Obama: Wrong Again
February 27th, 2008 at 08:49pm Matt Margolis
Earlier today, John McCain said of Obama, “I understand that Sen. Obama said that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq that he would send troops back in militarily. Al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. It’s called al Qaeda in Iraq.” Obama, in response said, “I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.”
While that may have gotten his supporters riled up, the fact of the matter is that Obama’s not telling the truth. All you have to do is do a search in the official 9/11 Commission report to find plenty of references to Iraq and al Qaeda — while there’s nothing that proves any collaboration in attacks, there’s quite a bit that indicates plenty of contacts and various forms of cooperation. Thankfully, QandO already ran through all the references back in 2004 and posted relevent excerpts which you can see here.
Unfortunately, Obama can lie through his teeth and it doesn’t matter. His supporters want to believe him and everything he says so badly they’ll just swallow everything up… Obama sounds more like the popular high school jock running for class president (promising shorter classes, longer lunch periods, and banning homework) than he sounds like a real leader who actually has the knowledge and experience it takes to be the President.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
54 Comments
1. Diane Tomlinson | February 27th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Mr Margolis,
The only link to al Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion of Iraq by Us forces in March 2003 was in Ansar al Islam in the Kurdish north which was outside of the sphere of influence of Saddam Hussein al Tikriti.
Even Mullah Krekar denounced Saddam Hussein in an interview with the BBC’s Pam O’Toole in January of 2003 before the war. Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Kurdistan only because Saddam’s men could not get to him in the PKK held areas. The Turks begged the US to allow them to go in and clean this up and Bush fearing a “wider war” said no. At that point in February 2003 AQI was a rag tag band of 300 Saudis Syrians and Afghans along with a few hundred Sunni Kurds.
So for all intents and purposes Barack Hussein Obama is right about there being no AQI in the portion of Iraq under Saddam Hussein’s control before the March 2003 invasion by American forces. A more logical invasion would have been pouring 200 000 men into Afghanistan and Pakistan or even going into the nation where the bulk of the financing for 9/11 came from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Oh right, America couldn’t do that because the Arab world would have cut off her oil supply and crippled the US economy. Darn. So I guess Iraq was the only option. Who get it when the next attack comes, Albania?
2. Matt Margolis | February 27th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Thank you for proving my point that “Obama can lie through his teeth and it doesn’t matter. His supporters want to believe him and everything he says so badly they’ll just swallow everything up…”
3. Faceplant | February 27th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
“while there’s nothing that proves any collaboration in attacks, there’s quite a bit that indicates plenty of contacts and various forms of cooperation.”
No there isn’t. They had some contacts, but could never come to an agreement. There was NO cooperative relationship, and there was no Al Queda in Iraq, at least not in any meaningful way. Are we in the business of bombing people now simply because they talk to our enemies? When do we bomb the Russians?
Al Queda had no meaningfull presence in Iraq until the United States invaded. That’s a fact.
Whatever. If you guys want to keep living in fantasy land, then that’s fine with me. Luckily the majority of Americans now see right through these fantasies and myths. And they don’t like what they see. If you John McCain to run on Iraq, then by all means! I would LOVE for him to run on Iraq.
4. Aaron | February 27th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
On Obama’s retort of Mr MaCain, from MSNBC:
Zing!
Come on you wingbats, don’t you want to throw in the towel and do the right thing for your country? Just vote Obama in November.
5. NeoClown | February 27th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Matt,
You are witnessing “Affirmative Action in Politics.”
The MSM honsetly believes that Obama can not make it on his own merit, so they are offering him a leg up, a helping hand, a free pass in the media.
To question Obama’s lack of experience is to race bait. To mention the endorsement by Louis Farrakhan is to spread hate. To mention the candidate’s middle name is to fear monger.
Poor opampered Obama will not be ready and he is going to get the shit kicked out of him come November.
6. James | February 27th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
those are some pretty damning quotes from the commision’s report… looks like the trolls are just ignoring them though. could we expect anything less!?!?
7. Faceplant | February 27th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
“To mention the candidate’s middle name is to fear monger.”
Why do Republicans insist on mentioning his middle name every chance they get?
8. Aaron | February 27th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Sorry NeoClown - no Hillary for you this November.
Obama in a landslide. Join it, or get crushed by it.
9. Faceplant | February 27th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
“those are some pretty damning quotes from the commision’s report… looks like the trolls are just ignoring them though. could we expect anything less!?!?”
Show me the damning quotes, that don’ t have to do with two sides talking to eachother. If you can show an actual relationship you might have something. But you can’t, so you don’t.
