• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Excuse my apparent ignorance

I'm very confused.And yet we've been told by Bush opposers for years that Al Quaeda being in Iraq was a lie. What's the truth?

I see your CONfusion. You don't own a calendar.

BushII tried to fly the lie that al-Queera was in Iraq BEFORE he ordered the invasion. Saddam's tribe was Sunni and al-Queera is Sunni but that is the end of it. bin Hidin hated Saddam and called him an infidel. No love lost there. Saddam did pay a stipend for suicide bombers- as many Shi'ite and Sunni- in the ongoing conflict with Israel. However Saddam never let al-Queera train in Iraq (a group did train in the Kurdish highlands, a fact BushII ignored and just said 'in Iraq' rather than in a real remote area Saddam had no influence in)

BushII's cabal tried to use a proven liar, an Iraqi code named 'curveball' to make all sort of outrageous claims of WMD and al-Queera in Iraq before the Invasion... but all was disproven.

BushII tried to claim agents for Saddam and al-Queera met in Europe pre-invasion but that too was a lie.

NO ONE has claimed al-Queera didn't send thousands of fighters into Iraq AFTER Saddam fell. NO ONE is claiming al-Queera made massive inroads into Iraq AFTER Saddam fell. and NO ONE is claiming al-queera isn't still in Iraq.... but BushII tried to peddle al-Queera was in Iraq BEFORE the invasion and that has been proven a lie....

Calendars are our friends.... :peace
 
Someone also reported they have captured a chemical weapons plant, but I though Iraq didn't have anything like that.....or so we were told.

Oh, well, of someone reported it, it must be true, right?
 
Does it make any sense to you at all that, during the entire time we had troops in Iraq, it became infested with Al Q?
Actually AQ controlled a huge swath of territory in the Halabja region of Iraq where they instituted a ridiculous interpretation of Sharia law like the Taliban in Afghanistan before 2003. And the Saddam regime did the same thing. They televised people getting their right hand cut off for theft live on national TV.

I won't link to it, but for the non-squeamish, just search LiveLeak.
 
But according to you bush haters there were none? Or do they just not matter now that you have your chosen dictator in office?

An old chemical weapons plant. OK, that's plausible, if it's one from before the first gulf war. It's also quite irrelevant to anything happening there today.
 
But according to you bush haters there were none? Or do they just not matter now that you have your chosen dictator in office?

Are you seriously going to try to post that only "Bush haters" recognize that Iraq didn't have WMD when the US invaded?

Really?

Is the moon made of green cheese too?
 
But according to you bush haters there were none? Or do they just not matter now that you have your chosen dictator in office?
So far as I can tell from the news I've heard on the matter...

The plant in question is old, contaminated, and all chemical weapons contained therein were deemed unusable by inspectors, quite awhile ago. Also so unstable that they would be more dangerous to clean up than leave there.

So, basically, this place was not a threat at any recent time, and will not be in the future.

Unless the inspections were faulty, of course.
 
Al Qeda was not in Iraq when we started our invasion.

The USA's anti-terrorism tactics have increased the number of Al Qeda members and they have been spreading out. However, its leadership came from several nations and they have operated in a variety of locations from the beginning.

"Documents captured in the raid on bin Laden compound in 2011, show that the core Al-Qaeda membership in 2002 was 170. In 2006, it was estimated that al-Qaeda had several thousand commanders embedded in 40 different countries."
wikipedia

"Lt. Col. Jim Gregory, a Pentagon spokesman, said he didn't know how many countries had an al Qaeda presence. He said the current government estimate for al Qaeda is 3,000 to 4,000 members. .... If an anti-al Qaeda mission kills dangerous terrorists but inspires a greater number of potential terrorists who have no training nor capacity, the total number of terrorists would rise......"
Shadowy Figures: Al Qaeda's Ranks Are Hard to Measure - WSJ 2011

"events also suggest that Al Qaeda members seek to capitalize on U.S. and allied
policies and actions that are unpopular among Muslim audiences, such as military operations that
result in civilian casualties as well as broader policies such as the presence of foreign military
forces in Muslim countries."

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/R41070.pdf 2011

Bombing, imprisoning and killing have not been effective, its time to try other approaches.
 
Come on, Maggie, get serious.

