This may be a surprise to some but there is no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, the 9/11 commission has found.

The commission is a bipartisan commission and appears to be in agreement.

To recap:
No WMD
No saddam 9/11 connection
No Iraq Al-Qaeda connection

[This message has been edited by Jeremiah (edited 06-16-2004).]

I don't really care if there is a link or not.....

"no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States,"

Well at least get it right. And I'm sure this was related to the time in which it occured.

I don't care .... we needed to smash Saddam ... we now need to smash Al Qaeda and radical Islam !!! These people are crazy dangerous with no moral values...period !!!

AND ... if these ungrateful citizens of Iraq just want to live in anarchy now then lets get the hell out. The more I ponder the situation over there the more I just can't understand why these lilly livered Iraqis just seem to want to be bullied by terrorists and/or dictators. Bunch of damn sheep !!!

(descriptions edited to potect the liberals)

No, the commission found that although Bin Laden had made overtures to Saddam, he never responded to any of them. In other words, there was never a connection.

quote Originally posted by Butter: "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States," Well at least get it right. And I'm sure this was related to the time in which it occured.

Well just when DID the connection get made cause it certainly is now?

I don't understand. What do you mean it is now?

quote Originally posted by Butter: Well just when DID the connection get made cause it certainly is now?

The Washington post and new York times have no credibility with me. They have shown over and over that they have a liberal agenda to promote..

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/16/132355.shtml

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 1:13 p.m. EDT
Media Mislead on 9/11 Commission Finding on Iraq-al Qaida Link
Reports Wednesday morning that the 9/11 Commission has determined there was no cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida are completely false - and are undoubtedly driven by the media's determination to contradict the Bush administration's claims that such a link exists.
"9/11 Panel Says Iraq Rebuffed Bin Laden" reads the headline on the Associated Press report on today's Commission staff statement.
But that's not what the Commission staff report actually said.
The below passage, for instance, does more to confirm the Bush administration's claims of an Iraq-al Qaida link than it does to contradict them.
"The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin* to cease [support for anti-Saddam Islamists in Northern Iraq] and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda*.
"A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded." [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 5]
Apparently never responded? How, pray tell, does the AP derive from those words the conclusive claim that Iraq "rebuffed" bin Laden?
The Commission statement continues:
"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
What's the evidence for this less-than-conclusive surmise?
"Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq," says the Commission.
Such a statement begs the question: Why does the Commission, let alone the press, take the word of two senior bin Laden associates over, say, Iraq's new prime minister, Iyad Allawi.
Last December he told the London Telegraph, "We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda."
Reacting to the discovery of an Iraqi intelligence document placing 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in Baghdad two months before the attacks, he continued:
"This is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."
In fact, nowhere does the Commission make the claim that Iraq and al-Qaida never cooperated. What it does say is "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." [NewsMax italics]
Apparently Dr. Allawi's asssement counts for nothing.
Even so, it's worth noting that elsewhere in today's staff statement, the 9/11 Commission asserts:
"With al Qaeda at its foundation, Bin Ladin sought to build a broader Islamic Army that included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea. Not all [terrorist] groups from these states agreed to join, but at least one from each did." [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 3]
In other words, at least one terror group from Iraq did form an alliance with bin Laden.
Another problem: If the press is going to take today's staff statement as gospel, certain long-held media assumptions will need to be drastically revised, such as the widely accepted notion that al-Qaida was involved in the first World Trade Center bombing.
Not true, says the Commission.
"Whether Bin Ladin and his organization had roles in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center ... remains a matter of substantial uncertainty," the staff statement says, before insisting, "We have no conclusive evidence" of a bin Laden link. [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 6]
The same goes for "Operation Bojinka," the 1995 plot to hijack 12 airliners hatched by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that experts say was the blueprint for the 9/11 attacks.
"[Mohammed] was not, however, an al Qaeda member at the time of the Manilla [Bojinka] plot," Commission staffers say, even though they acknowledge that he went on to mastermind the 9/11 attacks.
The press is furiously spinning the 9/11 Commission staff statement in a bid to discredit the Bush administration. Americans should go to the Sept. 11 Commission Web site and read the conclusions for themselves: http://www.9-11commission.gov/

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: I don't understand. What do you mean it is now?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/13/iraq.berg/index.html

It surely would appear that way from this story. Have you not heard?

http://216.26.163.62/2004/me_terror_06_16.html

And I guess you think OBL and Al-Qaeda and Iraq is not affiliated with one another either.

