaging in terrorist activities would.
On February 4th, 2009 at 1:52 pm, chapoutier said:
Given Saudi Arabia’s track record, I am pretty sure not beating your wife with enough vigor would land you on this list. I’m not sure engaging in terrorist activities would.
—————————————
I’m afraid you may be right.
I like to think that if, come a year from now, there is still no feasible way to close Gitmo without compromising our security, it won’t happen. Surely our new President is not that deluded by his own pre-election rhetoric.
Simple solution. Put them all in the court system and that way they become innocent, alleged, citizens. They would be freed instantly by the system because their rights, as citizens, have been violated. No need for rehab in such a case.
Problem solved.
NEXT!
Perhaps, they just want to get caught, and get back in GITMO for the free food, housing, and healthcare. Just like illegal aliens inside these United States.
Frostrt — For me the issue is not so much where they are kept, but that we do not torture (and I think water boarding is torture). I do not think they need to be coddled, just treated humanely. And there needs to be some sort of system to review their cases. I think that following the S.Ct. decision a workable solution was made.
It does not matter where they are kept. Gitmo is just as good as keeping them in Murtha’s district.
But I agree, I think he will find it hard to close it down in a year unless the prisoners are moved to US prisons on US soil. If there are plans to move them to Turkey or Iraq, I can see more law suits.
The result is that you will have fewer US prisoners. Our troops will turn the prisoners over to the Iraqis and Afghans, with the result that we will be less safe (I figure it is easier to escape from an Iraqi prison than a US military one) and there will be complaints about treatment in those places.
The thing is, we WANT people to surrender to our troops.
…and how much he feels he has to appease the America-hating lunatics in his base.
Two points that bother me and I wonder if they bother the reat of you.
One – These people were released under Pres Bush’s watch and were Saudi Arabians.
Two – 15 Saudi Arabians highjacked planes to use as weapons against us, on the orders of a Saudi Arabian living in Pakistan on 9/11.
Why did we go into Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? Or, am I missing something?
The release point should be at 4,000 feet ASL using parachutes they packed themselves. I figure we could get them all in a C-5B Galaxy.
ECS
Cute. The government of Saudi Arabia wasn’t actively supporting the terrorists. Next?
ECS
Ummm, he IS an American-hating lunatic.
Living in Pakistan on 9/11/2001? Is that true? Was OBL living in Pakistan on 9/11/2001?
Because Iraq was the reason we had any military presence in the region at all. THAT’S what was upsetting these Saudis.
Let me ask you this, zyzzyg? Would you have been in favor of a unilateral withdrawal of all US military forces in the region?
Would you have been in favor of ceasing US military support for the blockade enforcing UN trade sanctions against Iraq?
Would you have been in favor of ceasing US military support for the UN no-fly zone in northern Iraq?
Would you have been in favor of ceasing US military support for the UN no-fly zone in southern Iraq?
I certainly would have been. I wonder why Clinton never was. Keep in mind that it would have allowed Saddam to use his air power to massacre non-Sunnis. It would have also allowed Saddam to import weapons of every flavor. But that doesn’t change my opinion. I think this was a much better option than war with Iraq.
Do you agree? If not, would you have continued to maintain the significant military presence in the region? It kinda would have been one or the other, right?
If that is the acid test, then we should have gone into every Muslim/Arab Country, because every Muslim/Arab Country supports the terrorist on some level. Either with money, or with it’s citizens. Hence, why so many Saudi Arabians were captured in Afghanistan . . . and, much later in Iraq.
Yasser Arafat was a terrorist, yet we did not go after him, and he was allowed to die peacefully in his sleep.
My bad. I am not afraid of being corrected, or answering questions. He was living in Afghanistan. I have asked this question before and have used the correct Country at that time.
Huh? We had no military prescence in Iraq. We had a military prescence in Kuwait, Bahrain, and a few other places in and around the Gulf, but not in Iraq. We had air superiority over airspace in Iraq, but that is no reason to invade it. Please, tell me you are not suggesting the reason we went into Iraq was because it was convenient.
And, that is the reason Osama bin Laden said he attacked us on 9/11. Because, we were in Saudi Arabia.
