We must leave Iraq

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
The U.N. is a hate Israel bully pulpit the anti-semetic rhetoric displayed in that forum parrallels that of Nazi Germany so GFYS.

You have every right to have your own opinion.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Article 51 of the UN Charter

1. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,
2. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Ya un hunh and where do you extrapolate the following out of that:

It only gives two reasons a country can launch a military attack on another sovereign nation.

1. If we are attacked first with a significant force
2. If we receive UNSC authorization

That in now way says that the only time we can act militarily is when we are are attacked first or that we have to recieve permission from the UNSC to preemptively strike at an impending threat it is saying that if we do act militarily that we have to report it to the UNSC (which we did) and that the UNSC reserves the right to take actions to restore security and peace but seeing as we are members of the UNSC and hold veto power that's never going to happen and even if we weren't members of the UNSC do you really think that the UN would determine that ousting the tyrant Saddam is worthy of a military response to attack the U.S.?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You have every right to have your own opinion.

That's not an opinion that's a fact.

 

[Volker]

Ya know, for a *** ***, that's a pretty right-on statement that I agree with absolutely 100%. I don't agree with the rest of your ideology, but I would definately love to goose-step in this direction.

I gave up hope you ever will :mrgreen:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
That's not an opinion that's a fact.

A "fact" is an agreement between two people. We certainly do not have that! And besides, you couldn't spell "f-a-c-t" if I spotted you the "f" and the "a".

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Ya un hunh and where do you extrapolate the following out of that:

From the land of "people with balls" and "free thinking adults".

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
That in now way...

Is that near Poway?

Originally posted by TOT:
says that the only time we can act militarily is when we are are attacked first or that we have to recieve permission from the UNSC to preemptively strike at an impending threat it is saying that if we do act militarily that we have to report it to the UNSC (which we did) and that the UNSC reserves the right to take actions to restore security and peace...

You see, that's not hard to understand. Obey the law!

Originally posted by TOT:
...but seeing as we are members of the UNSC and hold veto power that's never going to happen...

Not sure what your saying here. Are you inferring that we would veto our own invasion?

Originally posted by TOT:
...and even if we weren't members of the UNSC do you really think that the UN would determine that ousting the tyrant Saddam is worthy of a military response to attack the U.S.?

This absolutely makes no sense. But it is around the time in your wanna-be arguement where all the wind goes out of your sails and the illusion of a valid premise becomes all to obvious and that you have a few more years of seasoning before you understand that these little sidebars from reality are a joke!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Is that near Poway?

In "no way" Billo in "no way."

You see, that's not hard to understand. Obey the law!

Aher. :roll:

Not sure what your saying here. Are you inferring that we would veto our own invasion?

Artilce 51 says that if we attack another nation we have to report it to the UNSC and the UNSC can decide to attack said nation but we are on the UNSC and hold permanent veto power. Savvy?
'

This absolutely makes no sense. But it is around the time in your wanna-be arguement where all the wind goes out of your sails and the illusion of a valid premise becomes all to obvious and that you have a few more years of seasoning before you understand that these little sidebars from reality are a joke!

No that would be you you're stating that the U.N. Charter 51 prohibits nations from acting militarily unless they are attacked first (we were attacked by the way) and that we have to ask the U.N. to act in our own self defense, Article 51 doesn't say that at all you are lying or you are illitarate pick one. Article 51 says to things that a nation can act in its own self defense and that it has to report it to the U.N..

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
No that would be you you're stating that the U.N. Charter 51 prohibits nations from acting militarily unless they are attacked first (we were attacked by the way) and that we have to ask the U.N. to act in our own self defense, Article 51 doesn't say that at all you are lying or you are illitarate pick one. Article 51 says to things that a nation can act in its own self defense and that it has to report it to the U.N..

Why do you lie? We were not attacked by Iraq. No Iraqi army attacked us on our own soil. Article 51 clearly states every nation has a right to defend itself against armed aggression. We cannot launch a pre-emptive strike without UNSC authorization. So, if we can't get that (which we didn't), we needed to be attacked (which we weren't).

Thought you were educated.