[This message has been edited by Butter (edited 06-16-2004).]

Heh... I suppose I view Newsmax the same way you view WaPo and NYT...

Although, NYT actually helped bolster the war effort as comically deplicted in here (sorry to burst your liberal-media-is-out-to-get-you-bubble)

Your article does nothing to refute the lack of ties with Iraq. I'd be skeptical that Bin Laden would solicit Saddam given his hatred for the man, but even if it did happen I find it unlikely they would ever agree given the problems with Islamic Militants Saddam was already facing in the north.

The problem here is that, even after the fact, the evidence does not suggest there is enough of a link to warrant a conclusive statement. That being said, the adamant nature of our president actually made 67% of the American public believe Saddam was behind the 9/11 hijackings themselves. (see my second link in my recap where Bush himself refutes this.)

If we still have no proof now, as the Commission has clearly stated, how could we have had "proof" before the war began?

quote Originally posted by trailboss: The Washington post and new York times have no credibility with me. They have shown over and over that they have a liberal agenda to promote.. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/16/132355.shtml Wednesday, June 16, 2004 1:13 p.m. EDT Media Mislead on 9/11 Commission Finding on Iraq-al Qaida Link Reports Wednesday morning that the 9/11 Commission has determined there was no cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida are completely false - and are undoubtedly driven by the media's determination to contradict the Bush administration's claims that such a link exists. "9/11 Panel Says Iraq Rebuffed Bin Laden" reads the headline on the Associated Press report on today's Commission staff statement. But that's not what the Commission staff report actually said. The below passage, for instance, does more to confirm the Bush administration's claims of an Iraq-al Qaida link than it does to contradict them. "The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin* to cease [support for anti-Saddam Islamists in Northern Iraq] and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda*. "A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded." [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 5] Apparently never responded? How, pray tell, does the AP derive from those words the conclusive claim that Iraq "rebuffed" bin Laden? The Commission statement continues: "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." What's the evidence for this less-than-conclusive surmise? "Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq," says the Commission. Such a statement begs the question: Why does the Commission, let alone the press, take the word of two senior bin Laden associates over, say, Iraq's new prime minister, Iyad Allawi. Last December he told the London Telegraph, "We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda." Reacting to the discovery of an Iraqi intelligence document placing 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in Baghdad two months before the attacks, he continued: "This is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks." In fact, nowhere does the Commission make the claim that Iraq and al-Qaida never cooperated. What it does say is "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." [NewsMax italics] Apparently Dr. Allawi's asssement counts for nothing. Even so, it's worth noting that elsewhere in today's staff statement, the 9/11 Commission asserts: "With al Qaeda at its foundation, Bin Ladin sought to build a broader Islamic Army that included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea. Not all [terrorist] groups from these states agreed to join, but at least one from each did." [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 3] In other words, at least one terror group from Iraq did form an alliance with bin Laden. Another problem: If the press is going to take today's staff statement as gospel, certain long-held media assumptions will need to be drastically revised, such as the widely accepted notion that al-Qaida was involved in the first World Trade Center bombing. Not true, says the Commission. "Whether Bin Ladin and his organization had roles in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center ... remains a matter of substantial uncertainty," the staff statement says, before insisting, "We have no conclusive evidence" of a bin Laden link. [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 6] The same goes for "Operation Bojinka," the 1995 plot to hijack 12 airliners hatched by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that experts say was the blueprint for the 9/11 attacks. "[Mohammed] was not, however, an al Qaeda member at the time of the Manilla [Bojinka] plot," Commission staffers say, even though they acknowledge that he went on to mastermind the 9/11 attacks. The press is furiously spinning the 9/11 Commission staff statement in a bid to discredit the Bush administration. Americans should go to the Sept. 11 Commission Web site and read the conclusions for themselves: http://www.9-11commission.gov/

[This message has been edited by Jeremiah (edited 06-16-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: This may be a surprise to some but there is no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, the 9/11 commission has found.

may i suggest that the source ( 9-11commission.gov ) would be more credible than the nytimes.

heres a list of what they have posted publicly http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements.htm they are in pdf format and lengthy documents as well (enjoy)

[This message has been edited by JRM-2M6 (edited 06-17-2004).]

And what does it say?

Did Hussein and al-Qaeda share resources?

quote Saddam Hussein's government did not respond to al-Qaeda requests for weapons and other assistance.

You can go around and around trying to defend this, but there isn't any evidence a connection existed AFTER THE FACT... now, what was their evidence before hand?

