Saddam & Al-Qaeda

Monday, June 14, 2004:

Quote:

---

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/06/....terrorism.ap/

"He was a patron of terrorism," Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. "He had long established ties with al Qaeda."

---

Wednesday, June 16, 2004:

Quote:

---

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/16...septlink040616
Despite a meeting between Osama bin Laden and a top Iraqi official in 1994, there is "no credible evidence" that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated in the attacks of Sept.11, 2001, a U.S. commission report states.

According to the report, based on research and interviews by the commission, bin Laden reportedly met with the senior intelligence official "to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons," the report said.

"But Iraq apparently never responded," according to the report.

---

For once and for all: no ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

Saddam was just an "inocent" victim lost in the jungle of world politics. Poor guy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

Quote:

---

The panel's findings were released two days after Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida. President Bush defended the statement in a news conference Tuesday, saying the presence in Iraq of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is accused of trying to disrupt the transfer of sovereignty as well as last month's decapitation of American Nicholas Berg, provides "the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida."

---

While I agree that the al-Qaida links may have been relied upon too much as a connection. I still believe that they were there. Maybe not on the top level of governmental cooperation as the administration may have led us to believe, but I dont think that Saddam Hussein would have minded the fact that terrorists dead set against the US would have been operating from his country.

Not that alquida only showed up after husain was out....did husain suport terrorists...kindof he supported an off shoot of the palistinians who where SECULAR he would not support as islamicist movement, more over Al-Quida was created mainly to distroy him (they targeted us after we set up permanent bases in Saudi Arabyia there first goal was t oprotet the Saudies from Hussain, the Saud's rejected them hence there hatred of the rulling party in Saudi Arabya.). They operate in iraq and expand there power base because of our actions there, our war in iraq has strengthend terror

Originally before the first Gulf War broke out, Usama Bin Laden approached the Saudi King and was willing to declare jihad upon the Iraqi's in defense of Islam's holy cities if necessary. This of course did not happen, as the Saudi's turned toward the United Nations for protection. This was the relationship between UBL & Saudi went sour, and began the intense resentment of the US which is what bballad refers to.

However I think your message is wrong. The war in Iraq may have made the US even a more hated country in the eyes of terrorists, but that doesn't mean we have strenghthened terror. I think that freedom is something that you have to fight for to keep. And that everyone deserves the right to be free. Currently alot of the middle eastern countries do not support many of the freedoms that we enjoy in the US. That scares them, and I think thats the basis of why we are hated. If doing that causes them to hate us, so be it. But we need to stick with Iraq, and anyone else who is being ruled over by an evil tyrant, as all mankind deserves to be free.

Quote:

---

the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday no evidence exists that al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam Hussein.

---

Quote:

---

The report asserted "no credible evidence" has emerged that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 strikes.

---

so the commision said we can prove he had ties to al-quida but we cant prove those ties were strong. they also say there is evidence that iraq was involved in 911 but nothing hardcore.

if OBL were to go to trial in the US he would be aquited. We don't have any 'hard' evidence that he did it. Afganistan said we couldn't prove that OBL was responsible before we attacked and we couldn't. does anyone doubt that he was responsible?

saddam is a bad man. he openly supported terrorists and announced his hatred of the US. he is our enemy. the iraqi people were not going to remove him so we did it ourselves.

what kind of evidence were you expecting? photos of saddam and obl on the golf course with a tape of them discussing the upcoming attacks on the WTC? terrorism is a covert act how much documentation can there be? thank god defending our country isnt decided in court.

"Long established ties with Al-Qaeda" Vs. "Iraq never even responded to his request", that's what this is about. Bush and Cheney have repeatedly used the "long established ties with Al-Qaeda" as one of their main reasons to go to war.

This shouldn't be mixed up with the discussion whether taking out Saddam was a good decision or not (I'll be the first one to admit that it was).
What's going to be next? Attacking Canada for their "long established ties with Al-Qaeda"? I just think it's kinda scary that the war was sold by playing on the feelings of so many Americans (Bush started making the "long established ties"-claims right after 9/11. Easy and cheap way to sell your war).

