'No Saddam link to Iraq al-Qaeda' (1 Viewer)

[jfuh]

To those apologetics who continue to try to tie the two together. THERE IS NO LINK!

Source

There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.

The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday.

US President George W Bush has said that the presence of late al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a link.

Opposition Democrats say the report has harmed Mr Bush's case for going to war.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that the US president has again and again tried to connect the war in Iraq, which most Americans think was a mistake, with the so-called war on terror, which has the support of the nation.

The report comes as Mr Bush makes a series of speeches on the "war on terror" to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the 11 September attacks.

 

[akyron]

"the CIA had evidence of several instances of contacts between the Iraqi authorities and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s"

Same link. You left out that part.


Saddam had very few "formal" paper trails of anything. Good criminal habits.

Otherwise

"White House spokesman Tony Snow told the Associated Press news agency the report contained "nothing new".

 

[jfuh]

"the CIA had evidence of several instances of contacts between the Iraqi authorities and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s"

Same link. You left out that part.


Saddam had very few "formal" paper trails of anything. Good criminal habits.

Otherwise

"White House spokesman Tony Snow told the Associated Press news agency the report contained "nothing new".

And why not put out the full quote?

The committee concluded that the CIA had evidence of several instances of contacts between the Iraqi authorities and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s but that these did not add up to a formal relationship. It added that the government "did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates".
It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.
"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.
The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.
It also deals with the role played by inaccurate information supplied by Iraqi opposition groups in the run-up to the war.

Would tony snow say anyotherwise? Please give me a break.

 

[akyron]

And why not put out the full quote?

Because its still "nothing new" regardless of how many attempts to resurrect it as some point worth making.

 

[jujuman13]

Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5328592.stm

To my fellow Republicans, also to those who are Neo-Cons, Fascists, Bible thumping fundamentalists.

Whichever way you care to put it, al-Qaeda was not installed in Iraq prior to Mr. Bush Jnr. instigating this war on Iraq.

WMD did not exist to any appreciable extent in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was and still is nothing but an extremely ruthless gangster.

He murdered or caused to be murdered anyone whom he considered to be a threat to his regime.

He evidently believed he was immortal.

So, now at long last people might begin to ask the question, WHY?

Why did Mr. Bush want to remove him from power.

Several reasons come to mind.

He was no longer a pro western (sic) Ally, although was vehemently anti communist.

His regime had turned to Russia and China for imported materials, thus denying America this business.

The USA wished to preserve it's oil supply from a source that it was able to control.

The Military Industrial combine of the US wished to have more of our money to be able to develop yet more weapons, this could only be permissable should an actual threat to the USA exist.

Mr. Bush had a personal reason in so far that Saddam Hussein had placed a contract on Mr. Bush's fathers life as an attempt to gain revenge for Mr. Bush Snr and his coalition trashing the Iraqi armed forces during the Gulf war.

President Bush simply wished to have Iraq ruled by a Democratically elected Government.

Or perhaps some other reason.

Whatever he had in mind, he and his team failed miserably to assess the possible consequences of their actions.

Regretably you, I, and our descendants will be paying for their lack of foresight for the next 100 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[jfuh]

Because its still "nothing new" regardless of how many attempts to resurrect it as some point worth making.

Really? Nothing new? Then why did you vote "absolutely" to poll question: Was there a tie between Iraq and AQ before the US invasion?
Seems that this is news to you then.

 

[aps]

Really? Nothing new? Then why did you vote "absolutely" to poll question: Was there a tie between Iraq and AQ before the US invasion?
Seems that this is news to you then.

Hey jfuh. Can you believe some of this crap that the Bush apologists come up with? It amazes me. LOL

What I find so sad is that some of these right wingers have had it drilled in their heads for so long that there was a connection, so even though there is no proof, they say that there is "absolutely" a link between the two. Go figure.