The argument from "Bush opposers" was that AQ wasn't in Iraq before we invaded 11 years ago. Not a soul is arguing that AQ isn't there now.
There were claims that there was Al Qaeda training in Iraq. Hard for anyone to deny as real, and to prove such a thing to the public means outing CIA or other intelligence assets. It probably did happen. It didn't need to be by Saddams blessing, but any one of several high ranking officers could have turned a blind eye and allowed them an area in the sand. I believe as much as the public was shown, was satellite or aerial images showing camps. This could have been anything however. There was enough reasons to go their without considering this issue, the yellowcake, or other points the left was able to argue against. There were so many other facts more important the left never did attack, because they couldn't. They were valid reasons.

In another thread, post 241, I linked the 2003 state of the union. The larger issues are spoken of, and Al-Qaeda in Iraq is not one of the reasons:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...d-justify-invasion-iraq-7.html#post1063435194

Here is the transcript:

President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address | Jan. 28, 2003 (washingtonpost.com)

Here is the full 2003 State of the Union video:

State Union Address | Video | C-SPAN.org

He starts talking about Iraq right after Korea. 52:46 is a good place to start.
 
Last edited:
yes you are ignorant. After the invasion by President Bush Iraq became a rally cry and there was an influx of Al Queda supported fighters led by Zarqawi. Before then they had no real presence in Iraq.

I will contend, and so will others, that our fight in Iraq led to several terrorists coming to Iraq to kill Americans. In the end, they died. Wasn't that a good thing?
 
Last edited:
As I seem to recall, the accusation at the time involved Sadaam being in cahoots with Al Q.

THeir operations inside Iraq 10 years later does not really answer such a question in the affirmative,now,does it? If anything, it should lead the rational thinker to crititicize rather than defend the very administration that unleashed the chaos to begin with.

Please show me a link that says that.

Saying Saddam has been known to associate with Al Qaeda leaders is not the same as saying they are friends. The lying left media will twist stuff like this, then claim it is false. It is the left that is lying, by improperly framing a connection.

Again, please show me a quote, and in context, that makes the claim Saddam was friends with Al Qaeda.
 
Please show me a link that says that.

Saying Saddam has been known to associate with Al Qaeda leaders is not the same as saying they are friends. The lying left media will twist stuff like this, then claim it is false. It is the left that is lying, by improperly framing a connection.

Again, please show me a quote, and in context, that makes the claim Saddam was friends with Al Qaeda.

The Bush II administration made many remarks intended to create an impression of a particular threat without being specific enough that you can call it an outright lie (a classic example is the smoking gun-mushroom cloud statement). That is why we are here arguing about what they claimed. There were some vague pre-war statements suggesting an Iraq/Al Qeda link but no persuasive evidence of a pre-war connection was presented before, during or after the war.
 
Please show me a link that says that.

Saying Saddam has been known to associate with Al Qaeda leaders is not the same as saying they are friends. The lying left media will twist stuff like this, then claim it is false. It is the left that is lying, by improperly framing a connection.

Again, please show me a quote, and in context, that makes the claim Saddam was friends with Al Qaeda.


"Vice President Dick Cheney had told Meet the Press on December 9, 2001, that Iraq was harboring Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,[14] and repeated the statement in another appearance on September 14, 2003, saying "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."[15] and once again in an interview with National Public Radio in January, 2004, stating that there was "overwhelming evidence" of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda based on evidence including Iraq's purported harboring of Yasin.[16]

In the same Meet the Press interviews, Cheney implied a connection between Iraq and Mohamed Atta; "The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out."[14] and "With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop any more of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know."[15] Czech officials have since backed off of this claim, and even Cheney has since acknowledged that the notion "that the meeting ever took place" has been "pretty well knocked down now."[17] (See Mohamed Atta's alleged Prague connection.)
Intelligence community claims and doubts

In the initial stages of the war on terror, the Central Intelligence Agency, under George Tenet, was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with President Bush that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, V.P. Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to re-examine the evidence and marginalize the CIA and Tenet. The questionable intelligence acquired by this secret program was "stovepiped" to the vice president and presented to the public. In some cases, Cheney’s office would leak the intelligence to reporters, where it would be reported by outlets such as The New York Times. Cheney would subsequently appear on the Sunday political television talk shows to discuss the intelligence, referencing The New York Times as the source to give it credence.[18]

