No link between Saddam, al Qaida - Page 14 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

pramjockey · #**196** (**permalink**) 03-16-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

There's plenty of evidence.............none of it is good enough for you though.

He has to be shown to be directly responsible for 9/11 for you to be satisfied.

No, you have not proven your case. Citing right-wing blogs and conspiracy theory sites hardly proves your point (if you actually have one).

Now, if you'd like to find some, you know, facts, I'm ready to listen.

goober · #**197** (**permalink**) 03-16-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

No, you have not proven your case. Citing right-wing blogs and conspiracy theory sites hardly proves your point (if you actually have one).

Now, if you'd like to find some, you know, facts, I'm ready to listen.

When the Pentagon comes out and says there is no link between Saddam and AQ, you'd think that would put this to bed, wouldn't you?
McClatchy Washington Bureau | 03/10/2008 | Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida
But I suppose a lot of people consider the Pentagon to be an organ of the Democratic party devoted to smearing Bush with lies..................

bhkad · #**198** (**permalink**) 03-16-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

YOU have evidence that the CIA can't find?

Hysterical.

Here's a partial excerpt.

Quote:

In a story aired in a prime time news magazine show on Thursday, January 14, 1999, then-ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar reported how a few months after the embassy bombings in Africa and U.S. retaliation against Sudan, bin Laden “reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan.” MacVicar trumpeted how “ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.”

Osama bin Laden & Saddam Hussein I tracked down that ABC News story after seeing it referred to in an excerpt from a new book by Stephen Hayes, “The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America,” published in the June 7 Weekly Standard. Hayes cited similar news stories in Newsweek, the AP and NPR, in the 1998-99 range, which assumed bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were cooperative.

The Weekly Standard titled its excerpt, “The Connection: Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right.” In the book, Hayes recited numerous pieces of evidence of how Iraq and al-Qaeda had a mutually beneficial relationship. Here’s an excerpt from the Weekly Standard’s book excerpt in which Hayes recounted how the media assumed such a relationship, based on information provided by Clinton administration officials:

There was a time not long ago when the conventional wisdom skewed heavily toward a Saddam-al Qaeda links. In 1998 and early 1999, the Iraq-al Qaeda connection was widely reported in the American and international media. Former intelligence officers and government officials speculated about the relationship and its dangerous implications for the world. The information in the news reports came from foreign and domestic intelligence services. It was featured in mainstream media outlets including international wire services, prominent newsweeklies, and network radio and television broadcasts.

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:

“Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas -- assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.”

....NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:

“Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait....Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.”

By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the need to qualify these claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post ended this way: "The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers."

Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin Laden might be coordinating efforts? Among other places, from high-ranking Clinton administration officials.

In the spring of 1998 -- well before the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa -- the Clinton administration indicted Osama bin Laden. The indictment, unsealed a few months later, prominently cited al Qaeda's agreement to collaborate with Iraq on weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton Justice Department had been concerned about negative public reaction to its potentially capturing bin Laden without "a vehicle for extradition," official paperwork charging him with a crime. It was "not an afterthought" to include the al Qaeda-Iraq connection in the indictment, says an official familiar with the deliberations. "It couldn't have gotten into the indictment unless someone was willing to testify to it under oath." The Clinton administration's indictment read unequivocally:

“Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”

For the full Weekly Standard excerpt of the book: The Weekly Standard

Nets Pounce on No bin Laden-Saddam Link, But Bush Believed Media --6/17/2004-- Media Research Center

daisym · #**199** (**permalink**) 03-17-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

It's amazing that nobody cares what was actually in this report.

I can't comment on other posters, however I noticed that you closed Anselme's thread on "what went wrong" - which is the only angle I'm interested in on this issue.

There have been numerous discussions on the subject of Saddams imagined links to 9/11, and numerous documents have discussed this. It has been well known that he paid "compensation" to families of Palestinian suicide bombers (which was reprehensible IMO) but there is no evidence that he was any real threat.

I haven't looked at the report - but I've looked at other docs published under the auspices of the US government and have a very low opinion of the credibility of any such documents - a view unfortunately shared by many people around the globe.

To me - "no link between Saddam/Al Qaeda" is a dead topic and has been for years.

daisym · #**200** (**permalink**) 03-17-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

How about a link.

I don't know why you would need to ask for a link. you should KNOW these names, surely - and even if you don't you presumably have the skills to google them.

daisym · #**201** (**permalink**) 03-17-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry American

Hmm, France, Germany, and Russia all did trade with Iraq, and they weren't on Saddam's shit list. So Iraq wasn't the perceived threat to them as it was to us, really simple to know why.

Did we seek to normalize relations with Iraq? No, we kept a hostile stance against Saddam's Iraq, and if you ask me there were those who weren't going to rest until they took over Iraq. You can talk till you're blue in the face about the threat Saddam posed to the world, but it won't change the fact that we certainly didn't help matters by keeping a gun pointed at his head.

