• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Just when you thought Vice President Cheney couldn't stoop any lower or act any stupider he goes on Rush Limbaugh today claiming a major collaboration between Saddam and Al-Qaeda prior to our invasion of Iraq.

He proved what a moron he is because at the very same time the Inspector General of the USA was releasing a detailed report clearly stating that in fact there were virtually no ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda!

Busted! Busted! Busted! :rofl :lol:

Source: Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted - washingtonpost.com
 


If Saddam had no ties to AQ then why was Abdul Rahman Yasin who built the bombs for the 1993 WTC bombing given sanctuary in Iraq as well as a sallary from Saddam?

USATODAY.com - U.S.: Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
If Saddam had no ties to AQ then why was Abdul Rahman Yasin who built the bombs for the 1993 WTC bombing given sanctuary in Iraq as well as a sallary from Saddam?

USATODAY.com - U.S.: Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack
Click to expand...
So you're putting more weight on one USA Today story than the US Inspector General's detailed findings?

Plus did you read your link and see President Bush's comment?

But President Bush, in contrast with comments Sunday by Vice President Cheney, said Wednesday, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved."
Click to expand...
This is from YOUR link! The person claiming otherwise was CHENEY who has been proven over and over again to have lied concerning this subject.

I find it amazing that you would ignore the current finding and base your position on something said by Cheney! Do you think that maybe this time you're nowhere close to being correct?

CHENEY! :rofl
 
26 X World Champs said:
So you're putting more weight on one USA Today story than the US Inspector General's detailed findings?
Click to expand...

Yes yes I do considering that it's a fact that he was given sanctuary in Iraq and that AQ and Saddam had numerous connections besides that one. Really I can't for the life of me understand what that investigation entailed because he sure as hell didn't look at the facts to form his opinion.

This is from YOUR link!
Click to expand...

Ya umm they said he had no link to the WTC bombing, but that does not negate the fact that the man was given sanctuary and a pay roll by Saddam Hussein.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
If Saddam had no ties to AQ then why was Abdul Rahman Yasin who built the bombs for the 1993 WTC bombing given sanctuary in Iraq as well as a sallary from Saddam?
Click to expand...

A sanctuary is a place of refuge, or protection...much like churches taking in fugitives from justice. It doesn't mean that the church is now guilty of the fugitives' injustice.

Salary? He may have been given some money, but I read no mention of being on Saddam's payroll, as you imply.
 

World Champs, we had the 9-11 terrorists in our country for months before they attacked us. Don't you see that such means that the United States had ties to terrorism? They were in a country, which means we had a connection to them. Right? Right?

Cheney, you are such an a$$hole, you make me sick.
 
Then, IMHO, you are editing the facts to fit your slanted and partisan point of view because the FACTS do not support your conclusions. I note that you have not taken the Inspector General's report and proven that anything in it is factually incorrect yet you insist on continuing to promote that Saddam had ongoing and deep ties to AQ when the facts are that your conclusion is wrong.

No one, including this report does not say that there were not some very minor, unimportant ties but the meaning of the report, the findings are that the ties between Saddam and AQ were very minor and had no bearing on 9-11 or anything else that threatened the security of the USA.

Prove the Inspector General wrong by taking his report and disputing the key points with verifiable facts or at least admit that the report is accurate and turthful.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ya umm they said he had no link to the WTC bombing, but that does not negate the fact that the man was given sanctuary and a pay roll by Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...
You're using a Strawman argument to make it sound like the connection between Saddam and AQ was ongoing and collaborative and that is not true, period.

I realize that with all the facts coming out that have proven Bush, Cheney and you wrong in almost all of the claims made to justify this war that you're having serious problems accepting the truth because you do not like the truth and you prefer to continue to promote the fantasy that Bush and Cheney created because that scenario is much more appealing to you than the truth.

At the end of the day regardless of how many times you try to rewrite history the facts are not on your side and your conclusions have always been wrong.
 

lmfao, comparing an open society with loose immigration policies to a totalitarian dictatorship with a massive secret police force is a freaking joke. And again the bomb maker for the first attack on the WTC was given sanctuary and a sallary by the Iraqi government.
 