Edit: decision, not discussion :D

Hey Neg....you want to talk about things "long established", take a look at the Bush - Bin Laden family ties.

Quote:

---

Bush and Cheney have repeatedly used the "long established ties with Al-Qaeda" as one of their main reasons to go to war.

---

Yeh, and because of oil, "nuke's", and because daddy said so. :rolleyes:

neg, if by the selling of the war you mean trying to get public support for it. thats politics. going to war was a done deal before these claims were made.

"This shouldn't be mixed up with the discussion whether taking out Saddam was a good discussion or not (I'll be the first one to admit that it was)."

sorry i thought thats what you were saying.

so if it needed to be done and we did it what's the problem with how it's packaged. it also wasn't done to liberate the iraqi people either. well not really. i believe the plan was to make them happy and prosperous wether they wanted to be or not to cause discontent in surrounding hard core muslim nations.the enemy knows this to be true and thats why their fighting the rebuilding of iraq so hard.


"What's going to be next? Attacking Canada for their "long established ties with Al-Qaeda"?


now your just being silly. it'll be over lumber everybody knows that.

Tedob1
The package is very important. It is one thing to expect politicians to lie but it is another thing to accept to be taken for fools. If Bush is justified today then Saddam was more than justified when he invaded kuwait. If the US does it today what is stopping china using the same reason for invading Taiwan. Afterall it is hostile towards China. It has more than likely a WMD programme and it supports international terrorist from Chinas point of view.
As for going in to make the Iraqi people happy and prosperous be serious.

I am not sure of your political leaning but in all honesty would you have been so quick to accept things if Bush was a democrat?

Is it normal that Farienheight 9-11 is rated R (under 17 accompanied )? Well at least it might actually make to the movies in the states.

edit When Bush annexes Canada it will be for the water. :)

Tedob1 > That should've read "decision" in stead of discussion ;)

I do have a problem with how it was sold, no matter the outcome.

Basically, this is what happened:
1. Make the decision before you even know the facts.
2. Sell it to the public by bending the facts to meet your plan.

I'm sorry, but something's not right there...

Tebolid so lieing ot congess to start a war is ok? humm so what you are saying is that the president can lie to congress and the public all he wants as long as its about killing people, if its about sex lets impeach.

thadbme: the first goulf war actualy strengthend relations between the US and arab nations, we lost all of that good will though when we didn't pull our bases out of saudi arabea and made them permanante bases....that was allways one of the al quida complaints agenst the US we had bases in their holy land.

Look those of you on the right will eventual have to face the fact that your leader lied to you to enrich himself and his friends in the war industry.

Quote:

---

Tebolid so lieing ot congess to start a war is ok? humm so what you are saying is that the president can lie to congress and the public all he wants as long as its about killing people, if its about sex lets impeach.

---

I find that to be a funny, yet valid point :p It's always going to be hard to know what the government's true motive's are for anything (unless, of course, your part of that administration). So either way, we wouldn't have known. Although we kinda do.

You know the cliche... hindsight is bla bla. :)

I, as usual to not share the same viewpoint. ;)

Its all good and well 4 years later that a team of investigators looked into the matter and said basically (and I have read the entire report that is available) YES there is a Saddam, Al Quida connection BUT it did not lead too or have anything to do with 9/11. OK, I am not so definitively convinced since this panel forced key players on the Bush side to testify in public even after giving the same testimony in private to the same people. In my mind that is very interesting in a negative way - but hey ok, we made a mistake. Tear up your interim constitution and let Saddam free along with all the Bath party. boohoo. Even if you convince me Bush lied and twisted available intelligence, something the commission doesn't touch upon, I don't change my current world view.

I also read in the same report just how massive their 911 operation was, it’s damn phraking scary actually. They were after TEN planes that day. They got 4. There was also some major ground based offensives and even though Bush's resume had him running scared that day, his quick reactions and decisions probably prevented a massive attack unheard of in this supposed peace loving world you all believe we live in.