No. And, I would not go where my Country is not wanted, but is invited.
That is a tough one. Because it was not working well, I would have liked to find another way to deal with the blockade. But, your asking that question is honest and an acceptable reason for invading Iraq, yet it was not the primary reason for going into Iraq. If that were the case we would have gone into Iraq well before 9/11.
It was not as effective as we thought it would be, because it only applied to jets, and not helicopters. Gen Schwarkopff said so himself. So, yes I would have had modified the no fly zone to include helicopters.
Yes, many leaders around the world kill and/or allow their citizens to die. And, we do nothing. And, Saddam used helicopters to assault the kurds in the North.
Maintain military prescence by invitation only. No, not one, or the other. There are more than two answers.
How about just going after the Saudi Arabian who ordered and planned 9/11?
You have to be streetwise as hell to survive in a mean world
It’s so laughable that some idealists think splashing water up someone’s nostrils is “torture”. I’ve seen enough gang “initiation rites” here in Queens to make “waterboarding” look like a powder-puffing. PLEASE! Is NOT tweaking a bastard’s thumb worth the LIFE of my wife or daughter?? Get real or get outside the real world some (too many!) of you! Another thing; All this BS about “just” taking care of Afghanistan like it’s the only just cause over there and Iraq was a “mistake”. Hello! There’s no way a lamb like a democratic Afghanistan is going to survive all alone in a region of Islamic lions without one big democratic brother in that area watching its back, and that new big bro’ on the block is the new Iraq we created. It’s in no way perfect but it’s one major gorilla on our side in neighborhood to keep the hyenas of the Afghans. Unfortunately keeping things safe for you and your family’s skins in the real world isn’t so neat and tidy to fit one’s idealistic philosophies.
James Greenidge
Queens, New York
I didn’t say we had a military presence in Iraq. I said we had a military presence in the region. Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia are in the region. This was upsetting certain Saudis – some enough to take action against us.
Now, WHY did we have the military presence in the region??? Because of Iraq. We had no forces in the region prior to Aug 1990. And we didn’t leave because we were supporting the blockade and no-fly zones.
If Saddam could have been trusted, we would have left the region which would have made all the Saudis very happy. Then, maybe many of them wouldn’t have supported any terrorists activities.
Gee, yeah, it’s a tough one. Tell me specifically what you would have done to “deal with the blockade.” Magic??? Either you would have supported the blockade with a military presence in the region or not.
That’s wasn’t my reason for asking. I’m not sure why you jumped to that conclusion. Why can’t you just answer my question? I wanted to know if you would have supported the blockade with a military presence in the region or if you would have allowed the blockade to fall apart. It’s a very valid question. Please don’t say that you would have used magic to avoid making the decision.
Ha ha. That’s a laugh. YOU would have modified the no fly zone???? Exactly how would you have taken control of the UN? Or, are you merely saying that you would have tried to modify the no fly zone through diplomatic efforts? Either way, I don’t think you would have been successful.
So, are you telling me that you would have maintained the military presence in the region in order to support your modified no fly zone? I just want to make sure.
No, there’s not more than two answers. You’re saying that you would have handled Saddam by maintaining a significant military presence in the region. Got it.
It also sounds like you would have continued to handle all terrorist activities as criminal cases after the crimes were committed despite the fact that you would continue to maintain a military presence in the region (which was the root cause of all the hatred). Sounds like a brilliant plan to me.
Personally, I would have withdrawn our military forces from the region.
On February 6th, 2009 at 10:29 am, corkie said:
We agree. Please re-read my post and address this statement – Please, tell me you are not suggesting the reason we went into Iraq was because it was convenient.
Yes, though we often sailed our ships in the Gulf.
We trusted Saddam at one time. We trusted him enough to provide him with chemical weapons to fight a ‘proxy’ war with Iran. Saddam was our tool and we could have had an understanding. You don’t throw away your tools. You sharpen them.
If you are suggesting that the Saudis would not have gone into Iraq to carry out terrorist activities if we had not gone into Iraq? Then I agree with you.
After, showing Saddam the light, that his, and his family’s, continued prescence on this earth depended on his cooperation, would I then suspend the blockade.