Some analogies re Cheny and his creditability?

Cheney is to truth what Navy Pride is to liberalism!

Cheney is to truth what Trajan is to non-partisan posts!

Cheney is to truth what Aquapub is to creditability!

Cheney is to truth what Jamesrage is to calm consideration!

Cheney is to truth what CurrentAffairs is to contributing to debates!

Cheney is to truth what Stinger is to WMDs in Iraq!

Cheney is to truth what DeeJayH is to Constitutional comprehension!

Etc.....
 

I haven't read it got a link?

Even though I haven't read it I have read numerous articles proving the collaborative relationship between AQ and Saddam.

You're using a Strawman argument to make it sound like the connection between Saddam and AQ was ongoing and collaborative and that is not true, period.
Click to expand...

LMFAO how is the fact that Saddam was giving Asylum to known terrorists and members of AQ a strawman?


I'm not the one rewriting history, it is you who are ignoring the glaringly obvious and that is Abdul Rahman Yasin who built the bomb intended to bring down the WTC in 1993 was given sanctuary and a salary by Saddam Hussein which is just one of many of the connections between AQ and Iraq.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I haven't read it got a link?
Click to expand...
Sure.....

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/ig020907-decl.pdf
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Even though I haven't read it I have read numerous articles proving the collaborative relationship between AQ and Saddam.
Click to expand...
You're again purposely overstating the strength of those "ties" and making it sound like it was COLLABORATIVE when in fact it was incidental.
Wow! Your posts really sound Jim Jonesish!

 
aps said:
World Champs, we had the 9-11 terrorists in our country for months before they attacked us. Don't you see that such means that the United States had ties to terrorism? They were in a country, which means we had a connection to them. Right? Right?
Click to expand...


So you can't make the intellectual distinction between terrorist being under cover in a country for the purpose of committing a mass atrocity against that country and terrorist who are in a country sponsoring their stay and encouraging their attacks on others?

Cheney, you are such an a$$hole, you make me sick.
Click to expand...

Not that was a highly intelligent statement.
 
So are now all the reasons why we went to war with Iraq debunked?
 
Ikari said:
So are now all the reasons why we went to war with Iraq debunked?
Click to expand...

YES!!!!! Or at the very least outrageously exaggerated.

I suggest that you read "HUBRIS" it is quite revealing regarding how the Bushies totally manipulated the intelligence and all of us to get authorization to start this damn war.
 
Of course it was lies and misdirection. Bush wanted his name in the history books, to be remembered for doing something great. But all you have to do is drop one bomb to get a bunch of people saying "well gotta stay now" sort of thing. No accountability to the government, defending it's lies and misdirections and improper war because we are at war. The circular logic which only can further remove government from the people.

I certainly hope we can learn a lesson from all this, restrict the government so that it may not do something like this again.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Sure.....

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/ig020907-decl.pdf
Click to expand...

Oh you meant this report the findings of which you are misrepresenting:


You're again purposely overstating the strength of those "ties" and making it sound like it was COLLABORATIVE when in fact it was incidental.
Click to expand...

Oh really?

Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show - March 24, 2006 - The New York Sun

Saddam's Terror Training Camps

Case Closed
 
This issue is no longer debatable.

The verdict is in:
  • No Iraq ties to al Qaeda
  • No WMD's
  • No uranium deals
  • No collaborative working relationship
  • No reason for war
  • The intel was fixed
  • DSM was right
The guilty phase is now over.

We now move to the sentencing phase.

What should be done with the elected liars in government?

Anyone who argues this issue now is a big joke!

It's over Johnny!
 
Billo_Really said:
What should be done with the elected liars in government?
Click to expand...

The vast majority should be booted out of office, the most treasonous should be hung.
 
Originally posted by Ikari
The vast majority should be booted out of office, the most treasonous should be hung.
Click to expand...
I'm against the death penalty. But I wouldn't mind them being put in prison for the rest of their natural days.

