Senate Finds No al-Qaida-Saddam Link

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

And getting the thread back on track:
FACT: There was no link between 9/11 and SH, contrary to the insinuations and statements of Bush and Cheney, AND THEY HAD BEEN TOLD.

Lie #1, you like to say they established a link beteen 911 and SH. Never did. They did establish, and there was, a link between al-queda and SH however

Lie #2, no they had not been told, this came out later in the time line which you choose to ignore

Your heros on the Senate floor also "requested" the Bush "use force" because SH was a danger to the US.

If I say it enough you may finally learn (remember) some of this....

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

And getting the thread back on track:
FACT: There was no link between 9/11 and SH, contrary to the insinuations and statements of Bush and Cheney, AND THEY HAD BEEN TOLD.

Lie #1, you like to say they established a link beteen 911 and SH. Never did. They did establish, and there was, a link between al-queda and SH however

Lie #2, no they had not been told, this came out later in the time line which you choose to ignore

Your heros on the Senate floor also "requested" the Bush "use force" because SH was a danger to the US.

If I say it enough you may finally learn (remember) some of this....

[billvon 3,119]

>Lie #1, you like to say they established a link beteen 911 and SH. Never did . . .

The problem with claims like that is that internet servers store things for a long time, so it's easy to resurrect them. Here's the letter from Bush to congress outlining why we might want to use force against Iraq:

----------------------
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 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 he lists the reasons he wants to use force against Saddam Hussein - and one of them is that he wants to take action against people who helped pull off 9/11.

Here Bush says that Iraq "got theirs" after they attacked/supported the attack on the US.

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror...We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."

A comment from Cheney:

"If we're successful in Iraq...we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

[freethefly 6]

You are trying way to hard to believe that the Federal Government is an angelic entity that had never done anything wrong and would never consider doing anything wrong. The facts are everywhere to be seen, if you would only take off the blinders. Reagan was a criminal and should had been hung up by his tiny jelly beans and fed exlax. Bush 1 should still be brought up on charges of crimes against humanity for his many roles that has brought us to where we are today. Chaney should be brought up on the same and worst, including the millions of dollars he underhandedly made with the shadey deals he orchrastrated for Halliburton to sell componets of WMD's to Iraq. Rumsfeld for all the above and for being the two face weasel that he is. And, Bush 2 for all the above and for waging a personal war.
Go ahead and believe that all these people, whom you worship so dearly, are the gaurdians of democracy. Fact is, they are nothing but self serving hippocrits who, for way to many years, have served only themself and have done nothing for this country but made us the most hated people in the world. If anyone is responsible for Saddam it is these people, the very people who created him.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

And getting the thread back on track:
FACT: There was no link between 9/11 and SH, contrary to the insinuations and statements of Bush and Cheney, AND THEY HAD BEEN TOLD.

Lie #1, you like to say they established a link beteen 911 and SH. Never did. They did establish, and there was, a link between al-queda and SH however

Lie #2, no they had not been told, this came out later in the time line which you choose to ignore

Your heros on the Senate floor also "requested" the Bush "use force" because SH was a danger to the US.

If I say it enough you may finally learn (remember) some of this....

[livendive 8]

Quote

So it is clear that Abu Nidal, who was living openly in Baghdad before the US invaded, died of lead poisoning, but there is no Saddam link to terrorism of any kind.

Are you honestly trying to use Saddam's assassination of a known terrorist to establish a link between Saddam and terrorism?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,119]

>Lie #2, no they had not been told . . .

They had been told; they just lied about it.
------------------------------------
Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War
Links Were Cited to Justify U.S. Invasion, Report Says

By Jonathan Weisman
Saturday, September 9, 2006; Page A01

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."

. . . .

In a classified January 2003 report, for instance, the CIA concluded that Hussein "viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat." But one day after that conclusion was published, Levin noted, Vice President Cheney said the Iraqi government "aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."

Intelligence reports in June, July and September 2002 all cast doubts on a reported meeting in Prague between Iraqi intelligence agents and Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta. Yet, in a Sept. 8, 2002, appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press," Cheney said the CIA considered the reports on the meeting credible, Levin said.

In February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that "Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful [chemical and biological weapons] knowledge or assistance." A year later, Bush said: "Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."

-------------------------------------

BTW they also knew that Saddam had no WMD's; it just didn't support their desire to invade at all costs, so the information was discarded. From an interview with Tyler Drumheller, chief of the CIA’s Europe division:

---------------------------------------
BRADLEY: According to Drumheller, CIA Director George Tenet delivered the news about the Iraqi foreign minister at a high level meeting at the White House.