The commission is not called the Iraqi commission for a reason, it's supposed to be based on what lead to and what failed in the 9.11 attacks, it's the 9/11 commission. So it seems we have a standoff in the government on what constituted viable intelligence. And there are two camps in our society. Those that think it's a bad war and those that do not. There are even those who say it's a good war but a bad way to go about it, nullifying the resultant outcome. Personally all I care about is peace. And to achieve that by means that are possible, considering this had been a blight on the planet since the end of World War 2, it didn't just pop up after 9/11. While those here use their energy to justify their hatred for one party or one man over another, whether that be George W. of John F. I care about THIS (see below) attached document perhaps I’ll share Article 10:

Quote:

---

Article 10.

As an expression of the free will and sovereignty of the Iraqi people, their representatives shall form the governmental structures of the State of Iraq. The Iraqi Transitional Government and the governments of the regions, governorates, municipalities, and local administrations shall respect the rights of the Iraqi people, including those rights cited in this Chapter.

---

The government shall respect the rights of the Iraqi people. Very simple but definitive. Or how about this one:

Quote:

---

Article 12.

All Iraqis are equal in their rights without regard to gender, sect, opinion, belief, nationality, religion, or origin, and they are equal before the law. Discrimination against an Iraqi citizen on the basis of his gender, nationality, religion, or origin is prohibited. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his life or liberty, except in accordance with legal procedures

---

Or 15b…

Quote:

---

Police, investigators, or other governmental authorities may not violate the sanctity of private residences, whether these authorities belong to the federal or regional governments, governorates, municipalities, or local administrations, unless a judge or investigating magistrate has issued a search warrant in accordance with applicable law on the basis of information provided by a sworn individual who knew that bearing false witness would render him liable to punishment.

---

And lastly article 11 restores all Iraqi’s to full citizenship. No matter how you were expelled or even in you fled to avoid the previous government. You can go home. The insurgents the media likes to exploit are there to stop this from happening. And a large majority of Americans support that because “he went about it the wrong way” I support that constitution. Like I support my own. That is the issue and the conscience I face.

The Arab world is up in arms over this document. Their sites get flooded with US citizen bent on getting some juicy hatred out of them, but the reality is: this lack of support for the ongoing document is because Islam is not a significant presence within the constitution. It’s not about the US or our soldiers or the war, it’s about Islam. Or if you’re Jewish it’s about something else, or if you’re Catholic it IS about too much Islam. Like many issues there are a million facets, reflecting world views each in their own image. Like the US being it’s puppet from this point forward. I say let them have peace.

Road,

Good post, you have elected you find the information for yourself, and you support the freedom of the Iraqi people, which no matter how you twist it is a GOOD thing. I agree with you very heavily, and agree with the war, however this isn't necessarily the direction this post was supposed to go so I'll stop with that.

ballad,

As for the Gulf war strenghtening the US and arab nations relations. Forget about it. Maybe Kuwait's position was strenghtened because Iraq was pushed out of their country. For an idea of how supportive the Middle East is go here and check that out.

A large part of the hatred toward the United States by the Middle Eastern countries are due to our relations with Israel, which I also support. Thats my piece of mind and thats all I'll drag it off topic for now.

Quote:

---

Tebolid so lieing ot congess to start a war is ok? humm so what you are saying is that the president can lie to congress and the public all he wants as long as its about killing people, if its about sex lets impeach.

---

That is an invalid and ignorant point. For God's sake, why can't Liberals get over the fact that the Liberals, as well as the rest of the world, as well as conservatives said the exact same thing before we went to war....WMDs! Its seriously time for all of us to be united instead of bitching and whinning and politicizing the WAR and 911. The time is ticking and Al-Queda is after us not because we have bush in power, but because WE ARE AMERICAN...SO GET THE **** OVER IT AND WAKE UP! They wanna **** with us...we'll **** right back ten fold. They kill one American we'll kill ten of them. One more american civilian is about to be beheaded...simply because he is american...and we are over here bitching and whinning about why the **** we went to war with Iraq...THEY ARE NOT GOING TO KILL HIM BECAUSE WE WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ, BUT BECAUSE HE'S AMERICAN....