If hindsight is 20/20 and we can't see anything now... were we clairvoyant then?

quote Originally posted by JRM-2M6: may i suggest that the source ( 9-11commission.gov ) would be more credible than the nytimes. heres a list of what they have posted publicly http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements.htm they are in pdf format and lengthy documents as well (enjoy)

Jeremiah just what would you have done after the 911 attacks?

How would you have went about dealing with Al-Qaeda?

What about the UN resolution that Iraq was clearly not following?

With the facts as yuo see them, just what would you have done in hindsight?

And regarding no WMD's, papers like the Jayson Blair school of journalistic integrity at the NY Times refuse to run it...

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6705

Media Matters
Another Ignored Discovery
By Steven Martinovich

Published 6/16/2004 12:05:28 AM

With the media's focus on chronicling every attack on coalition forces or terrorist attack against Iraqi civilians in Iraq, they might be forgiven for missing other stories occasionally. Reporting democracy at the local level or the opening of a new school isn't sexy work for the most part. It's the equivalent of traveling halfway across the world to cover stories that local beat reporters write every day in your local paper. That focus on Iraqi insurgents, however, seems to have blinded almost everyone to a major story that surfaced last week since it was largely ignored by the media with the exception of the World Tribune and some smaller newspapers.

On June 9, Demetrius Perricos announced that before, during and after the war in Iraq, Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction and medium-range ballistic missiles to countries in Europe and the Middle East. Entire factories were dismantled and shipped as scrap metal to Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey, among others, at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month. As an example of speed by which these facilities were dismantled, Perricos displayed two photographs of a ballistic missile site near Baghdad, one taken in May 2003 with an active facility, the other in February 2004 that showed it had simply disappeared.

What passed for scrap metal and has since been discovered as otherwise is amazing. Inspectors have found Iraqi SA-2 surface-to-air missiles in Rotterdam -- complete with U.N. inspection tags -- and 20 SA-2 engines in Jordan, along with components for solid-fuel for missiles. Short-range Al Samoud surface-to-surface missiles were shipped abroad by agents of the regime. That missing ballistic missile site contained missile components, a reactor vessel and fermenters -- the latter used for the production of chemical and biological warheads.

"The problem for us is that we don't know what may have passed through these yards and other yards elsewhere," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "We can't really assess the significance and don't know the full extent of activity that could be going on there or with others of Iraq's neighbors."

Perricos isn't an American shill defending the Bush administration, but rather the acting executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and his report was made to the Security Council. Yet his report didn't seem to be of much interest to a media which has used the lack of significant discoveries to question the rationale for the war. After over a year of searching, experts have managed to find little in the way of the biological and chemical weapons that every major intelligence service -- including those of Germany and France -- maintained existed. We still haven't, but Perricos' report brings us one step closer.

The report neatly disarms arguments that Hussein's WMD programs were non-existent after the first Gulf War. While it's true that these finds are not the chemical and biological weapons we know existed after that war, they illustrate the tremendous difficulty in locating something in a semi-hostile nation larger than the state of California. They also prove that Hussein made ongoing efforts to hide illegal weapons programs from the world. Ironically, he and his agents used the world in which to hide them.

The implications of the United Nations' discovery of how Hussein's regime got rid of many of its banned weapons programs is staggering, especially considering that it happened partly under the watch of U.N. weapons inspectors. And yet many in the media are either unwilling or unable to break out of their cycle of waiting to report the next terrorist attack. The truth about the justification for the war and Saddam Hussein's Iraq is gradually being revealed to the world, but it seems our journalists don't want to tell the story.

Looking at some other sites, it sounds like a lot of that has been happening since we've been "in control" of Iraq.

GL

quote Originally posted by Tugboat: What about the UN resolutions Israel is clearly not following? Should we attack them? GL

Well yes I guess we should after the UN vote has been taken as it was in Iraq's case. And maybe lets give em' bout 10 years to violate it too before we do this too.

quote Originally posted by Butter: Well yes I guess we should after the UN vote has been taken as it was in Iraq's case. And maybe lets give em' bout 10 years to violate it too before we do this too.

They have been violating far longer than 10 years. But I however still view Israel as a key ally with the US, even if there are consequences. I know people from Israel and can tell you the are not evil baby killers.

I wasn't meaning we should attack Israel, but that it was a weak reason for an attack, especially when the UN was against it.

I do think we support Israel too much though, which fuels hatred of the US. They do kill kids.