We're poised to continue this cycle of hostile aggression with Iran, which has a pretty good chance of evolving into armed conflict, if we don't change course.

The saying goes, "The pen is mightier, than the sword." Trade agreements among nations are more power agents of positive change than hostile military aggression. I know trade agreements didn't stop Hitler from waging war against his trading partners, that's an exception to the rule (though you need to have mutually beneficial agreements which provide increase stability--Germany was in a depression.)

China is a prime example. Just imagine a China today, if we had a trade embargo with them.

I believe that oil was a primary reason for conquering Iraq; not to increase world supplies, but to drive up the price of oil--oil companies have enjoyed record breaking profits since the 2003 invasion--in the face of a dying powerful oil industry. We are on the verge of a major breakthrough in hydrogen power, which threatens to replace fossil fuels as an energy source. We're talking trillions of dollars in revenue that will be lost by current energy suppliers. It will also make oil trade agreements much less meaningful.

It will virtually eliminate all global interests in the Middle East. With the elimination of oil as a valued commodity, Israels strategic importance will all but cease to exist; the Saudi family will loose, its source of power, and protection from an oppressed populace.

This scenario would explain why there was no intention of engaging in nation building by the Bush administration. All they had to do was destroy Iraq, with the largest oil reserves in the world, make billions, if not trillions of dollars as a result, implement hydrogen power, then cut and run from Iraq, and the Middle East.

Well that's just my take on it.

LOL - you said: You can talk till you're blue in the face about the threat Saddam posed to the world,

should we mention how selling oil in Euros might threaten the world as we knew it?

Steerpike · #**202** (**permalink**) 03-17-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard J

The truth is that Bush decided to go into Iraq because Saddam refused to abide by the terms of the 1991 cease fire. Plus he ignored 17 UN resolutions to do so. He was a very destabilizing force in the Mideast. And if the UN was to hold any credibility at all, he had to be dealt with.

If Iraq was in violation of United Nations resolutions and United Nations credibility was at stake, then it was the responsibility of the United Nations to deal with Iraq.

mudwhistle · #**203** (**permalink**) 03-17-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steerpike

If Iraq was in violation of United Nations resolutions and United Nations credibility was at stake, then it was the responsibility of the United Nations to deal with Iraq.

Don't hold you're breath waiting for that to happen. The UN couldn't punch it's way out of a wet paper bag. How could you expect them to deal with Saddam.

The UN General Secretary's son was making millions off of the under the table deals that were going on so I doubt the UN was going to stop anything. The UN has no credibility anymore. I think it should be disbanded. The UN causes more trouble in the world then it ever solved.

mudwhistle · #**204** (**permalink**) 03-17-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

No, you have not proven your case. Citing right-wing blogs and conspiracy theory sites hardly proves your point (if you actually have one).

Now, if you'd like to find some, you know, facts, I'm ready to listen.

This seems to be the theme you use when you attack anyone's credibility on this site.

We are all accused by you of making unsubstantiated claims using bogus information taken from right-wing blogs, when in fact most of the sources are the media itself, not bloggers. It seems like every source out there is a blogger unless they're saying what you agree with. You are way to narrow-minded to be able to convincingly win this argument. You cover your eyes and plug your ears to the truth and you have convinced yourself that your version of the truth is the only truth in existence. Any evidence that is presented to support our beliefs is automatically deemed Right-Wing Blogs without a moment's thought by you even though the sources are not typically biased right-wing sources. Who needs the truth when willful-ignorance will do just as well.

Hopeless.......

Steerpike · #**205** (**permalink**) 03-17-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

Don't hold you're breath waiting for that to happen. The UN couldn't punch it's way out of a wet paper bag. How could you expect them to deal with Saddam.

The UN General Secretary's son was making millions off of the under the table deals that were going on so I doubt the UN was going to stop anything. The UN has no credibility anymore. I think it should be disbanded. The UN causes more trouble in the world then it ever solved.

This is irrelevant. If the United Nations credibility is at stake in a situation, then it is the United Nations responsibility to deal with the situation in question.

If the United Nations either can't or won't fulfill its responsibilites, then international review of that international organization is in order.

mudwhistle · #**206** (**permalink**) 03-17-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steerpike

This is irrelevant. If the United Nations credibility is at stake in a situation, then it is the United Nations responsibility to deal with the situation in question.

If the United Nations either can't or won't fulfill its responsibilites, then international review of that international organization is in order.

And what body is in place that does this?

There is no other body and no other organization that is universally recognized.

Steerpike · #**207** (**permalink**) 03-17-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

And what body is in place that does this?

There is no other body and no other organization that is universally recognized.

If sufficient numbers of member states of the United Nations would support a review of the organization, then a review of the United Nations could go forward.