 

[jfuh]

Hey jfuh. Can you believe some of this crap that the Bush apologists come up with? It amazes me. LOL

What I find so sad is that some of these right wingers have had it drilled in their heads for so long that there was a connection, so even though there is no proof, they say that there is "absolutely" a link between the two. Go figure.

Bingo, and then "argue" that there being absolutely no connection whatsoever that this is "nothing new".

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Really? Nothing new? Then why did you vote "absolutely" to poll question: Was there a tie between Iraq and AQ before the US invasion?
Seems that this is news to you then.

Actually he is right. This declassified report is nothing new. We have known for years that there was no Saddam link to Al-Qaeda. The fact that the radical right refuses to accept that, does not in anyway change history.

 

[jfuh]

Actually he is right. This declassified report is nothing new. We have known for years that there was no Saddam link to Al-Qaeda. The fact that the radical right refuses to accept that, does not in anyway change history.

They've been:beatdeadhorsefor quite some time. Bringing up this and that. Here's an article that beats it out of them and completely :hitsfan:. Why not let me have a little fun with it?:tongue4:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

They've been:beatdeadhorsefor quite some time. Bringing up this and that. Here's an article that beats it out of them ans completely :hitsfan:. Why not let me have a little fun with it?:tongue4:

It wont do any good. You are talking about a group of people who are still, over 30 years later, arguing in favor of the Vietnam War. A group of people who are still, over 50 years later, defending McCarthyism. A group of people who are still, over 70 years later, demonizing the New Deal. A group of people who are still, over 100 years later, questioning Evolution.

They do not arrive at their beliefs through fact and reason, thus fact and reason will not sway them from their beliefs, no matter how absurd they are.

 

[Stinger]

To those apologetics who continue to try to tie the two together. THERE IS NO LINK!

Source

Are you citing the joint report or the Democrat addendium? Better be careful just getting your info from the Dem's and wait to read the main body.

FORMAL LINK, no one claimed there were FORMAL links. There were many contacts and INFORMAL links and clear indications both sides wanted to further those links. The closest we know off was the chemical weapons factory Clinton bombed saying that both Saddam and Bin Laden had thier hands in it.

Then of course Al qaeda is not the only terrorist group out there and we know Saddam was sanctioning and helping finance suicide bombers.

So what is new here, even the Democrat spin is the same old same old.

 

[Stinger]

Would tony snow say anyotherwise? Please give me a break.

And remain truthful? No.

Tell me what is new in the report. The main report, not the Democrat spin filled addendum. The bi-partisian part.

 

[jfuh]

Are you citing the joint report or the Democrat addendium? Better be careful just getting your info from the Dem's and wait to read the main body.

FORMAL LINK, no one claimed there were FORMAL links. There were many contacts and INFORMAL links and clear indications both sides wanted to further those links. The closest we know off was the chemical weapons factory Clinton bombed saying that both Saddam and Bin Laden had thier hands in it.

Then of course Al qaeda is not the only terrorist group out there and we know Saddam was sanctioning and helping finance suicide bombers.

So what is new here, even the Democrat spin is the same old same old.

This coming from some one adament there was an AQ saddam link, even citing Sol Pak training facility. The spinster strikes again.

 

[jfuh]

And remain truthful? No.

Tell me what is new in the report. The main report, not the Democrat spin filled addendum. The bi-partisian part.

That's the whole point spinner, it's not news. The rest of us have known there was never an IRaq AQ tie. Yet those of you have insisted that there was a link between saddam and AQ.

 

[26 X World Champs]

"the CIA had evidence of several instances of contacts between the Iraqi authorities and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s"

Same link. You left out that part.


Saddam had very few "formal" paper trails of anything. Good criminal habits.

Otherwise

"White House spokesman Tony Snow told the Associated Press news agency the report contained "nothing new".