GL

quote Originally posted by Tugboat: I wasn't meaning we should attack Israel, but that it was a weak reason for an attack, especially when the UN was against it. GL

The UN voted for it but then after the vote the media put a spin on it.

I simply don't understand how some of you are still grasping at straws and fighting tooth and nail on this. There is no evidence that Saddam's Iraq and Al Queda were working together against the U.S.. Colon Powell said it himself, The 9/11 commision is saying it now, and no one in the Bush administration has put forth any credible information/evidence that there was ever a connection between the two in regards to attacking the U.S.

If Bush had the evidence, he would have used it, and I don't want to hear any crap about protecting sources because its way past that now. The only people left arguing there is a connection are die hard right wingers that cannot admit they were wrong. That includes Bush obviously, because he is out there as we speak trying to discredit the 911 commission and their findings. http://www.ktvu.com/news/3429848/detail.html How sad.

Oh and BTW the commission is bi-partisan. That means republicans also came to this conclusion.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 06-17-2004).]

The attack on Afghanistan was well founded. I would have gone forward with that and would have been slightly more unilateral there. I think a permanent station in Afghanistan would have been best suited. I would not have attacked Iraq; I just don't see a reason to tie up American resources like that. I would have, instead, applied pressure to Libya, Sudan and Iran. I don't know if I would have gone to all out war - if I were to, however, it would have been with Iran.

Iraq is a secular nation and Saddam's first priority was to keep it secular. Being secular it was relatively void of Islamic fundamentalist activity, the nations I have listed are defiantly not.

I'm not a dove; I agreed with war in Afghanistan and would have been supportive of action in any of the three nations I listed above. I did not see any reason to invade Iraq and I am resentful of the emerging mistruths that led us towards that direction.

quote Originally posted by Butter: Jeremiah just what would you have done after the 911 attacks? How would you have went about dealing with Al-Qaeda? What about the UN resolution that Iraq was clearly not following? With the facts as yuo see them, just what would you have done in hindsight?

The only link there ever was between al-qaeda and Iraq was race.

To assert that Iraq was and is linked to terrorism is good ol fashioned, good ole boy racism. Nothing more; nothing less.

Because a person is of middle-eastern heritage does not, despite what dubbya and Cheney would have us believe, mean they are terrorists.

-Jeff

quote Originally posted by Butter: The UN voted for it but then after the vote the media put a spin on it.

Not exactly. From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_war

"Eventually the war started without a further resolution, which was seen by many governments throughout the world as a breaking of international law. "

GL

You guys are blinded by your hatred of President Bush.
He nor anyone in his administration said that Hussein and Al Queda collaborated in the planning of 9/11.
What they have stated is that they have met with each other on several occasions and that they both share one common goal... terrorism.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: I simply don't understand how some of you are still grasping at straws and fighting tooth and nail on this. There is no evidence that Saddam's Iraq and Al Queda were working together against the U.S..

Somebody(I don't remember who) on the Daily show had an excellent response to this:

"Those that are still supporting the reasoning for going into Iraq are doing so out of mere pride, they just don't want to admit they were wrong"

Just because we found Al Quieda in Iraq does not mean Iraq was supporting them. Al Quieda iwa in many countries, even The Phillipines... Does that mean the Phillipino government was backing them?

Of course now, there probably is a connection since they both have a common enemy.

Bush = ex-cocaine snorting, trying to please his "daddi" moron....

Osama = 1 dead mother fuc*** just a matter of time...

Saddam = cowardly ahole... negotiate with this.....

I don't like Bush , but just to be clear on this.... he doesn't deserve to die Just thrown outta office for screwing over the common people of the US.... Osama and Saddam deserve the worst punishment in all of history.

[This message has been edited by intlcutlass (edited 06-18-2004).]

You know just because Bush was cautious enough not to explicity say outright that Saddam was behind 911, that doesn't mean he wasn't having his press secretary and other outlets say this and infer it. Here is Bush speaking publicly about the connection between Al Queda and Iraq. Notice how he skirts around actually saying there is a connection, yet he infers that there is one.

quote president Bush]" Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

OK so here he is our President justifying war with a sovereign nation based on two issues. 1. That Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destructions. And 2. That there is a collaborative relationship between Al Queda and Iraq. On top of all that he throws in 911 to scare people into following along with his plan.

We have since concluded that there aren't any WMD
and there was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda in relationship to attacking the U.S.