10. Canuckguy | February 27th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
How do you like your crow Neo, baked or grilled? Decide because you are going to have to eat crow.
11. Darva Conger | February 27th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
We are lucky Obama doesn’t have as much foreign policy experience as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
12. Kahn | February 27th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
1. Diane wrote : “Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Kurdistan… (not a country, by the way this is In Iraq)
2. Faceplant wrote : “They had some contacts…”
So - AQ WAS in Iraq and they were in contact with the Sadaam regime. THANK YOU. I deleted the irrelevant part of your posts.
13. js | February 27th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Why are liberals so stupid?
14. coulterfan | February 27th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
>>You are witnessing “Affirmative Action in Politics.”
That’s quite offensive, pal. . Are you suggesting that Obama is drawing 20,000 people to his rallies, raising money faster than God (from SMALL donors, not lobbyists), and generating all this enthusiaism merely because he’s African-American?!?!? If that’s true, why didn’t Alan Keyes get the nomination some time ago, or Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson?
Isn’t the definition of ‘Affirmative Action’ that, all things being equal, that race/gender/ethnicity can play a part in hiring/admittance standards, etc? Wouldn’t that mean that Obama gets the SAME number of votes, raises the SAME amount of cash, etc but gets the nod because of his race?
The only ‘Affirmative Action’ in recent Presidential elections is the 2000 eleciton of George W Bush! The Electoral College is, in fact, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION because it allows smaller states unequal representation in the election process- it values the DIVERSITY of regions and states over the number of votes candidates actually receive! This is why George W Bush could ‘win’ the 2000 election while receiving 500,000 FEWER VOTES than Al Gore! THis is, in fact, the DEFINITION OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!
Don’t worry, it will be VERY CLEAR who gets the greatest number of votes in 2008! And it WON’T be because of any ‘Affirmative Action’ like that which took place in 2000!
15. Freedom1 | February 27th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
“Unfortunately, Obama can lie through his teeth and it doesn’t matter. His supporters want to believe him and everything he says so badly they’ll just swallow everything up…” - Matt
That’s what worries me. Facts and reality don’t matter to his supporters. This is why I think Obama might win in November and win big.
16. coulterfan | February 27th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
>>“Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Kurdistan… (not a country, by the way this is In Iraq)
You’re being disingenuous here.
Surely you KNOW that Kurdistan was off-limits to Saddam Hussein and was part of the NO-FLY zone which was enforced with targeted bombing campaigns by both GHW Bush and Clinton!
Clearly, Saddam could not do anything about Al Qaeda because he was forbidden from entering Kurdistan! He and Al Qaeda were, in fact, sworn enemies- he had a secular government which they despised (since they didn’t adhere to Islamic law- women could drive, work, attend school, and didn’t have to cover themselves)
Maybe McCain is just confused. The Al Qaeda which attacked us on 9-11 is based in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al Qaeda in Iraq is a regional group which took its name from Al Qaeda AFTER THE INVASION OF IRAQ, but has NOT conducted any attacks outside of Iraq AT ALL!!!
17. southerner | February 27th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Ahem,
from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html
So…. the only reason to believe that there was any connections between Iraq and Bin Laden/Al Qaida were the rantings of a number of Iraqi exiles who were only interested in obtaining greencards for themselves and their families by blabbing a lot of fantasy BS to the credulous (at best) jerks who were steering Bush’s foreign policy in 02/03 (namely Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz and other fine friends of Israel).
Those neocon zionists deserve to be (quite honestly) shot for treason. Their distortions and outright fabrications have lead the US into a disastorous war which has only benefitted one nation - Israel.
18. coulterfan | February 27th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
>>I think Obama might win in November and win big
Finally a Republican around here says something true!
BTW, have you read this WSJ essay by STEPHEN F. HAYES (of the Weekly Standard)?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120398899374792349.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
19. Freedom1 | February 28th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Coulterfan,
Dude, don’t get too excited. I also think we’re fast approaching the time of Revelation from the Bible.
“Obama and the Power of Words” by Stephen F. Hayes
Listen to the “power” of these words from Obama…Video: Barack Hussein Obama-in His Own Words
Disarming America while we are in the midst of a global war. Suicidal and insane.
20. Freedom1 | February 28th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Oh Coulterfan,
Just curious for a socialists opinion on this: Would you like Obama to choose Hillary for VP or would you want him to choose someone else? Again, just curious.
21. congressive | February 28th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Oh dear God, you’re not STILL claiming a Saddam-Osama link are you?
PUHLEEEASE!
