Bush Lied: The Evidence

[alphieb]

That's what I've been saying for the last year.

Those radical groups are Muslim and are naturally going to reside in the Middle East. Does that mean they are truly being harbored? Like another poster said, they also lived here. Did we "harbor them"?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Those radical groups are Muslim and are naturally going to reside in the Middle East. Does that mean they are truly being harbored? Like another poster said, they also lived here. Did we "harbor them"?

Big no huge difference, when a government says come on in Al-Qaeda that country is way different than the country that has been infiltrated by Al-Qaeda. There's a difference b/w safe haven and infiltration.

 

[alphieb]

Big no huge difference, when a government says come on in Al-Qaeda that country is way different than the country that has been infiltrated by Al-Qaeda. There's a difference b/w safe haven and infiltration.

How do you know they said "come on in"....How can you tell by looking at them that they are a terrorist? That would like trying to identify a Catholic. They don't carry a sign saying "I'm a radical Muslim and I want to kill you". They would especially blend right in in the Middle East. Who would know the difference?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

... they did find connections between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

Connection is a very vague word. There're connections between the US and aQ. BFD.
aQ and Hussin were not in cahoots.

In fact Ayman al-Zarqawi ...

FYI, you're conflating Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab Zarqawi.

... the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq was in Iraq before the U.S. invaded ...

He wasn't an al-Qaedi in those days though.

... as was a huge amount of Al-Qaeda members, Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist's gave them safe haven in Iraq in the same way that the Taliban gave the terrorists safe haven in Afghanistan.

PLease share you source for this "huge amount" who were given "safe haven in Iraq in the same way that the Taliban gave the terrorists safe haven in Afghanistan."

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Connection is a very vague word. There're connections between the US and aQ. BFD.
aQ and Hussin were not in cahoots.

FYI, you're conflating Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab Zarqawi.

He wasn't an al-Qaedi in those days though.

PLease share you source for this "huge amount" who were given "safe haven in Iraq in the same way that the Taliban gave the terrorists safe haven in Afghanistan."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Connection is a very vague word. There're connections between the US and aQ. BFD.
aQ and Hussin were not in cahoots.

FYI, you're conflating Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab Zarqawi.

He wasn't an al-Qaedi in those days though.

PLease share you source for this "huge amount" who were given "safe haven in Iraq in the same way that the Taliban gave the terrorists safe haven in Afghanistan."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

in fact Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladin were actually working with one another themselves:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

 

[Simon W. Moon]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

You're slippin' bro. Nowhere on this page does it say that Hussein sheltered al-qa'ida.

in fact Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladin were actually working with one another themselves:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

What choice! Hard to decide if I should believe the conclusions of the US Intelligence Community of a partisan hack propagandist. Who is more likely to have the expert insight into the Hussein al-Qa'ida relationship? I can't tell.
Give me a break. When come back, bring argument.

I mean you're welcome to believe that Mr. Hayes is better informed than the USIC if that's what pleases you, but you'll hvae to make a hell of a case to convince me that Mr. Hayes knows more than the CIA et al.
So, get to work whenever you're ready.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You're slippin' bro. Nowhere on this page does it say that Hussein sheltered al-qa'ida.


What choice! Hard to decide if I should believe the conclusions of the US Intelligence Community of a partisan hack propagandist. Who is more likely to have the expert insight into the Hussein al-Qa'ida relationship? I can't tell.
Give me a break. When come back, bring argument.

I mean you're welcome to believe that Mr. Hayes is better informed than the USIC if that's what pleases you, but you'll hvae to make a hell of a case to convince me that

dude the basis for the article is a memo from the intelligence community.
Mr. Hayes knows more than the CIA et al.
So, get to work whenever you're ready.

Here's a link to the DOD confirmation of the existence of said memo I can't find a copy of the memo due to the fact that it's classified:

http://www.dod.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html

 

[Simon W. Moon]

. . . dude the basis for the article is a memo from the intelligence community. . . .

Dude, no, it's not. It's "from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith". The guy who helped set up the intel cherry-picking operations in the Pentagon. One of Feith's groups are the ones who "discovered" the "operational relationship" between aQ and Hussein. Feith's group which sifted through reports w/o regard to the USIC's assessments of their veracity and reliability were not a part of the USIC.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Dude, no, it's not. It's "from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith". The guy who helped set up the intel cherry-picking operations in the Pentagon. One of Feith's groups are the ones who "discovered" the "operational relationship" between aQ and Hussein. Feith's group which sifted through reports w/o regard to the USIC's assessments of their veracity and reliability were not a part of the USIC.

on what basis do you question the veracity of the intel?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

As per the DoD statement you linked to:

The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the National Security Agency or, in one case, the Defense Intelligence Agency. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence community. The selection of the documents was made by DoD to respond to the committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.
​

As I was saying, there was not a distinction made between reliable and verified info and smoke blown up a debriefer's ass.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

and the CIA report you gave me is in reference to intel on WMD not AL-Qaedas links to Saddam.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

on what basis do you question the veracity of the intel?

Previously provided a few posts above:

I should believe the conclusions of the US Intelligence Community
​

From there:

In the case of al-Qa'ida, the constant stream of questions aimed at finding links between Saddam and the terrorist network caused analysts take what they termed a “purposely aggressive approach” in conducting exhaustive and repetitive searches for such links. Despite the pressure, however, the Intelligence Community remained firm in its assessment that no operational or collaborative relationship existed.
​

I'm not sure how much more clear it could possibly be.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

As per the DoD statement you linked to:

The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the National Security Agency or, in one case, the Defense Intelligence Agency. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence community. The selection of the documents was made by DoD to respond to the committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.
​

As I was saying, there was not a distinction made between reliable and verified info and smoke blown up a debriefer's ass.