It would be nice to see impeachment proceedings begin.

Even if they don't do it, it would be nice to see
them at least discuss the matter.
 
Ikari said:
Of course it was lies and misdirection. Bush wanted his name in the history books,
Click to expand...

Sure..........that was the whole reason we use military force in Iraq.....:rofl

to be remembered for doing something great.
Click to expand...

Yep, that;s why congress vote to remove Saddam.

But all you have to do is drop one bomb to get a bunch of people saying "well gotta stay now" sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Yep all the speeches where he laid out why we are there were just made up.

No accountability to the government, defending it's lies and misdirections and improper war because we are at war. The circular logic which only can further remove government from the people.
Click to expand...

Yep, Saddam was such a good guy and the government fooled us.

I certainly hope we can learn a lesson from all this, restrict the government so that it may not do something like this again.
Click to expand...

And then what?
 
The CIA report described the "two organizations trying to feel out or exploit each other" rather than cooperating operationally.So it's not like there was absolute zero contact between the 2 groups either, that's why I am not completely yet closed to the idea that AQ & Saddam may have been working together plus the fact that I don't have the same religious confidence in the infallibility of the US intel services either just because they can't find something doesn't exactly mean it never was.

There's plenty of other clues that made the Bush administration suspect an AQ/Saddam link, here are a few examples just for starters:

What about Abdul Rahman Yasin who detonated the '93 World Trade Center bomb, he's the only remaining member of the plot on WTC, Yasin ran to Baghdad after WTC attacks in '93. (I guess Yasin really wanted a plane to Hawaii but there was only one plane available for Baghdad so he was in a hurry and took that one right? All just a coincidence right?) US forces say they found documents in Tikrit that show that the Iraqi government gave Yasin a house & monthly salary. Yasin is now on the FBI's list of most-wanted terrorist with $25 million reward.

Then how about this hot potato Putin gave Bush? A few days before 9/11 Russian President Putin said he gave a personal warning to President Bush concerning an imminent attack on the USA by Saddam . After this Putin claims to have warned USA several times that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks against the USA before '03 invasion of Iraq.

The leaders such as Bush & the congress had a lot of pressure also from anthrax deaths and not knowing if that came from Saddam or not, it look like government made grade anthrax too. Scott Ritter, leader of inspection team, found some missing prisoner records of Abu Ghraib while investigating if prisoners were used to test Anthrax weapons on. Confronted with the missing documents, the Iraqi government claimed that Ritter was with CIA & refused to cooperate. Scott Ritter also in his book "Endgame:Solving the Iraq Problem" said the inspection team found evidence of a vast terrorist training program directed by M-21 Iraqi intelligence quote "document after document outline an international program of terror"

On November 14, 2001 the PBS frontline show reported that Iraqi intelligence trained 40 Islamic terrorist between 1995-2000 in sophisticated hijacking techniques with a Boeing 747 passenger plane in a terrorist training institute in Baghdad.

The leaders such as Bush & the congress did not want to get stuck with the blame of another 9/11 type of disaster, they knew their heads would roll and everyone was on the hunt too to see who they could hang the blame for 9/11, there were accusations all over the place and the leaders where sweating it out.

It's easy to be an armchair general/politician but real life doesn't work that way folks. For those in the real hot seat and responsible for our protection it was looking clear that they had blown it big time in 9/11. If all you want to do is isolate & pick on this one point that there was no 9/11 Saddam connection, I afraid that looks like a bias deception and a distraction, fairmind people need try to put the whole picture together.
 
Doremus Jessup said:
That was my point. If you're gonna give me crap for using sources from the "fringe," you might wanna hold yourself to the same standard. :2wave: :2razz:
Click to expand...

The Weekly Standard is not the fringe it is a well respected well connected weekly magazine, which not only follows policy but foments policy through their indepth analysis, and that great unattributed bullshit quote which the left uses regularly says it all: "and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do," now run along now back to prison planet and there readership that gets laughs even at anti-war rallies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…