President Bush did not lie....he acted on information that was available at the time. I'd rather have a president who learns from history and try his hardest to prevent further attacks on the US, instead of one who needs to kiss ass to the UN and pretty much wait for another attack and then do something about it...

You're more than welcome to have your opinion about the President, but at least make an educated opinion...Also, make sure you read both sides of the story...and don't take whatever New York Times or the Boston Globe tell you...they're liberal news agencies...and they will not, for any reason say anything good about Bush. Also keep in mind that 75% of the Media is liberal, and that majority of the college professors in journalistic schools are liberals...GET THE FACTS, NOT WHAT SOME BUSH HATING JOURNALIST HAS TO SAY ABOUT IT.

My 2 cent.

bballad, most of your posts seem to bash Bush, yet you fail to keep an argument with valid facts...I'm not picking on you, but a lot of your comments are based on personal hate for the president instead of educated comments, which are often proven wrong. I don't like Bush much myself, but he does get the job done.

After someone quoted Limbaugh to me today, I did some research, and it looks like Limbaugh is right on this account. It appears that the Bush Presidency/White House never said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Rather the statement to the public was that Saddam/Iraq had long standing ties to terrorist organizations, that both Saddam and the terrorist organizations have voiced an ongoing hatred for America and it's citizens, both have indicated the willingness to proliferate violence in the name of Allah where civilians are targeted, that Iraq had the capability to produce WMD's to be supplied to terrorists, was violating U.N. sanctions designed to ensure that Iraq did not produce WMC's for terrorists. All of that informaiton is pretty cut and dry, so that should make all of this complaining about an Iraq - 9/11 connection a moot point. The intent of going to war was to prevent another 9/11 or worse event from occuring. I believe that in Bush's address to the nation after 9/11 he stated somthing about Nations that harbour terrorists would be considered as enemies of the United States.

Some time ago I posted something similar because I didn't remember anyone saying with certainty there was Al-Quida in Iraq. I have since tried to find some connection to appease certain people but it's never been and issue with me. I always saw it as a war of opportunity for my own personal bias.

Cybr1d: actualy most of the world and a lot of liberals where saying that we need to give the inspectors time to see if there are WMD's...a good number of moderates where saying that it was nuts to think that hhussain had WMD's and most of us knew the administration was lieing from the get go adn tried to point it out at the time...the jingoistic dopes in the news and the bind wingnuts yelld so loudly that voices of sanity got drowned out before it was too late.

Here is a direct quote from bushes decleration of war transcript

"I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq 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 terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."


So how did the adminsitration not lie by making a false connection between iraq and 9/11 in there ramp up for war? Or is bush one of those right wing hateing jurnalists spreading misinformation?

once again....the administration was not lying. They acted on information they had. Yes, they should have waited longer, but military action was going to happen sooner or later. The inspectors had plenty of time....we just wouldn't give in to saddam's bullshit...First he kicks the inspectors out for years....for what? Actually ballad, the rest of the world was saying he had WMDs, and that he was a threat to europe...and also to give the inspectors more time. Your dear liberals were saying he had WMDs, and he needs to be stopped now. But oh well, I guess we're used to hearing liberals contradict themselves over and over. Hey bballad, you can always use Ted Kennedy and Al Gore for the truth of things, and for reliable information. LOL.


cheers.

Quote:

---

"I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq 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 terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

---

Where's the lie in that? Al-Quida and Saddam had ties...the 9-11 commision verified that themselves. What the difference is, that saddam had nothing to do with 911. As a matter of fact Al-Quida hates Saddam...but they still used him. When one of the top head of Al-Quida was wounded in Iraq fighting againts the Coalition....guess who took him in and took care of him, and let him operate from Iraq? Actually Saddam didn't even know that 9-11 was going to happen, but the issue is that he harbored terrorists. Once again my friend, you're not reading the facts....just the journalistic bullshit that you find in your town.