I wanna know why no conclusions have been made just because the intelligence hasn't been confirmed or denied does not imply that the intel is not credible. Intelligence gathering is not an exact science you take the pieces of the puzzle that you have and use them to fill in the blanks to try and figure out what's going on and the intelligence points in the direction that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda the proof is in the fact that Zarqawi was given safe haven which is undisputable.

Show me the intel that says Iraq didn't have ties to Al-Qaeda, there isn't any because Saddam did infact harbor terrorists it's just a fact.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

and the CIA report you gave me is in reference to intel on WMD not AL-Qaedas links to Saddam.

Actually, if you will read the thing you'll see that it does discuss al-Qaida.

Here's a link to a searchable pdf. Have a go. The spelling used is al-Qa'ida

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I wanna know why no conclusions have been made just because the intelligence hasn't been confirmed or denied does not imply that the intel is not credible.

True, and so what?
The fact remains that using the same evidence available to Feith's ad-hoc hacks, the professionals in the USIC came to the conclusion that there was no "operational nor collaborative" relationship.

... Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda the proof is in the fact that Zarqawi was given safe haven which is undisputable.

So all of a sudden, it's not merely thatZarqawi was in Iraq and received medical attention [where he had his leg amputated and re-attached, or maybe he just had rhinoplasty] he received safe haven?
You're getting way far out ahead of the facts.
Please cite for Hussein giving Zarqawi safe-haven.

Show me the intel that says Iraq didn't have ties to Al-Qaeda ..

The USG has "ties" to al-Qa'ida. What's at issue is the existence of an "operational" or "collaborative" relationship.

... there isn't any because Saddam did infact harbor terrorists it's just a fact.

While al-Qa'ida are terrorists, not all terrorists are al-Qaeda.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actually, if you will read the thing you'll see that it does discuss al-Qaida.

Here's a link to a searchable pdf. Have a go. The spelling used is al-Qa'ida

have you been able to find a full copy to the Feith memo? I think it's classified to protect undercover sources.

by the way Zarqawi was in Iraq before the invasion don't you think he was there getting organized in preperation for the war,

Al-Qaeda is not an isolationist organization it is a network of terrorist alliances and financiers which kept in contact after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan.

Remember when Saddam said that if the U.S. invaded they would not find flowers and easy victory but bloodshed and attrition that's because he was orgainzing guirella forces how do you think it is that the Sunni insurgency is able to so effectively fight alongside Al-Qaeda forces . . . . because they were organizing since the First Gulf War.

Saddam Hussein not only supported terrorists financially but has in fact given them safe haven eg Zarqawi.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Hay Simon if there was not a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam then why did 9-11 victims win a lawsuit against Iraq???

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1051121852966

 

[Simon W. Moon]

have you been able to find a full copy to the Feith memo? I think it's classified to protect undercover sources.

No, I haven't. As far as I can tell from what's been said about it, it's a mishmash hodge podge of reportrs of varying reliability. You might have some luck looking through the Congressional record. Try fas.org

by the way Zarqawi was in Iraq before the invasion don't you think he was there getting organized in preperation for the war,

No, I don't think that he was. I don't think that he wasn't either.

Al-Qaeda is not an isolationist organization it is a network of terrorist alliances and financiers which kept in contact after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan.

Um yeah. And so?

Remember when Saddam said that if the U.S. invaded they would not find flowers and easy victory but bloodshed and attrition that's because he was orgainzing guirella forces

Um yeah. And so?

how do you think it is that the Sunni insurgency is able to so effectively fight alongside Al-Qaeda forces . . .

Through trial and error. They weren't doing so well together at the beginning.

because they were organizing since the First Gulf War.

That's quite a bit of extrapolation from very little. I hope you can forgive me for thinking the CIA et al are more authoritative in this matter than your extravagant extrapolations.

Saddam Hussein not only supported terrorists financially but has in fact given them safe haven ...

Sure he did. We're providing safe haven to some of the exact same terrorists that Hussein gave training camps and arms.
However, al-Qa'ida ain't them.

eg Zarqawi.

I'd still be interested in a citation for Hussein giving Z "safe haven" instead of merely that Z recv'd treatment in Baghdad and was in Iraq.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Hay Simon if there was not a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam then why did 9-11 victims win a lawsuit against Iraq???
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1051121852966

Is it for the same reason OJ walked? Because they had a good lawyer?

 

[RealityCheck]

This Trajan guy is a funny dude. He will believe anything he hears in the main stream media.

They won a court case, guess its true! lol.

I just heard on Fox news (very relibable) that Saddam blew pixie dust on Baghdad right before he was captured. That is the real reason Iraq is now contaminated with depleted uranium. He waned to make an army of incredible hulks. :2wave:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

This Trajan guy is a funny dude. He will believe anything he hears in the main stream media.

They won a court case, guess its true! lol.

I just heard on Fox news (very relibable) that Saddam blew pixie dust on Baghdad right before he was captured. That is the real reason Iraq is now contaminated with depleted uranium. He waned to make an army of incredible hulks. :2wave:

and this jack ass thinks 9-11 was an inside job just check out the conspiracy thread,

you libs use Court Cases to prove your points all the time IE RoeVWade

no, I don't trust the main stream media I do my own research but not on the ****ing illuminati sites. Catch a clue even the libs on this site hate you conspiracy theorists, you make them look bad.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

[MOD MODE]

Last I checked the topic of this thread had nothing to do with either TOT or RC. If you guys'd like to get all touchy-feely and explore your personal feelings for one another, please book a reservation in The Basement. Where this sort of thing is condoned. This ain't the time or the place.

Respectfully yours,

SWM

[/MOD MODE]