Now why exactly are you guys still trying to cling to the last remnants of this lie? Its all a bunch of BullSh!t and you know it.

Is this not proof that Bush insisted on blaming Iraq for 911?

quote Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained.

The best part was when Bush senior advisor Karen Hughes in a CNN interview started comparing pro-choicers with terrorists...

edit - to get the name right

[This message has been edited by fourfoot23 (edited 06-18-2004).]

Today:

"There was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al- Qaeda,'' Bush told reporters after meeting with his Cabinet at the White House. ``This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda"

Huh? Didn't that guy just just say:

"You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam." - President Bush, 9/25/02

This is turning into al-Qaeda terrorism-related programs. Just like weapons of mass destruction related programs. They are spinning the truth. Come on, Trailboss. The administration very quietly allowed us to assume 9/11 and Saddam were connected. We all knew, and they never denied, the connection did not exist but in order to build that false ideology we had to believe al Qaeda and saddam were indistinguishable which is what this panel has said ain't so.

quote Originally posted by trailboss: I know that you guys could care less about the truth, whatever george Soros say is what is really important. Bush: 'There Was a Relationship Between Iraq and al-Qaida' NewsMax.com Wires Friday, June 18, 2004 WASHINGTON -– Disputing the findings of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks, President Bush continues to insist there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. "This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida," Bush said Thursday after meeting with his Cabinet at the White House. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two," he said. Saddam's alleged link with terrorists was a central justification the Bush administration had for toppling the former Iraqi regime. Bush also argued that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which have not been found, and that Saddam ruled his country with an iron fist and tortured his opponents, claims that no one has disputed. "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaida is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida," Bush said. The Sept. 11 panel reported this week that while there were contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq they did not appear to have produced "a collaborative relationship." Vice President Dick Cheney vehemently disagreed with that conclusion, saying on CNBC's "Capital Report" that "the notion that there is no relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida just simply is not true." Senior members of the commission seemed eager to minimize any disagreement with the White House. "What we have found is, Were there contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy but they were there," said Tom Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey, who is chairman. Like Bush, he said there was no evidence that Iraq aided in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Former Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, the Democratic vice chairman of the panel, said media reports of a conflict between the administration and the commission were "not that apparent to me." Although bin Laden asked for help from Iraq in the mid-1990s, Saddam's government never responded, according to a report by the commission staff based on interviews with government intelligence and law enforcement officials. "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the commission's report said. "Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq." Bush said Saddam had ties to other terrorist networks as well. "He (Saddam) was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al-Qaida," Bush said. "He was a threat because he had terrorist connections - not only al-Qaida connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations." The president said Saddam had links, for example, to the Abu Nidal Palestinian terror organization and sheltered Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, considered the most dangerous foreign fighter in Iraq and one of the world's top terrorists. "He was a threat because he provided safe haven for a terrorist like al-Zarqawi, who is still killing innocents inside Iraq," Bush said. Attention on al-Zarqawi has increased in recent months as he became a more vocal terror figure, due in part to three recordings released on the Internet, including the video showing the beheading of American businessman Nicholas Berg. In the Thursday night CNBC interview, Cheney said of al-Zarqawi: "Here's a man who's Jordanian by birth. He's described as an al-Qaida associate. He ran training camps in Afghanistan back before we went to war in Afghanistan. After we went in and hit his training camp, he fled to Baghdad. Found safe harbor and sanctuary in Baghdad in May of 2002. ... There clearly was a relationship there that stretched back over that period of time to at least May of '02, a year before we launched into Iraq."

quote Originally posted by Butter: What about the UN resolution that Iraq was clearly not following?

Here's a list of 72 resolutions that Israel has ignored, should we invade Israel next? Until we invaded Iraq Israel's behavior toward the Palestinians and their other Arab neighbors was the single most destabilizing force in the middle east.

http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html

The truth of the matter is that Hussein's Iraq was the most secular country in the middle east, he hated religious extremism more than anyone because it represented a threat to his power. Not only that, but he realized that any attempt to support the Taliban and Al Qaeda would give the United States a pretext to invade Iraq and destroy his comfy little deal he had going.

LOL! Little did he realize that we wouldn't let the fact that he hated Al Qaeda and had nothing to do with them keep us from using that as a pretext to invade his little kingdom.