Bush and Blair had not got the proof needed to go into Iraq for the reasons they stated. Also if they had any real interest in hurting terrorism they would have went into Iran.

i belive the "packaging' was just fine and based on valid reasons...i just wanted to know why it matter to negative who approved of the outcome. the reasons he gave were valid 'concerns' i might add.

~+~+~+~+T+~+~+~+~

ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AP) - Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence after the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was preparing attacks in the United States, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.

Putin said he couldn't comment on how critical the Russians' information was in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. He said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts.

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.

He said the United States had thanked Russia for the information. There was no immediate comment from U.S. officials.

"It's one thing to have information that Saddam's regime is preparing terrorist attacks, (but) we didn't have information that it was involved in any known terrorist attacks," Putin said in the Kazakh capital Astana after regional economic and security summits.

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/410014|top|06-18-2004::08:05|reuters.html

The key word there in your Bush quote bballad is "including" did you read the sentence before that? Is this the quote everyone on the anti-war effort is using to justify their stance? That to me doesn't make a justification for war based on 9/11 but then again I don't care about the connection so I could be reading it wrong. To me it says. If your are a terrorist country we are going after you, especially if you had something to do with 9/11. After all they went after Afganistan first. Where does it say, Saddam and Al Quida are buddies?

The "most of us" who thought it was nuts that saddam didn't have WMD does not include me or the united nations or France or anyone. The issue was giving him more time to come clean, Bush decided after an entire decade and the passivism that lead to 9/11, time was up.

Maracu, I keep stating something I would have liked to see. That is Bush getting the support of Iraq, defeating Saddam. Then using that momentum to topple the stronghold in Iran. Didn't happen and will not happen now. Even if they attack again, which they will. Thanks to the tremendous effort to stop any kind of offensive. Even before Iraq there was discontent at the effort in Afganistan looking for every little nugget of negative light to shed on the US and it's military efforts to shutdown the capability of people opposed to democracy to destroy metropolitan infrastructure. And in doing so aid the expansion of Al Quida. They aren't going to go away when we leave them alone. Hell now they are operating almost in the open in Saudi Arabia. This especially pieves me when the left has been on a witch hunt to prove those in key positions in the United States DID NOT do enough to prevent 9/11 Damn it confuses me.

Roadclosed,
The oppposition will always try to prove that the goverement is not doing enought. If it was the democrats in power now it would be the republicans doing the bitching. I get the impression that it is been taking to extremes.
On the international front the USA invasion of Afganistan was seen as a very positive step in the "war on terror". Everyone would agree that the taliban goverement was a legitamit target. The problem with IRaq in part was Bush was sending in the troops regardless of what ever else happened. I belive that even had Saddam surrender there would still be American troops in Iraq today.

"I belive that even had Saddam surrender there would still be American troops in Iraq today."

i fully agree with this, but you do realize that surrendering as far as saddam is concerned doest quite mean the same as it does to everyone else. for him its just a way of gaining more time.

There would have to be, Al Quida and a host of others would take over in a second. I don't like having them over there, I think it's a necessary step to clean a virus on the planet. That virus is blind hate. Look there now, even with the troops Al Q is everywhere. Imagine the outcome if they left June 30? Iraq was not the best target, Iraq was a stepping stone. The stone has lost it's footing now. There is NO WAY, support for another war would come now. Iran and all the other countries who actively train terrorists are safe. Unless posibly if Al Q is stupid enough to launch another devestating attack that kills entire cities of people. The strife here in the US has nothing to do with war. It is big people manipulating little people for political power. Except me of course. :D I read the Iraqi constitution with delight, and wonder could we use that as the stepping stone I desire. I peaceful place in the mid east to launch counter offensive to a problem that has been around since the 7th century?