The prewar CIA testimony was that there was evidence of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade involving Iraq providing al-Qaeda with various kinds of training-combat, bomb-making, and [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear] CBRN, but that they had no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaeda strike.[19][20] The CIA's report on Iraq's ties to terrorism noted in September 2002 that the CIA did not have "credible intelligence reporting" of operational collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda. According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the CIA reported that "al-Qaida, including Bin Ladin personally, and Saddam were leery of close cooperation," but that the "mutual antipathy of the two would not prevent tactical, limited cooperation." (p. 338) The current consensus view of experts is that although members of Saddam Hussein’s intelligence service may have met with al-Qaeda terrorists over the last decade or so, that there was no evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda were linked operationally.[21] It is now known that the main source for the CIA's claim that Iraq had trained al-Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases included the now recanted claims of captured al-Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. The CIA has since recalled and reissued all its intelligence reporting about al-Libi’s recanted claims.[22] Likewise, the DIA communicated to President Bush in February 2002 its stance that al-Libi "was intentionally misleading his debriefers."[23]
9/11 Commission conclusions

In the summer of 2004, the 9/11 Commission concluded that "to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."[24][25][26]

14 "The Vice President Appears on NBC's Meet the Press". White House news release (Press release). The White House. 2001-12-09.

15 "Transcript for Sept. 14 - Meet the Press", MSNBC.

16 Landay, Jonathan S.; Warren P. Strobel, John Walcott (March 3, 2004). "Doubts Cast on Efforts to Link Saddam, al-Qaida". Knight-Ridder.

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The Bush II administration made many remarks intended to create an impression of a particular threat without being specific enough that you can call it an outright lie (a classic example is the smoking gun-mushroom cloud statement).
So?

That is why we are here arguing about what they claimed.
What absolutes did they claim?

There were some vague pre-war statements suggesting an Iraq/Al Qeda link but no persuasive evidence of a pre-war connection was presented before, during or after the war.
Yes. Vague. Was it a lie, or an assessment of what they thought was likely?

If you have absolute proof they liked, please produce it.
 
"Vice President Dick Cheney had told Meet the Press on December 9, 2001, that Iraq was harboring Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, <snip>
Yes, at least according to your link. It suggests Saddam did have him, and was using him to trade to lift the sanctions. So... Saddam was protecting this terrorist from the USA.
 
Yes, at least according to your link. It suggests Saddam did have him, and was using him to trade to lift the sanctions. So... Saddam was protecting this terrorist from the USA.

"...On several occasions, Iraq offered to turn Yasin over to the US government in exchange for lifting UN economic sanctions.[citation needed] Tariq Aziz, spokesman of Iraq, claimed that in the 1990s all Iraq wanted in return was a signed statement that Iraq had handed over Yasin. But reportedly the statement presented to the U.S. at the time contained lengthy wording essentially exonerating Iraqi involvement in the 1993 WTC attack. Nevertheless, Kenneth Pollack of the State Department stated that there was no CIA information tying Iraq into the 1993 WTC bombing.

With Yasin reportedly being held as a prisoner in Hussein's Iraq, Lesley Stahl of CBS interviewed him there for a segment on 60 Minutes on May 23, 2002 (see below). Yasin appeared in prison pajamas and handcuffs. It was claimed that Iraq had held Yasin prisoner on the outskirts of Baghdad since 1994.[2]

Yasin hasn't been seen or heard from since the 2002 prison interview. He was not located during the 2003 invasion of Iraq...."
Abdul Rahman Yasin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you consider being imprisoned in Iraq as being "protected."
 
I think the key to this is the very broad and loosely defined phrase: Al Qaeda splinter group's.

This definition could be bent around just about any group over there.

Al-Q has disowned ISIS as "too violent"!
 
The Iraqis providing...

Yes, this is fact that such things were happening inside of Iraq. It happens inside the USA, and other nations as well.

Where did he say "Saddam" was involved?

It was typical ways politicians speak, but it wasn't a lie. It allows the listener to insert their assumptions. The public is misdirected so many times like this. please learn to parse information better instead of accusing someone of a lie when they didn't.
 
If you consider being imprisoned in Iraq as being "protected."
To a point that we really do not know, you are correct. I wonder what Iraq had him in prison for, or if it was just a cover to protect him. I guess with the information we, the public is given, it's actually hard to know the facts. Still, if his crimes in Iraq were serious, he probably would have been executed. If they were minor, why hold out for so much?

The stated reasons do not pass the smell test with me. I'll bet that he wasn't actually a prisoner. Just presented as such. But then i have no way of knowing for certain.
 
The Bush II administration... <snip>

You are a young-en, aren't you? never listened to the news 5+ years back I bet.

When distinguishing between the two shrubs, the proper designation is Bush (41) and Bush (43).

41st and 43rd presidents.
 
Back
Top Bottom