:rofl Even in the face of ALL sides saying there never was a tie to Saddam and AQ some of you refuse to accept the truth. It's really amazing to me. The NY Times says:

By DAVID STOUT - NY Times
Published: September 8, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 — The Senate Intelligence Committee said today that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had prewar ties to Al Qaeda and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Doesn't leave a lot of room for arguing does it?

“Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden,” the former Iraqi foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, told the Federal Bureau of Investigation when he was asked about Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda’s leader.

How many times have I and my fellow Liberals here written the exact same thing and how many times have the Bushie apologists, i.e. Stinger, NP, Aquapub, TOT written posts claiming that there was no doubt whatsoever that Saddam and AQ were sleeping together?

“He specified that if he wanted to cooperate with the enemies of the U.S., he would have allied with North Korea or China,” says a passage in the nearly 400-page report.

Why you ask? Because Saddam always believed that AQ was a threat to HIS power!

The report also says that postwar findings in Iraq do not support a 2002 intelligence estimate that Iraq was busily reconstituting it nuclear-weapons program or was in possession of biological weapons.

You mean that Bush and his minions purposely misled all of us with their "Mushroom Cloud" analogies during the build up to the war?

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/w...&en=0f631262baeef300&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 

[26 X World Champs]

And remain truthful? No.

Tell me what is new in the report. The main report, not the Democrat spin filled addendum. The bi-partisian part.

No one has been more pro-Republican, Pro-Bush, Pro-Saddam/AQ link in this forum than you have Stinger! You have written countless posts tying them together...but today's Senate Intelligence Committee Report clearly and without any room for doubt says there NEVER was any link at all, so stop with the "formal" link BULLSHIT because there wasn't ANY link at all and only true Republican apologists would dare to suggest otherwise.

You talk about NON-PARTISAN parts of the report...OK Stinger...show us any non-Republican who has linked AQ and Saddam the way you do anytime in the last two years since all of the evidence was finally revealed and Bush's plot was exposed?

The real truth is that Bush preyed on American's fears after 9-11 and played all of us into believing that Saddam was an imminent threat when he knew damn well that was not the case.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Guys lets face facts... America sucks at this game. I know I am a bad-apple to say this and should probably be kicked out of the country for expressing such a terrible gut feeling, and possibly tar and feathered, but I think Saddam could have been a possible ally against Al-Qaeda if we would play the right damn cards.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by 26X Champs:
No one has been more pro-Republican, Pro-Bush, Pro-Saddam/AQ link in this forum than you have Stinger! You have written countless posts tying them together...but today's Senate Intelligence Committee Report clearly and without any room for doubt says there NEVER was any link at all, so stop with the "formal" link BULLSHIT because there wasn't ANY link at all and only true Republican apologists would dare to suggest otherwise.

You talk about NON-PARTISAN parts of the report...OK Stinger...show us any non-Republican who has linked AQ and Saddam the way you do anytime in the last two years since all of the evidence was finally revealed and Bush's plot was exposed?

The real truth is that Bush preyed on American's fears after 9-11 and played all of us into believing that Saddam was an imminent threat when he knew damn well that was not the case.

You're being too nice to Stinger. He deserves harsher words.

 

[Harshaw]

As much as Rightists cling to the idea that there were links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Leftists still cling to the idea -- despite everything which was said to the contrary right from the beginning -- that the War on Terror was ONLY about Al Qaeda. It is not, and it never was.

Saddam supported terror. He paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 a pop (pun intended). He gave safe haven to Abu Nidal, al Zarqawi, and a number of other known terrorists. He had terror training camps outside Baghdad and in other areas in Iraq (one of which having a full mock-up of an airliner in order to train hijackers). Hungarian intelligence reported an active Iraqi (not Al Qaeda) terror cell in Budapest.

As for the WMDs, over 500 undeclared chemical weapons have been found. That's not "no WMDs" and it certainly puts Iraq in violation of every UN Resolution and the terms of the 1991 cease-fire.