DRUMHELLER: The President, the Vice President, Dr. Rice…

BRADLEY: And at that meeting…?

DRUMHELLER: They were enthusiastic because they said they were excited that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis.

BRADLEY: And what did this high level source tell you?

DRUMHELLER: He told us that they had no active weapons of mass destruction program.

BRADLEY: So, in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam’s inner circle that he didn’t have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?

DRUMHELLER: Yes.

BRADLEY: There’s no doubt in your mind about that?

DRUMHELLER: No doubt in my mind at all.

BRADLEY: It directly contradicts, though, what the President and his staff were telling us.

DRUMHELLER: The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

Intel will show you the egg...

Command makes the decision to suck it... rotten or not....

but its ultimately up to the PUBLIC to hold the Command responsible for it's poor decisions...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Saddam had the luxury of helicopters with spraybars,to decimate a whole town. He didn't build ovens to dispose the bodies. Not comparing apples to oranges. He did'nt bring them in on trains.
YOU STUPID PEOPLE! WASN'T YOUR TOWN!
IF! it was 3000 jews or prostant christians the war wouldn't have taken 10---TEN--years to start.
Who the hell are Kurds? Who cares? GENOCIDE WAS'NT ENOUGH OF A REASON? Screw you,you deserve to pay 10cents a gallon more. Hmmm, so many have such short memories. They supported(Saddams regime)Terrorists in at least 9 countries.
Guess it's ok if it is'nt your church. Bet yer ass if he sprayed a town of ...FINE CHRISTIANS or JEWS, the occupation in Iraq would be all but over by now.
But thats all BS,thanks to the democratic process, and the hairy armpitted gals from France,who lost a couple bucks. (freethefly not a personal attack here)just my 2 cents. Blues...

I don't think anyone condoned the actions of SH. However, the direct reason for the original invasion was the 9/11 link. Therefore the was started on a lie.

There are plenty of other countries that are inhumane and are allowing acts of genocide to transpire within their borders. Why are people not making a fuss about stopping those actions.

I don't feel we are any safer right now than we were five years ago. I don't feel any progress has been made esp when Pakistan is slowly replacing what Afghanastan was. Bush and his admin lied to us to deliver us a fake war, and many dead and broken bodies.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[billvon 3,119]

>I don't feel we are any safer right now than we were five years ago.

Indeed, in many ways we are less safe. Five years ago, we weren't losing a few US soldiers a day to insurgents. Five years ago, Al Qaeda did not have an ongoing operation in Iraq. Five years ago, the world stood with us and against terrorism.

Today we're seeing our troops killed off steadily and we see Iraq sliding closer and closer to a civil war that will almost surely kill a lot more. We see Iraq and Pakistan becoming a haven for Al Qaeda. We see the Taliban making a resurgenge in Afghanistan. We see the US overcommitted in two theatres, and facing the prospects of having a third war to deal with. We see the fallout of atrocities like Haditha and Mahmudiya turning even moderate Iraqis against us.

In some ways we are _more_ safe. Our airlines are safer than they were on September 10, 2001. This is partly due to increased security, but primarily due to passenger's knowledge of what will happen if they don't fight back. We have made some headway in arresting/killing off terrorists, primarily through international cooperation with other countries. And our intelligence agencies are better at collecting information, even if their information isn't always heeded.

Personally I don't feel more or less safe. Going by the odds, it's a LOT more likely that a US coal fired power plant will kill me than a terrorist. Individually, if you ignore the military, it's probably a wash. But given that our troops are doing their best to serve their country, I don't think you can ignore their deaths, or put them in a "not really an american" category. And if you include them, we are certainly less safe from terrorism today as a country.

It would be nice if we could commemorate 9/11 on a day that we were safer from terrorism. But a US soldier was killed on that day in a shootout with insurgents in Baghdad. We have a ways to go before we, as americans, are truly safer.

[kallend 2,150]

From Eric Margolis:


President George W. Bush likes to call himself "the war president" and strike martial poses against patriotic backdrops, a trick he learned from another president who never saw military action, Ronald Reagan.


In spite of Iraq and other foreign policy misadventures, and failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks, polls show that when it comes to national security many Americans still regard the Bush Administration with approval and trust.


Their confidence is not well placed. To date, the "war president" was asleep on guard duty on 9/11, involved the US in four lost wars, and has stirred up a hornet’s nest of anti-American hatred around the globe.