LOL. Magic? Now that is certainly a jump to a conclusion. OK, maybe it is more of a suggestion.
You taking issue with me for saying you were asking an honest question, well I just don’t get it. I will try to be less civil with you in the future. Nah, no I won’t. I will always be civil, with everyone.
As for the blockade, see above.
Succesful, or not. To have not tried would have guaranteed the continued killing of the Kurds. Then again, for some reason Saddam stopped killing Kurds using helicopters.
To be clear. Military prescence to keep an eye on Saddam and maintain the no fly zones, but not to support a blockade.
Among the many other answers are, invading, a coup, assassination, Saddam voluntarily stepping down. Yes, let’s not quibble about the likelihood of each happening, but each is another answer.
That sound you hear is your jumping to conclusions. Though a question was not asked, I will say that I support swiftly conducted Military Tribunals, eventhough we have used criminal courts to try terrorists.
OK.
I’ll say it again. I would keep our military where ever it is welcome. Our military was asked to leave Saudi Arabia, and we left. Our military was asked to stay in Kuwait, and other places, and we did.
Corkie,
I enjoyed our conversation and hope we can keep it going, though often the length of posts allows for some confusion. Should we continue this conversation maybe we can do it one question at a time. That way neither you or I, will miss anything.
Thanks,
Zyzzyg
1. Of course not.
2. Why did you ask such a silly question?
Sailing ships isn’t a problem. Land based infrastructures to support the continued presence of blockading ships and aircraft was a problem for many in the region.
Obviously. Of course I asked an honest question. I only ever ask honest questions. I don’t take issue with that. I take issue with you thinking you can wish problems away.
What the hell does this mean? I don’t think you live in the real world. Saddam proved himself to be a broken tool when he sent his military into Kuwait and into Saudi Arabia (the latter being very short lived). Every US President since then has been forced to make difficult decisions in dealing with him.
Regardless, there is only one answer to the question regarding keeping a military presence in the region or not. I wasn’t trying to limit an open question to options A and B. I clearly asked if you would have done A or not. There’s only two answers to such a question.
Welcome by whom????? The democratically elected government of that country? The royal family of that country? The dictator of that country? Meaningless when dealing with terrorism.
What is it that you’re confused about?
On February 9th, 2009 at 12:46 pm, corkie said:
Notwithstanding your characterization you had said the following, in a previous post, in response to my question, ‘Why did we go into Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?’ –
Your response to the question of why we went into Iraq, and not Saudi Arabia, was because we had a military prescence because of Iraq. I suppose it is about the construction of your statement.
Your response confused me, and I was asking for further clarification, that is all. A follow-up question to better understand.
Your answer, ‘of course not’ responds to what you termed the ‘silly’ question.
OK, I will try again with the original question. Why did we go into Iraq, and not Saudi Arabia, when it was primarily Saudi Arabians who perpertraited 9/11?
I will confine my part of the discussion to one question at a time. I am not looking for agreemnet. I am looking to understand.
Corkie,
I would like to take your #43 post one at a time. Is that OK with you?
Zyzzyg
It doesn’t matter who perpetrated 9/11. What matters is WHY 9/11 was perpetrated.
It was perpetrated by organizations that were manned and supported by individuals that wanted to expel US military troops from Saudi Arabia – REGARDLESS of our invitational status.
Osama Bin Laden hated the military presence in Saudi Arabia. He felt that its presence in the “land of the two mosques” (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. In fact, in 1994 he had his Saudi citizenship revoked and was exiled after speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops. Obviously, he was not alone.
Now, why was Saudi Arabia harboring American troops in 1994? In fact, what was the ONLY reason American troops were being harbored in Saudi Arabia?????
Ding, ding, ding, ding. Yes, because of Saddam Hussein. Because Clinton maintained the military presence in order to enforce the blockades and no-fly zones against Saddam Hussein.
How much of a military presence did we have in Saudi Arabia prior to Aug 1990????
Ding, ding, ding. That’s right. NONE. ZERO. NOTHING.
How much of a military presence would we have had in Saudi Arabia in 1994 IF Saddam had not become a broken tool????
No obnoxious dings this time. You know the answer.
