<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">All:<BR>
<BR>
My belief that the Iraq war and invasion has hampered the war on terrorism, did not protect America from any real threat, and was welcomed by Al Quada as a propaganda tool to fuel their movement, has just been affirmed by a 22 year CIA veteran who is publishing a new book titled "Imperial Hubris." I'm a bit uncomfortable finding affirmation from the CIA for my political opinions, but this book certainly slams the Bush administration's foreign policy regarding Iraq. <BR>
<BR>
If the CIA is going after Bush, he could be in reelection trouble.<BR>
<BR>
Here are two quotes from the article dealing with the book "Imperial Hubris" available at the link below:<BR>
<BR>
...he calls the Iraq invasion "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat,” <BR>
<BR>
“Bin Laden saw the invasion of Iraq as a Christmas gift he never thought he’d get.” By invading a country that’s regarded as the second holiest place in Islam, he asserts, the Bush administration inadvertently validated bin Laden’s assertions that the United States intends a holy war against Muslims.<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/5279743/">http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/5279743/</A><BR>
<BR>
When a CIA operative goes public asserting Iraq posed no major threat, and that the invasion fueled Al Quada efforts, are the Bush supporters now going to paint the CIA as "left wing extreme" and "out of the mainstream," like they are trying to paint Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11?<BR>
<BR>
It's time for the Bush administration/Iraq invasion supporters to wake up. This war was a bad idea from a strategic standpoint in the "War on Terror," is inflicting terrible human costs that were avoidable, and does not help protect America, but in fact increases the dangers.<BR>
<BR>
I forward my V2020 post from 6/21/04, before I heard of this new book by the anonymous CIA operative, to enhance the delicious experience of gloating while I chant "I told you so!" <BR>
<BR>
________________________________<BR>
<BR>
All:<BR>
<BR>
What a charade! <BR>
<BR>
If "contacts" between Al Quada and representatives of a nation are a reason to invade and bomb that country into submission, the US would be a target. The US has had "contacts" with Al Quada. <BR>
<BR>
Regardless of what the White House is saying now, they deliberately gave the impression to the American people that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, and the American people bought it, with a majority at one point thinking Iraq was linked to 9/11.<BR>
<BR>
But it was known years ago that Bin Laden and his followers disliked Saddam and the form of secularized Islam he represented, in a similar fashion to how much Al Quada disliked Khadafy in Libya. At one point the British and Al Quada were working together to get Khadafy, the British in part because Khadafy threw out the British and nationalized the oil, and Al Quada because Khadafy was against the purist form of Islam Al Quada promotes. <BR>
<BR>
It was known long ago that 9/11 was not linked to Saddam's regime. How many times can people overlook the fact that 15 of the 19 9/11 high jackers were Saudi nationals? How many times can people overlook the funding of Al Quada that originated from Saudi Arabia?<BR>
<BR>
The US invasion of Iraq is just what Al Quada wanted to inspire their movement and gain new recruits, to prove to other Muslims that the US wants to control the Muslim world, so they could continue with aggressive efforts against the US influence in that region. <BR>
<BR>
The irony is that now that Saddam is gone, Al Quada has more influence in Iraq! When Saddam was in power, Al Quada's presence in Iraq was kept under control, with Saddam and Al Quada as enemies.<BR>
<BR>
And this report by the 9/11 commission is old news!<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>