Were there links to Al Qaeda? Seems impossible that there were not at least arms-length contacts, as they shared a common goal and a common enemy, but even if there were not . . .

The War on Terror ain't just about Al Qaeda and never was. That's why it's not called the War on Al Qaeda.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Whoever wrote this report is an idiot; Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad was a known AQ affiliate before the war.

 

[aps]

Whoever wrote this report is an idiot; Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad was a known AQ affiliate before the war.

OMG, Trajan, you really think you know more than the people who drafted the report? :shock:

 

[26 X World Champs]

Whoever wrote this report is an idiot; Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad was a known AQ affiliate before the war.

Here's a tough chopice for all of us? Believe YOU, TOT, who makes an unsubstantiated statement or the Senate Report which was put together by the CIA AFTER examing papers, documents and interviewing ex-Saddam supporters?

Tough choice....if you were totally deaf, dumb and blind that is....

 

[aps]

As much as Rightists cling to the idea that there were links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Leftists still cling to the idea -- despite everything which was said to the contrary right from the beginning -- that the War on Terror was ONLY about Al Qaeda. It is not, and it never was.

Saddam supported terror. He paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 a pop (pun intended). He gave safe haven to Abu Nidal, al Zarqawi, and a number of other known terrorists. He had terror training camps outside Baghdad and in other areas in Iraq (one of which having a full mock-up of an airliner in order to train hijackers). Hungarian intelligence reported an active Iraqi (not Al Qaeda) terror cell in Budapest.

Who cares what Saddam Hussein was doing? We declared war on the people who CAME INTO OUR COUNTRY AND KILLED MORE THAN 3000 AMERICANS. Bush got on TV that day and said as much, including those countries that harbored these terrorists who CAME INTO OUR COUNTRY AND KILLED MORE THAN 3000 AMERICANS.

When did Saddam threaten us? There was nothing new going on in Iraq at the time we decided to invade the country. Re-read Bush's speech from October 2002, where he talked about how threatened we were by Saddam Hussein. When did he threaten us? al Qaeda had already come into our country and killed Americans. When did Iraq do that? When did Iraq THREATEN to do that?

Here's the link to Bush's speech of October 2002, where he makes attempts to link Saddam Hussein to the September 2001 attacks: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Look at Bush in March 2003:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

Bush, you are a joke and an embarrassement to the Office of the President. Clinton embarrassed us with his sexual escapades, but your errors are so much worse since they have caused our troops to die and lose limbs and have made us look like fools in the eyes of the world. I am embarrassed by you.

As for the WMDs, over 500 undeclared chemical weapons have been found. That's not "no WMDs" and it certainly puts Iraq in violation of every UN Resolution and the terms of the 1991 cease-fire.

Oh brother. Those chemical weapons were no longer capable of causing harm, as they had run their shelf life.

Were there links to Al Qaeda? Seems impossible that there were not at least arms-length contacts, as they shared a common goal and a common enemy, but even if there were not . . .

My gosh--how delusional. The republican-run Congress made the determination that there were no links, but you keep asserting that there is a link. Allright there, Mr. Omniscient.

The War on Terror ain't just about Al Qaeda and never was. That's why it's not called the War on Al Qaeda.

:rofl

 

[aps]

One of the best thigns about this report coming out is that they will be showing the footage showing Cheney saying one thing, but then contradicting himself. Bwahahahhahhahahah :lamo

December 2001:

RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no.

Since that time, a couple of articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: 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.

And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: ``We know that at Salman Pak, in the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eye witnesses--three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors--have said, and now there are aerial photographs to show it, a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers, trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives.''

And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck, and there it is.

RUSSERT: The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers.

Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20011209.html

June 2004:

BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohammad Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.

BORGER: OK.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Never said that.

BORGER: I think that is...

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down..

http://www.thenationaldebate.com/blog/archives/2004/06/gloria_borger_t.html

Cheney, you are such a boob, and I love it!!