So, if you had been President, would you have continued to antagonize the Saudis that were disturbed enough to plan, execute, and fund 9/11? Or would you have ended the antagonizing by pulling our troops from the “land of the two mosques?”
No need to answer, you’ve already stated that you would indeed have continued to antagonize. In fact, you might have increased the level of antagonizing by boosting the number of American troops in Saudi Arabia in order to support an expanded scope for the no-fly zone. No problem. You’re certainly not alone in your thinking – and I would have respected that decision if you had made it. But as you know, I disagree. I would have pulled all troops out of Saudi Arabia.
Now, what would have been the downside of my actions? Well, I would have been responsible for allowing Saddam Hussein to run amok completely uncontained. I wouldn’t have cared, but I certainly understood when many disagreed with me at the time.
Many thought that it was unacceptable to pull the troops from Saudi Arabia while leaving Saddam Hussein in power. Again, I disagreed, but certainly respected their opinions.
As you know, the decision was made to pull the troops from Saudi Arabia yet Saddam Hussein was NOT left in power. I disagree with this course of action, but certainly respect the reasoning behind it.
I guess if you consider the avoidance of mass genocide and the avoidance of military border incursions to be “convenient” then, yes, I guess I believe we went into Iraq was because it was “convenient.” But it certainly would be a very strange way to characterize it. One would also have to say that the US military executed Operation Provide Comfort because it was “convenient.”
Now, do you still want to know why I think we didn’t go into Saudi Arabia or something?
On February 9th, 2009 at 4:56 pm, corkie said:
Yes, that was the original question.
The post was long and I had hoped we could avoid that, however much of what you said, I agree with. Except that we could have kept Saddam in check from Kuwait, making the need for Saudi Bases unnecessary.
1. Since we were already “in” Saudi Arabia, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “go into.”
2. Do you mean regime change? What good would that do?
Have you ever made a definitive decision in an executive role?
On February 10th, 2009 at 9:41 am, corkie said:
Invade. As we invaded Iraq.
That might be collateral damage.
Yes.
The following is the full text of the original question I asked based on MM’s Post -
On February 4th, 2009 at 10:26 pm, zyzzyg said:
Two points that bother me and I wonder if they bother the rest of you.
One – These people were released under Pres Bush’s watch and were Saudi Arabians.
Two – 15 Saudi Arabians highjacked planes to use as weapons against us, on the orders of a Saudi Arabian living in Afghanistan on 9/11.
Why did we go into Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? Or, am I missing something?
Please answer the question.
What good would it have done to invade Saudi Arabia???? Please answer.
Thank you for answering the question.
Continuing with your Post #43 -
I said, “You don’t throw away your tools. You sharpen them.”
You said –
It means, as I said before, that we had used Saddam in the past, and an attempt at rehabilitating him, through various methods, could have been tried. He saw what we were capable of doing to his army in 100 Hours. Saddam wanted to live, and not die. He wanted to remain a live chicken (puffy chest rooster) instead of a dead hero. Who is keeping Iran in check now, with Saddam gone?
Yep, there are tough decisions, and each has it consequences. At the time Sec Def Cheney said, (paraphrasing) ‘Iraq is the Yougslavia of the Mid-East.’ What changed about Iraq when Cheney became VP? The consequences were proven correct. And, yes attempting to rehabilitate Saddam would have been a difficult decision.
I assure you, I live in the real world.
Because that is where the terrorists who attacked us, and their Wahabist ideolgy is from. Kill the beast from the root. Because that is where many of the terrorists caught in Iraq are coming from. See the Title of MM’s post. It speaks to Saudis, not Iraqis, and not Iranians.
I didn’t ask why. I asked what good it would have done.
Do you really think we should have invaded Saudi Arabia and then started killing people? Who would you have killed??
Are you sure you live in the real world?
BTW, are you advocating that we invade Saudi Arabia now?
Saddam never saw the US as a credible threat. Even when troops massed on his boarder, he was still more concerned about internal threats and Iran, etc. This fact is well sourced. Therefore, he had no reason to play ball.
Silly, but how long would you have continued your rehabilitation efforts? 15 years? 10 years? 5 years? 2 years? Then what?