And stop lying to yourself.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Why do you lie?

Saddam was aiding and abetting terrorists including AQ.

We cannot launch a pre-emptive strike without UNSC authorization.

No it doesn't.

 

[oldreliable67]

Since its adoption in 1945, Article 51 has been ignored by so many countries on so many occassions that it has become virtually useless - almost like the Security Council itself. Time and events have passed Article 51 by. To use Article 51 as the criteria for proclaiming our invasion of Iraq as illegal invites the same condemnation for many other countries and many other occasions - which is not to say that the Iraq invasion should not be done examined in this context by both proponents and opponents, but only to say that Article 51 has long outlived its circa-1945 usefullness and appropriateness and should be interpreted in today's circumstances, not those of 1945.

To use Article 51, literally, as a pretext for either justifying Iraq or declaring the invasion illegal is to ignore the precedents of international law since 1945, which are legion. While a study of such would make a good subject for debate, especially among jurists, such seems quite beyond the scope of most of us here at DP (not in terms of ability to handle or comprehend the material or topic, but in that the material is so hugely voluminous). I recall posting my findings of a bunch of rudimentary research about this same subject in a dialogue with Billo quite a while back, so I know for sure that an in-depth debate on the topic is way beyond me!

But for those who want to take a stab at seeing how Article 51 has been and continues to interpreted today, a good starting point is Jus ad Bellum. This analysis concludes that with respect to the recognition as legal, or the legitimacy of non-humanitarian armed interventions:

As in the case of anticipatory self-defense, any such recognition should be subjected to stringent limiting conditions, among them demonstrated and immediate need, Security Council unwillingness to address the matter, exhaustion of non-forcible remedies...

In other words, international law precedents suggests that the doctrine of pre-emption is not entirely ruled out, as it would be under a literal reading of Article 51. Whether or not the US invasion of Iraq conforms to these precedents in international law, though, is still debated and unsettled.

 

[arussian]

LMFAO that is the proposed three state solution and the U.S. has made it clear that it rejects that plan because it would only cause further tensions and battles over natural resources.

Rather interesting, when it was said and by whom? The second question what is the price for such statements?

you said that we were supporting sectarian violence in that post. WTF do you come up with this sh!t

I've said that sectarian violence is in accordance with, as you call it, "Three states plan". It is obvious and cannot be denied. Prove that this paln is not on the agenda (perhaps unofficially) at least it is discussed.

You also cannot deny that US is responsible for sectarian violence. It is because there was nothing of this kind during Saddam's rule, neither was something like this during first year of occupation, nothing during the second. Only at the third year of American presence on that soil such terrorist acts as blowing up of the muslim shrines took place! As you perhaps know two Brits being dressed as the Arabs were seized by local police while planting the bomb near a temple. Then Brits attacked the police office with a tank and released them.

Even if it was not American army and/or special servicemen who planted the bombs into the shrines (who can prove now that they were or that they were not) there is plenty of information that Americans are backing the Shia extremists violence against Sunni Arabs. Here is the latest:
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/108990

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Rather interesting, when it was said and by whom? The second question what is the price for such statements?

What do you mean? The proposal has been considered but both parties reject it as unworkable.

I've said that sectarian violence is in accordance with, as you call it, "Three states plan". It is obvious and cannot be denied. Prove that this paln is not on the agenda (perhaps unofficially) at least it is discussed.

That's not the way it works you made the claim that this was part of the U.S. agenda to create sectarian violence in the region it is up to you to back it, the burden of evidence is on you. Furthermore; I have already said that it was a propasal but it was not intended to flame sectarian violence but rather end it through a three state solution, however, it is in all probability unworkable unless the Kurds, Shia, and Sunni's can come to an agreement about how to equally distribute the natural resources and oil.

You also cannot deny that US is responsible for sectarian violence. It is because there was nothing of this kind during Saddam's rule,

That is a complete lie, under Saddam the Sunni's slaughtered both the Shia and the Kurds in mass ever hear of the al-Anfal campaign?

neither was something like this during first year of occupation, nothing during the second. Only at the third year of American presence on that soil such terrorist acts as blowing up of the muslim shrines took place!