Defeat I: Five years after Bush ordered Afghanistan invaded and proclaimed "total victory" there, US and allied forces are struggling to defend their bases and supply lines against rising attacks from a growing number of Afghan resistance groups. The war costs $1.5 billion monthly. US-ruled Afghan now produces over 80% of the world’s heroin. The US just quietly deployed thousands more troops to Afghanistan to hunt al-Qaida leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri in a desperate attempt to save Republicans from heavy losses in November mid-term elections.


Defeat II: Remember "Mission accomplished!" in Iraq? President Bush’s war in Iraq is clearly lost, but few dare admit it. The US has spent $300 billion on Afghanistan and Iraq, with nothing to show there but chaos, civil war, body bags, and growing Iranian influence in Iraq and western Afghanistan. The Bush/Cheney "liberation" of Iraq has now cost more than the Vietnam War. So much for the "cakewalk." Iraq is likely the biggest American foreign policy disaster in living memory – even worse, in many ways, than Vietnam.


Defeat III: Off in the strategic Horn of Africa, another dangerous fiasco is unfolding. The White House had CIA and Pentagon spend tens of millions bribing Somali warlords to fight Islamist reformers trying to bring law and order to their strife-ravaged nation. The Islamists whipped CIA-backed warlords and ran them out of Somalia. Following this defeat, the US has encouraged and financed ally Ethiopia – shades of Lebanon – to invade Somalia, thus raising the threat of a wider war between Somalia, Ethiopia, and its old foe, Eritrea. Meanwhile, growing numbers of US Special Forces and CIA teams are getting drawn into obscure tribal mêlées in the Horn of Africa and the Saharan regions.


Defeat IV: Lebanon is, of course, the fourth major American military disaster. Bush and Cheney encouraged Israel to launch the hugely destructive but militarily fruitless war in Lebanon as the first part of their long-nurtured plan to militarily crush Hezbullah, Syria and Iran. The Bush Administration brazenly thwarted world efforts to halt the conflict while giving Israel the green light to tear apart Lebanon. Now, just over a month later, Bush announces he will send $230 million to "help rebuild" Lebanon – the same Lebanon blasted apart by US smart bombs rushed by air to Israel.


To Washington and London’s shock and awe, Hezbullah, Iran, and Syria emerged the war’s victors. Hezbullah is now the Muslim World’s new hero after battling Israel’s mighty armed forces to a humiliating draw. Even Syria’s President Bashar Asad, who played dead during the Lebanon War in fear of an Israeli attack, is now thumping his chest and crowing that Syria played a major role in the unexpected Arab victory.


Hezbullah’s triumph thwarted, at least for the moment, Bush/Cheney plans to attack Lebanon, Syria and Iran. The US and Israel have become so used to smashing nearly helpless foes armed with obsolete weapons – like Iraq, Taliban, or Palestine – that they were stunned to meet a force that had modern arms and could actually fight.


No sooner had bombing stopped than Hezbullah bulldozers were busy clearing rubble, and Hezbullah social workers resettling refugees. Perhaps President Bush should ask Hezbullah to take over rebuilding New Orleans and resettling all its refugees.


Hezbullah’s big brother, Iran, has also emerged from the Lebanon War with its political, moral and even military stature greatly enhanced. America’s Arab vassals – Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt – were left badly shaken by Hezbullah’s victory and Iran’s surging influence which was already giving them nightmares well before Lebanon.


Israelis have now turned from fighting Arabs to furious finger-pointing. Politicians and generals are blaming each other for the Lebanon debacle that killed 118 Israeli soldiers and 41 civilians, cost at least $6 billion, ruined the summer tourist trade, and, after a burst of initial sympathy, brought worldwide condemnation. And no captured soldiers – this war’s supposed objective – have been yet returned.


Still, a swap of Israeli for Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners remains likely, as this column predicted at war’s beginning. The killing of 1,000 Lebanese civilians, a million Lebanese made refugees, and billions of dollars of wanton destruction, could all have been avoided.


By turning a routine border skirmish into a big war, Israel’s PM Ehud Olmert showed he had no more grasp of military affairs than those other amateur warlords, Bush, Cheney and Tony Blair. Lebanon also showed that the western leaders learned nothing from their debacle in Iraq.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Here is an interesting read that will shed a bit of light on where Saddam got his weapons and by whom. Sadly the U.S. supplied him everything he needed to do whatever he wanted with them.

And there are pictures of Rummy there making the deals and shaking his hand.... that is why he was SURE that Sadaam had WMD.