Thank you for answering the question.
Continuing with your Post #43, and this is the last remaining point from that post -
On general principle I am against closed end questions. Boxers or briefs? Nope. There are thongs and going commando. How about polls? Republican or Democrat? Nope. There are other choices, and you know that.
I’ll say it again. I would keep our military where ever it is welcome.
Corky,
It has been, to say it mildly, interesting having this discussion. Should you want to continue I am willing, and will begin with addressing your posts, after #43.
And, your answers to my questions has enabled me to better understand you.
Zyzzyg
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
What if I asked you boxers OR NOT????????
There are no other choices and you know that!
Now,
1. Do you really think we should have invaded Saudi Arabia and then started killing people? Who would you have killed?
And are you advocating that we invade Saudi Arabia now?
2. How long would you have attempted efforts to rehabilitate Saddam?
Going in order, from your post #45
On February 9th, 2009 at 4:56 pm, corkie said:
I am not sure how to take that. Of course it matters who perpertraited 9/11. I prefer hitting those who hit us. Yes, the ‘why’ might be important, but the ‘who’ is far more important. I would want the guilty to pay, and am not keen of punishing the innocent.
I answered that question in Post #43, and addressed it in Post #42, but you seem not to want understand it.
Wrong. I answered that question in Post #43, and addressed it in Post #42, but you seem not to want understand it.
Nope. Saddam could have been contained from Kuwait.
You disagree that it was unacceptable to pull troops from Saudi Arabia?
Why would you want our troops where they were not wanted?
No. Pres Bush said we went into Iraq because of WMD among others. Post #44 addresses this and it was about more fully understanding what you had said because the construction of your statement was confusing.
Nope. Not anymore. You responded, but never answered.
Nope. Among other reasons, a blockade of the Red Sea could not have been staged from Kuwait.
Maybe this is your problem. You seem to be more interested in revenge than problem solving.
Ding, ding, ding. YES!!!! I was beginning to wonder how many times I was forced to convey that before you understood. I disagreed that it was unacceptable to pull troops from Saudi Arabia while leaving Saddam in power. In fact, I thought the best course of action at the time was to pull the troops from Saudi Arabia.
This is a stupid question on many levels.
I didn’t want them there. I wanted them pulled.
Please reread what I wrote:
I disagreed with conditioning the pull of troops on the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
(BTW: Many people don’t want our troops in many places. That alone isn’t a criteria for deciding where I think our troops should and shouldn’t be. For example, many people don’t want our troops in California – but I “want” them there anyway.)
No what?
Who cares what Bush said?
I’m asking what you would have done as President and telling you what I would have done as President. Certainly, you’re capable of answering that question independent of anything Bush ever said.
Now,
1. Do you really think we should have invaded Saudi Arabia and then started killing people? Who would you have killed?
And are you advocating that we invade Saudi Arabia now?
2. How long would you have attempted efforts to rehabilitate Saddam?
Trying to keep track, the next newest question came in your Post #54
Answered in Post #48 and #50.
No.
One day to explain, a week to let him absorb it. And, this should have been done immediately after the first Gulf War.
No it was not. Nothing in #50 even comes close to answering it. And your statements in #48 were merely clarifying a question you had asked. It wasn’t clarifying any answer.
So,
1. Do you really think we should have invaded Saudi Arabia and then started killing people? Who would you have killed?
Why are you so uncomfortable answering this?
The last sentence proves your inability to think like an executive. It doesn’t matter what should have been done prior to your tenor. YOU NEED TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON THE HAND YOU ARE DEALT.
So, I assume that you would NOT have attempted to rehabilitate Saddam post 9/11 since it was too late by then.
Trying to keep track, the next newest question came in your Post # 56
Huh? Though you will say that I ask ‘silly’ questions, I will only ask for furhter clarification. What has the Red Sea have to do with this conversation? Why would there be a need to blockade the Red Sea? Iraq does not border the Red Sea. Moreover, we did eventually move our military prescence out of Saudi Arabia (as we both agreed happened) we still kept Iraq in check, from Kuwait.
You may respond to my questions but I do not expect an answer to them, because I have come to understand you.