That is because the foreign insurgents came in with the plan to spark sectarian violence to create chaos that is their strategy, it was AQ in Iraq that caused the sectarian violence they killed both Sunni and Shia in an attempt to play one side off the other and create anarchy.

As you perhaps know two Brits being dressed as the Arabs were seized by local police while planting the bomb near a temple.

Then the Brits attacked the police office with a tank and released them.

According to whom? Prove this with a reliable and verifiable source, it sounds like bullshit Islamo-Fascist propaganda to me.

Even if it was not American army and/or special servicemen who planted the bombs into the shrines (who can prove now that they were or that they were not) there is plenty of information that Americans are backing the Shia extremists violence against Sunni Arabs. Here is the latest:
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/108990

This is bullshit Islamist propaganda, the Coalition is trying to quell the sectarian violence, why in the hell would we want to add to it? That doesn't make any damn sense the sectarian violence is our greatest obstacle to victory in Iraq. It is the foreign Jihadists who sparked the sectarian violence in order to create anarchy for the Coalition troops. Furthermore; your link doesn't work and even if it did it is a .ru URL and I don't trust the tyrant Putin's state ran media apparatus the Glasnost media reforms are dead now in Putin's Russia.

 

[arussian]

What do you mean? The proposal has been considered but both parties reject it as unworkable

I mean a link to some additional information on the topic. How can I know which plan is currently officially on the agenda?
Shall I trust your honest word?

ever hear of the al-Anfal campaign?

yeh, there was some shame with lacking of evidences on the trial against Saddam. As far as I've heard he was not sentenced for this case.
You think the ground was sectarion, not the political?

it was AQ in Iraq that caused the sectarian violence they killed both Sunni and Shia in an attempt to play one side off the other and create anarchy

What is "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" as not the brand owned by CIA? I'll propose you some considerations on this topic if you'll demand.

According to whom? Prove this with a reliable and verifiable source, it sounds like bullshit Islamo-Fascist propaganda to me

.

If I'll post a link to a certain source you'll say it is "Islamist propaganda". Apparently, you can accept only Neocon propaganda (kind of addiction, yeh?) so i won't bother searching now, perhaps later.

the Coalition is trying to quell the sectarian violence, why in the hell would we want to add to it?

To protect your occupation forces from greater destruction! As a scholar of Ancient History or something like this (as it follows from your Latin text below each of your messages) you should know great "Divide et impera!" motto.
It is absolutely obvious and clear as a sunlight!

it is a .ru URL and I don't trust the tyrant Putin's state ran media apparatus

Relax, it is only domain. Russian state has nothing to do with the content.
Most of the collaborators to the site are from all over the world and about a half of them from US and UK. Nevertheless, I've heard that when US officials began complain to their Russian colleagues on this site the latter answered: "It is freedom of speech, what can we do?!" :mrgreen:

 

[1069]

We have to leave Iraq. That is our only choice. We shouldn't be there in the first place. We attacked illegally. And have contributed to the destruction of that country with possible over 600,000 people losing their lives. The longer we stay, the more terrorism will flourish, the more we will lose our humanity, the more danger (in terms of the United States security) the world will be, and the less we will be as a nation that we thought we once were.

We have to bring home all US troops from all country's in the world and stop this madness of US aggression. This is causing terrorism. It is not the only cause, but it is part of the problem. We have a leader of this country that in some respects is just like Hitler, just like Saddam Hussein, just like Stalin, with the only difference being a better military than the other three.

I agree 100%.

But what is much worse than Bush, are the citizens that put him in office. The stupid, ignorant, wanna-be American citizens that threw their vote into the garbage because they believe in the dumbs.hit wisdom of O'Reilly, or Hannity, or Limbaugh. Why? Many reasons. With the biggest probably being their just mentally lazy and it was convenient to adopt someone else's point of view without doing the analytical work ourselves.