JazzMan

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Here's a list of 72 resolutions that Israel has ignored, should we invade Israel next? Until we invaded Iraq Israel's behavior toward the Palestinians and their other Arab neighbors was the single most destabilizing force in the middle east. http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html The truth of the matter is that Hussein's Iraq was the most secular country in the middle east, he hated religious extremism more than anyone because it represented a threat to his power. Not only that, but he realized that any attempt to support the Taliban and Al Qaeda would give the United States a pretext to invade Iraq and destroy his comfy little deal he had going. LOL! Little did he realize that we wouldn't let the fact that he hated Al Qaeda and had nothing to do with them keep us from using that as a pretext to invade his little kingdom. JazzMan

Oh hell yes!.. Must smite those Jew bastards! How dare they win against 3 seperate unprovoked wars of agression and then have the audacity to keep some of the captured territory as a buffer zone.. And the poor Palistinians.. finally allowed to settle in the Jewish state after being kicked out by every other Muslim nation, Still don't know why the jews don't follow the will of Allah and kill themselves to save the lives of innocent teen martyrs.

[This message has been edited by Uaana (edited 06-20-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Uaana: Oh hell yes!.. Must smite those Jew bastards! How dare they win against 3 seperate unprovoked wars of agression and then have the audacity to keep some of the captured territory as a buffer zone.. And the poor Palistinians.. finally allowed to settle in the Jewish state after being kicked out by every other Muslim nation, Still don't know why the jews don't follow the will of Allah and kill themselves to save the lives of innocent teen martyrs.

LOL! If only I could find a point in all that verbage.

JazzMan

quote Originally posted by Uaana: Oh hell yes!.. Must smite those Jew bastards! How dare they win against 3 seperate unprovoked wars of agression and then have the audacity to keep some of the captured territory as a buffer zone.. And the poor Palistinians.. finally allowed to settle in the Jewish state after being kicked out by every other Muslim nation, Still don't know why the jews don't follow the will of Allah and kill themselves to save the lives of innocent teen martyrs.

OUCH!!
I get it already... The maaseiah saves!
Jesus Christmas already.

quote Originally posted by Butter: Jeremiah just what would you have done after the 911 attacks? How would you have went about dealing with Al-Qaeda? What about the UN resolution that Iraq was clearly not following? With the facts as yuo see them, just what would you have done in hindsight?

Well, 15 of the 18 hijackers wer SAUDI ARABIANS. Attacking Iraq was perfectly logical (NOT).
PERHAPS the Bush families close ties with the Saud family and the Bin Laden family had something to do with the decision by the administration to attack an unrelated country to take attention away from the Bush family business partners the Bin Ladens and Saudis.
Why were the Saud family and the Bin Laden family rushed out of the USA on 9/12 without even the slightest pretense of questioning about the terrorist attacks? NO OTHER FLIGHTS were permitted.
Bushes war on terrorism is a sham.
Just follow the money.

The Saudis should not have been allowed to leave the country after 9/11, that I agree with. However, there is no evidence of any conspiracy or general Saudi government involvement with the Taliban.

The facts are pretty not in dispute about what really happened. Osama is a religious extremist who has decided that any western presence in the Islamic holy land cannot be tolerated. All religions have extremists, even Christianity (Koresh, NeoCons, etc), Islam isn't breaking new ground with that. The big difference between Koresh and Bin Ladin is that Bin Ladin got hundreds of millions of dollars from his father's construction business and can buy weapons, supplies, and converts whereas Koresh couldn't.

The Saudi government is trying to walk a fine line here between the religious extremists that make up a large part of their religious society and the secular/western pressure that we put on them. Anyone in this country that wants to make our government religious, specifically Christian, should take a good hard look at the problems that religion in governent is causing in the middle east. 9/11 is but a mere taste of what is to come if that happens.

JazzMan

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: This may be a surprise to some but there is no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, the 9/11 commission has found. The commission is a bipartisan commission and appears to be in agreement. To recap: No WMD No saddam 9/11 connection No Iraq Al-Qaeda connection

What are you smoking Jerimiah? I just heard two 9/11 panelists on Meet the Press this mornign and their OVERWHELMING conclusion was that there WAS a definite link between Iraq and Al-Queda.

What they said was that they could not prove a link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks...the point of the commission.

If you're going to try to sway political opinion at least have the dignity to respect the fact that some of us don't buy just any BS posted on a forum and actually know the facts.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: If you're going to try to sway political opinion at least have the dignity to respect the fact that some of us don't buy just any BS posted on a forum and actually know the facts.

It's about time you joined the discussion, Toddster. Where you been? Oh, that's right, you've been WORKING.