Trying to keep track, the next newest question came in your Post # 57
Wrong. It is not about revenge. It is about responding to the events of 9/11. And it goes to MM’s post and the original question which you have yet to answer. Acknowledging the abundant involvemnet of Saudi Arabians in terrorism, should we have invaded Saudi Arabia and not Iraq?
Trying to keep track, the next newest question came in your Post # 58
Your use of the double negative does not help, and in fact may cause you confusion.
Quoting you -
I disagreed that it was unacceptable to pull troops from Saudi Arabia . . .
Said without the double negative -
I agreed that it was acceptable to pull troops from Saudi Arabia . . .
You would be better served by avoiding the use of double negatives to deliver your message.
Trying to keep track, the next newest question came in your Post # 59
It has to do with the construction of your statement.
Your First sentence -
. . . the decision was made to pull the troops from Saudi Arabia . . .
Your Second sentence -
I disagree with this course of action . . .
That is why I asked the question. Your added qualification about Saddam only adds to the confusing construction of your statement.
I suspect that the element that is missing from your statement that would make it less confusing is a reference to time.
Maybe you wanted to say, withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia is a good thing, but not until Saddam is was gone.
Trying to keep track, the next newest question came in your Post # 60
As a result of the events of 9/11 I would have gone after those who attacked us. I would not have invaded Iraq.
Very well, as President, after the events of 9/11 would you have invaded Iraq? If so, what arguement would you use to justify doing so?
Based upon experience you might respond but not answer.
Trying to keep track, the next newest question came in your Post # 63
“Prior”?
First, you asked me what should we have done about Saddam. Which I answered. And, answered with stating when I would do it.
And, now you add a condition about working with what has already happened.
Of course, what I, or anyone, would do is a function of timing, but you never established a time frame for your question.
So, ask me any question, but don’t add conditions afterwards.
Yes, like I said already. I would have attempted his rehabilitation after the first Gulf War.
Why would there be a need to rehabilitate Saddam after 9/11? And, why would it be too late? I only ask because Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Recall, it was primarily a Saudi involved operation.
Yeah, I know. You might respond but not answer the questions.
Yes, you ask silly questions. It’s obvious that you weren’t very close to the Iraq situation at all. However, you could have figured this out doing your own research.
The US maintained a 24x7x52 blockade in the Red Sea for over 12 years because the Gulf of Aquaba lead to numerous overland supply routes for Iraq.
The US pulled the military out of Saudi Arabia AFTER Saddam was gone.
You really don’t know much about actual events that occurred.
I’m attempting to answer all your questions – even the stupid ones.
However, it’s difficult to debate policy when you don’t even know the history.
What does that mean? Respond? Response is an action NOT an objective. What would have been your objective by ordering an invasion of Saudi Arabia?
Response sounds like revenge to me.
Any sane person reading this would know that I’ve answered this question many, many times.
NO! I don’t believe that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia.
YOU ARE THE ONE THAT HASN’T ANSWERED! WOULD YOU HAVE INVADED SAUDI ARABIA!!??!?!
ANSWER!
Wrong. Frankly, I don’t know how you haven’t caught on yet.
I’m sorry that my writing style is too advanced for you. Allow me to dumb it down a bit.
I’ve repeatedly stated that I would have unilaterally withdrawan all US military forces from the region. This is completely independent of Saddam.
I also stated that those in power were not willing to do this. They wanted Saddam removed from power prior to the withdraw – which is exactly what they did.
Yeah. Got that. Now answer the question.
Would you have invaded Saudia Arabia after 9/11? Yes or no?
No! Please acknowledge my answer and that you understand it. It’s simple enough for you, right?
And since I wouldn’t have invaded I wouldn’t have needed to justify it.
Please tell me you’re smart enough to understand that.
Yeah, great. But when you’re discussing the best course of action to take after 9/11, you can’t jump back further in time in order to fix the problem.
That’s like saying that instead of declaring war against Japan after Pearl Harbor, you would have rehabilitated Hitler during the 1930s.
Gee, I don’t know. YOU’RE the one stating that he should have been rehabilitated after the first Gulf War. Well, 9/11/2001 was certainly after the first Gulf War.