Here I feel you judge your fellow citizens too harshly.
They were just scared. They traded freedom for the illusion of security.
The GOP propaganda machine is adept at manipulating public perception.
Not everybody is intellectually savvy enough to see through these political machinations. They got fooled. That's no crime.
At least the majority realizes their error now, and supports efforts to rectify the situation.
Rebuking them for their gullibility is divisive, and right now we need to unite for the common purpose of fixing this mess.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I mean a link to some additional information on the topic. How can I know which plan is currently officially on the agenda?
Shall I trust your honest word?

You made the assertion that sectarian violence was a part of the U.S. agenda you back it up, the burden of proof is on you. Regardless the 3 state solution is not intended to spark sectarian violence it is intended to end it, but the only way that it is workable is if the Iraqi's come to an agreement on how to distribute the oil resources equally which is why not many are considering it a viable option not to mention that the Iraqi's have formed a coalition government making the three state solution unnecessary.

yeh, there was some shame with lacking of evidences on the trial against Saddam. As far as I've heard he was not sentenced for this case.
You think the ground was sectarion, not the political?

No he's scheduled to be tried for it, but it looks like he might hang before that happens, he'll be tried post-mordem to give closure to the Kurds, as for your assertion that there is a lack of evidence that is a crock:

During the Anfal campaign, the Iraqi government:

• destroyed about 4,000 villages in Iraqi Kurdistan [6]
• executed approximately 182,000 men, women, and children [7]
• destroyed 1,754 schools, 270 hospitals, 2,450 mosques, 27 churches. [8]
• wiped out around 90% of Kurdish villages in targeted areas.[9]

What is "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" as not the brand owned by CIA? I'll propose you some considerations on this topic if you'll demand.

WTF are you talking about? AQ is not and has never been a CIA asset. Where do you come up with this stuff, stay off the conspiracy websites man.

If I'll post a link to a certain source you'll say it is "Islamist propaganda". Apparently, you can accept only Neocon propaganda (kind of addiction, yeh?) so i won't bother searching now, perhaps later.

So I guess that means that you can't provide a credible and verifiable source but rather your source is an islamist website. First rule of research son don't believe an internet source unless you can verify it, anyone can write anything on the internet all it takes is a computer and a phone line.

To protect your occupation forces from greater destruction! As a scholar of Ancient History or something like this (as it follows from your Latin text below each of your messages) you should know great "Divide et impera!" motto.
It is absolutely obvious and clear as a sunlight!

Actually that's the strategy of the foreign jihadists, I don't know if you weren't paying attention but we conquered Iraq in less than a week, it took like 3 days to capture Baghdad, the sectarian violence is what we are trying to end, it is the insurgency that has sparked the sectarian violence by pitting both sides off against one another in an attempt to create anarchy. The U.S.'s goal right now is to ferment a stabile Democratic Iraqi government so that we can withdraw the bulk of our forces so why in the fuc/k would we commit acts to hinder our own goals. Frankly sir your assertions don't make any damn sense.

Relax, it is only domain. Russian state has nothing to do with the content.
Most of the collaborators to the site are from all over the world and about a half of them from US and UK. Nevertheless, I've heard that when US officials began complain to their Russian colleagues on this site the latter answered: "It is freedom of speech, what can we do?!" :mrgreen:

OK I checked that link but it was talking about the militia violence, we do not support the militias and we are pressuring the Iraqi government to sever their and the security forces ties with them.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Saddam was aiding and abetting terrorists including AQ.

Just another f.uckin' lie!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
No it doesn't.

No what doesn't? Can you be a little more coherant?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Since its adoption in 1945, Article 51 has been ignored by so many countries on so many occassions that it has become virtually useless - almost like the Security Council itself. Time and events have passed Article 51 by. To use Article 51 as the criteria for proclaiming our invasion of Iraq as illegal invites the same condemnation for many other countries and many other occasions - which is not to say that the Iraq invasion should not be done examined in this context by both proponents and opponents, but only to say that Article 51 has long outlived its circa-1945 usefullness and appropriateness and should be interpreted in today's circumstances, not those of 1945.