Impugn · #**208** (**permalink**) 03-17-2008

From one of my favorite thinkers, as quoted in one of my favorite papers:

"Late last week, the Defense Department released an analysis of 600,000 documents captured in Iraq prepared by the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded think tank. Here's the attention-grabbing sentence from the report's executive summary: 'This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e. direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda,' " Mr. Kristol noted in an editorial.

"Relying on a leak of the executive summary, ABC News reported that the study was 'the first official acknowledgment from the U.S. military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to al Qaeda.' There followed a brief item in The Washington Post that ran under the headline 'Study Discounts Hussein, Al-Qaeda Link.' The New York Times announced: 'Study Finds No Qaeda-Hussein Tie.' NPR agreed: 'Study Finds No Link Between Saddam, bin Laden.'

"And the Bush administration reacted with an apparently guilty silence.

"But here's the truth. The executive summary of the report is extraordinarily misleading. The full report, released Thursday night, states, for example, on page 42: 'Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.' In fact, as Stephen F. Hayes reports in this issue, the study outlines a startling range of connections between Saddam and various organizations associated with al Qaeda and other terror groups."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080317/NATION03/499150538&template=nextpage

Interesting to me how smacks that insist there is a collusive relationship between the GWB administration and, say, Halliburton (with no proof thereof) also insist that there was no relationship between Saddam (with a proven track record of supporting terrorism, in general) and Al Queda.

I much preferred, back in the day (not long ago), when the left would stick to being typically intellectually dishonest and answer questions about Saddam's links to Al Queda with "There is no proof Saddam was involved in 9/11." (*bawk* polly wanna cracker *bawk*)

Don't go basing your views upon executive summaries of detailed reports. That's the kind of crap y'all [unfairly] accuse GWB of doing.

Thanks. Next.

(Yeah, I'm back.) :P

CYDdharta · #**209** (**permalink**) 03-17-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by daisym

I can't comment on other posters, however I noticed that you closed Anselme's thread on "what went wrong" - which is the only angle I'm interested in on this issue.

There have been numerous discussions on the subject of Saddams imagined links to 9/11, and numerous documents have discussed this. It has been well known that he paid "compensation" to families of Palestinian suicide bombers (which was reprehensible IMO) but there is no evidence that he was any real threat.

I haven't looked at the report - but I've looked at other docs published under the auspices of the US government and have a very low opinion of the credibility of any such documents - a view unfortunately shared by many people around the globe.

To me - "no link between Saddam/Al Qaeda" is a dead topic and has been for years.

Judging from your posts, and the fact that you don’t care enough about the topic to look at the cited report, it seems obvious the only angle you’re interested in is one that can be used to bash this administration and/or this country. That can be accomplished from within this thread or from any one of the other hundreds of “Iraq Failed” threads already open.

goober · #**210** (**permalink**) 03-17-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Impugn

From one of my favorite thinkers, as quoted in one of my favorite papers:

"Late last week, the Defense Department released an analysis of 600,000 documents captured in Iraq prepared by the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded think tank. Here's the attention-grabbing sentence from the report's executive summary: 'This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e. direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda,' " Mr. Kristol noted in an editorial.

"Relying on a leak of the executive summary, ABC News reported that the study was 'the first official acknowledgment from the U.S. military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to al Qaeda.' There followed a brief item in The Washington Post that ran under the headline 'Study Discounts Hussein, Al-Qaeda Link.' The New York Times announced: 'Study Finds No Qaeda-Hussein Tie.' NPR agreed: 'Study Finds No Link Between Saddam, bin Laden.'

"And the Bush administration reacted with an apparently guilty silence.

"But here's the truth. The executive summary of the report is extraordinarily misleading. The full report, released Thursday night, states, for example, on page 42: 'Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.' In fact, as Stephen F. Hayes reports in this issue, the study outlines a startling range of connections between Saddam and various organizations associated with al Qaeda and other terror groups."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080317/NATION03/499150538&template=nextpage

Interesting to me how smacks that insist there is a collusive relationship between the GWB administration and, say, Halliburton (with no proof thereof) also insist that there was no relationship between Saddam (with a proven track record of supporting terrorism, in general) and Al Queda.

I much preferred, back in the day (not long ago), when the left would stick to being typically intellectually dishonest and answer questions about Saddam's links to Al Queda with "There is no proof Saddam was involved in 9/11." (*bawk* polly wanna cracker *bawk*)

Don't go basing your views upon executive summaries of detailed reports. That's the kind of crap y'all [unfairly] accuse GWB of doing.

Thanks. Next.

(Yeah, I'm back.) :P

The report states the same thing that the CIAs NIE said pre-invasion, that Saddam's support of terrorist groups was limited to those who attacked exiled Iraqis and Kurds whom he considered a threat to himself and Iraq.

You don't need to defend Bush on Iraq anymore, he'll be remembered for presiding over the collapse of the economy, Iraq will just be a footnote.