Did he no longer need rehabilitating by then? If not, then when did he no longer need it? What date or event marked the occassion upon which you think Saddam no longer needed rehabilitation?
Yeah, I know. You know that I know. We’ve discussed this one fact.
Why do you keep repeating this one fact as if it hasn’t been considered in all of my analysis.?
Certainly you’re capable of considering a multitude of variables in your analysis, right? Why are you “scope locked” on this one point?
Acknowledge my answers.
Going overland from the Red Sea to Iraq requires going through Saudi Arabia. You know the place where the majority of 9/11 terrorist, and the planner, are from. A blockade on the Red Sea would not stop anything originating in Saudi Arabia, including terrorists, from getting into Iraq.
Do you agree?
Did we, or didn’t we, leave Saudi Arabia? We agreed on this over twenty Posts ago.
I think not. If you were answering questions you would have answered the question from Post #33, over 50 Posts ago.
Further, it is called a ‘preface.’ State the conditions, or frame your arguement, in which you would like the questions answered.
When I asked the question in Post #33, over 50 Posts ago, I framed it in reference to 9/11. Presented a choice, Iraq or Saudi Arabia. And, left a opening, asking if I missed something.
Asking a question is fairly easy, getting an answer seems to be difficult.
True, a response is not an objective. The objective was explained in Post #50, and I have cut and pasted that response here for your benefit. Heck, you even cut and pasted it once.
Because that is where the terrorists who attacked us, and their Wahabist ideolgy is from. Kill the beast from the root. Because that is where many of the terrorists caught in Iraq are coming from. See the Title of MM’s post. It speaks to Saudis, not Iraqis, and not Iranians.
Again, not revenge, we were attacked on 9/11. And, I can’t believe you are quibbling about the word ‘response.’
Really? In which Post have you answered the question? Give me the number.
I answered the question in Post # 48, and in direct response to your question, reposted here for your benefit -
You: 1. Since we were already “in” Saudi Arabia, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “go into.”
Me: Invade. As we invaded Iraq.
Don’t forget this was in reference to my original question which was in regard to 9/11.
Moreover, here is your response to the question, also reposted here for your benefit –
Me: Why did we go into Iraq, and not Saudi Arabia, when it was primarily Saudi Arabians who perpertraited 9/11?
You: It doesn’t matter who perpetrated 9/11. What matters is WHY 9/11 was perpetrated.
Not only did you not answer the question. You responded with a question.
So go ahead, cut and paste where and what you said as an answer to the original question. Give me the numbered Post where your answer exists.
Finally. Thank you for answering the question from Post #33. On 9/11 we were attacked by 15 Saudi Arabians on the orders of a Saudi Arabian and you would not attack Saudi Arabia. But, would have attacked Iraq?
51 Posts (#33 – # 84) in a diaglouge and you did it. Congratulations! I knew you had it in you.
#75
Apology accepted.
OK, you would have withdrawn troops from the area. When?
Recall that MM’s Post is about Saudi Arabians, and my original question was in reference to 9/11 and Saudi involvement, not Iraq’s involvement in 9/11, because they weren’t. Post #33 if you have forgotten.
OK, does this region include the Red Sea, and the blockade? I thought you supported the blockade, or were you just stating that there was a blockade.
Are you reading my posts?
Answered in Post #48, reposted yet again for your benefit -
You: 1. Since we were already “in” Saudi Arabia, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “go into.”
Me: Invade. As we invaded Iraq.
Additionaly, I added emphasis in Post #50, reposted here for your benefit -
You: What good would it have done to invade Saudi Arabia???? Please answer.
Me: Because that is where the terrorists who attacked us, and their Wahabist ideolgy is from. Kill the beast from the root. Because that is where many of the terrorists caught in Iraq are coming from. See the Title of MM’s post. It speaks to Saudis, not Iraqis, and not Iranians.
Bravo! Good for you! Congratulations!
The very first time I asked a new question that you responded with an answer.
And, just for the record, I would not have invaded Iraq as a result of 9/11.
I am beginning to understand where the breakdown in our converstion is coming from.