To use Article 51, literally, as a pretext for either justifying Iraq or declaring the invasion illegal is to ignore the precedents of international law since 1945, which are legion. While a study of such would make a good subject for debate, especially among jurists, such seems quite beyond the scope of most of us here at DP (not in terms of ability to handle or comprehend the material or topic, but in that the material is so hugely voluminous). I recall posting my findings of a bunch of rudimentary research about this same subject in a dialogue with Billo quite a while back, so I know for sure that an in-depth debate on the topic is way beyond me!

But for those who want to take a stab at seeing how Article 51 has been and continues to interpreted today, a good starting point is Jus ad Bellum. This analysis concludes that with respect to the recognition as legal, or the legitimacy of non-humanitarian armed interventions:

Quote:
As in the case of anticipatory self-defense, any such recognition should be subjected to stringent limiting conditions, among them demonstrated and immediate need, Security Council unwillingness to address the matter, exhaustion of non-forcible remedies...

In other words, international law precedents suggests that the doctrine of pre-emption is not entirely ruled out, as it would be under a literal reading of Article 51. Whether or not the US invasion of Iraq conforms to these precedents in international law, though, is still debated and unsettled.

You're a breath of fresh air. We might disagree or have opposite points of view, but you have shown (and demonstrated) that at the very least, your intentions are:

• honest
• sincere
• educated
• intelligent
• rational
• ethical
• moral

and deserves respect. It's too bad that can't rub off on f.uckhead!

With that being said, and since you already know my position of Article 51, your link also provided these qualifiers...A recent edition of a leading treatise states that self-defense may justify use of force under the following conditions:

• an attack is immediately threatened - We didn't have that.
• there is an urgent necessity for defensive action - Well, that wasn't true.
• there is no practicable alternative - Alternative to what? Nothing was going on.
• particularly when another state or authority that legally could stop or prevent the infringement does not or cannot do so - Stop what? What infringement?
• and the use of force is limited to what is needed to prevent the infringement - Since there was no infringement, no need for a use of force.

So, whether you subscribe to the literal meaning, or the one above, our actions were, are and is illegal, with no justification for armed aggression against a country of goat-herders. Attacking Iraq is the most cowardly act this country has ever done!

Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th ed., 412.

I kept this part of your link in case f.uckhead gets any ideas.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Just another f.uckin' lie!

basement time

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by CurrentAffairs:
basement time

Doesn't matter where it's said, when it's said or who says it. A f.uckin' lie, is a f.uckin' lie! Most commonly said by a f.uckin' liar!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Just another f.uckin' lie!

Oh really?

Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show

By ELI LAKE
Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 24, 2006

CAIRO, Egypt - A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerrey, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." Mr. Kerrey said he believed America's understanding of the deposed tyrant's relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed.

Last night ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden.

The question of future cooperation is left an open question. According to the ABC News translation, the captured document says, "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." ABC notes in their report that terrorists, believed to be Al Qaeda, attacked the Saudi National Guard headquarters on November 13, 1995.

The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission's final conclusion in 2004, that there were no "operational" ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents.
While the commission detailed some contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990s, in Sudan and Afghanistan, the newly declassified Iraqi documents provide more detail than the commission disclosed in its final conclusions. For example, the fact that Saddam broadcast the ser mons of al-Ouda at bin Laden's request was previously unknown, as was a conversation about possible collaboration on attacks against Saudi Arabia.
http://www.nysun.com/article/29746?page_no=1

Saddam's Terror Training Camps
What the documents captured from the former Iraqi regime reveal--and why they should all be made public.
by Stephen F. Hayes
01/16/2006, Volume 011, Issue 17
THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.
The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000.

Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

Case Closed
From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
by Stephen F. Hayes
11/24/2003, Volume 009, Issue 11

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

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

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

No what doesn't? Can you be a little more coherant?

Article 51 of the UN charter does not say that we can not act preemptively without UNSC permission, it only says that we need to report it and we did hence final resolution 1441.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Excellent evidence, ToT. And yet, even with this proof staring them in the face, liberals will deny it and call it a lie. Amazing. No doubt, there love of Bush hate is much greater than their love of country.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Training in weapons of mass destruction?? How does that work, since Iraq didn't even have any?