My original question in Post #33 was set up based on the events of 9/11. Not the first Gulf War. We did not take Saddam out after the first Gulf War. We took him out after 9/11. Correct?
Go back to Post # 50, reposted for your benefit -
Me: It means, as I said before, that we had used Saddam in the past, and an attempt at rehabilitating him, through various methods, could have been tried. He saw what we were capable of doing to his army in 100 Hours. Saddam wanted to live, and not die. He wanted to remain a live chicken (puffy chest rooster) instead of a dead hero.
That small little reference to 100 Hours, is about the first Gulf War. Correct? So, I was not suggesting Saddam’s rehabilitation begin with 9/11. His rehabilitation was to begin after the first Gulf War.
As a result of 9/11, what was ‘the best course of action’? It was not to Invade Iraq, but to invade Saudi Arabia.
Instead of initialy responding to the question from Post #33, which you finally answered in Post #84, you went on a tangent asking questions, . . . anserwing questions with questions, . . . and conflating issues without reference to time, . . . and when the events you were talking about happened.
There you go again, answering a question with a questions.
Please tell that I did not need to say that Saddam needed rehabilitation “immediately” after the first Gulf War?
Had Saddam recieved his rehabiltation “immediately” after the first Gulf War there would have been no need to do it after 9/11.
As I said, his rehabilitation would have begun after the first Gulf War, OK for your sake, his rehabilitation would have begun “immediately” after the first Gulf War, and he would have had one week to accept the terms. Yep, said that in Post # 50. Saddam would not have made it to 9/11 if he did not accept the terms of rehabilitation. He would not have made it to 1992.
You ask me this question in Post #63, reposted for your benefit -
You: So, I assume that you would NOT have attempted to rehabilitate Saddam post 9/11 since it was too late by then.
You are conflating 9/11 and Saddam. In earlier posts I had said that he would get rehabiltation after the first Gulf War.
Rehabilitating him ten years later would not make sense. Saying 9/11 and Saddam in the same sentence just doesn’t make sense, since, and I’ll say it again, one had nothing to do with the other.
So, when you continue to ‘scope lock’ on saying 9/11 and Saddam in one sentence, I will continue to say, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
Always have, always will. I have answered questions and have done so without waiting for 51 posts. I have even asked for clarification, which in and of itself is an acknowledgement.
If you believe I have not addressed any of your questions, comments or concerns, please repost them and I will do so.
Corkie,
Tell me something. Why haven’t you ever said that we agree on certain things, as I have?
We agree that invading Iraq was not a good idea.
We agree that it was primarily Saudis involved in 9/11.
We agree that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
We agree that our troops were withdrawn from Saudi Arabia.
We agree that Osama was in Afghanistan.
We agree that Osama was motivated to do waht he did on 9/11 because we were in Saudi Arabia.
Yep, there are things on which we do disagree, but acknowledgeing where we do have commonality is helpful to the discussion.
Just saying,
Zyzzyg
No it doesn’t. Look at a map. The Gulf of Aqaba.
We left Saudi Arabia AFTER Saddam was gone. What is your point?
Great. That is your objective. Now, tell me how you would have planned to kill the beast. How would you have found your root? What would have been your probability of success?
Are you really that stupid.
You asked:
“Why did we go into Iraq, and not Saudi Arabia, when it was primarily Saudi Arabians who perpertraited 9/11?”
I asked you to clarify your question:
“Since we were already “in” Saudi Arabia, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “go into.””
You clarified with:
“Invade. As we invaded Iraq.”
It’s pretty freaking clear that you weren’t stating the fact that you would have invaded Saudi Arabia. It’s obvious that you were clarify your question to me. You were merely asking me a question – NOT MAKING A DEFINITIVE STATEMENT.
Why are you so worried about answering this question?
Would you have invaded Saudi Arabia after 9/11?
You really are stupid. Why would you key in on the word “immediately?”
Let me make this simple.
Let’s pretend that you were in charge of the US following 9/11 (not before 9/11 – after 9/11).
Now, would you have unilaterally withdrawn all US troops from the region?
I would have.
Wrong, the military containment of Saddam led to 9/11. Therefore, he had quite a bit to do with it.
And you’ve agreed with that.