22. Almiranta | February 28th, 2008 at 1:48 am
The Lemming Left is absolutely addicted to the simplistic idea that there were separate, discrete, terrorist groups, that there was never any overlapping between or among those groups, that if one belonged to one group he had some kind of identity with that group and could not interact with any other. It flies in the face of reason or fact, but it is necessary to support their BDS and related conspiracy/lie/lie/conspiracy fanaticsm.
Note the hysterical claims that because there was no offical signed and sealed documented formal agreement between one group and another, or betwen Al Queda and Saddam, this is proof somehow that there was no cooperation between Iraqis and other terrorists who wanted to destroy America.
There has been abundant evidence presented over the years of various terrorist leaders moving freely among the nations of the Middle East, training here, picking up recruiits there, being funded by several leaders. Saddam openly funded many terrorist actions.
Further, the identity we now call Al Queda has morphed through several versions since 2000 or so. While a group led by Osama Bin Laden, called Al Queda and based in Afghanistan, put together the attack on New York and Washington in 2001, the organization was fluid and pretty indeterminate. It’s not like an Elks Club, with a specific headquarters and offical officers and meetings with minutes. It was guerilla warfare, for chrissake.
And following 9/11, the euphoria of striking so hard at the Great Satan was a recruiters’ dream, and terrorists from all nations wanted to be part of this wonderful group, Al Queda. How convenient to believe that America-hating radicals in Iraq, cheered by the successes of OSB, still refused to join a group called Al Queda because—well, because. There must have been some reason……
Following the success of 9/11, A-Q was exploding. An evaluation of the complex interaction of various terrorist groups, the awareness of the sharing of personnel and materiel, was part of intel in every nation paying attention. It was hardly a claim that Saddam played an active role in the specific planning of that specific attack—but Iraq was part of the terror network, terrorists moved in and out of Iraq as they did in all of the Middle East, terrorists interacted with each other, trained with each other, planned with each other, assisted each other—and the radical Left claims that if there was not an official Al Queda clubhouse in Iraq then they simply never had anytihng to do with the country or anyone in it.
It’s a beloved myth, necessary to support the other myths of lies and coverups and blood for oil and so on.
23. Freedom1 | February 28th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Almiranta, send your post (February 28th, 2008 at 1:48 am) to John McCain. McCain needs to clearly explain this to ALL of the voting American public. Enough is enough with the false division of the Iraq War and the rest of Islam’s War Against the West. It’s all the same war, just different battlefields.
24. Baxter | February 28th, 2008 at 4:29 am
Wow!! I wish all these super intelligent liberals had that crystal ball when it counted, like before we went to war in Iraq,because yelling about”no ties to Al-qaeda and no WMD’s” after years of democrats saying these allegations themselves really does not mean much now does it.
The AP reported on Feb.13, 1999:
Saddam Hussein offered asylum
“Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to Bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.”
Looks like some major cooperation there reported
by the AP.
How about Clinton’s Defense Secretary Cohen’s testimony to the 9/11 commission 2004:
At the time, the intelligence community at the highest level repeatedly assured us that “it never gets better than this” in terms of confidence in an intelligence conclusion regarding a hard target. There
was a good reason for this confidence, including multiple, reinforcing elements of information ranging form links that the organization that built the facility
had both with Bin Laden and with the leadership of the Iraqi chemical weapons program.”
Clinton’s Defense Secretary said intelligence told him that”IT NEVER GETS BETTER THAN THIS” in regards to the leader of Al-Qaeda and Iraq and their
relationship.
Daniel Benjamin, former NSC staffer quoted:
The report of the 9/11 commission notes that the
National Security staff reviewed the intelligence in April 2000 and concluded that the CIA’s assessment
of it’s intelligence on Bin Laden and Al-Shifa had been
valid:the memo to Clinton on this was cosigned by
Richard Clarke and Mary McCarthy, the NSC senior director for intelligence programs, who opposed the bombing of al-shifa in 1998.
The report also notes that in their testimony before
the commission, Al Gore, Sandy Berger, George Tenet, and Richard Clarke all stood by the decision to bomb al-shifa.
Even after another review,many liberal heroes and the NSC stand by the assessment that
Iraq and Bin Laden worked together on chemical weapons.
Dam$, if only they could have had that liberal crystal ball.
The idea that Saddam had no control over the Kurdish region of Iraq defies reality.This is the place
that Saddam went into at will and killed tens of thousands of people with WMDs,murder,and torture.
Nothing happened in Iraq without Saddam’s consent
or appeasement.If Saddam had wanted to take out
Al-ansar or Zarqawi,he could have.
Saddam could have started by taking out Zarqawi
instead of giving him medical attention for his injured
leg.
Colin Powell’s testimony:
After sustaining a serious injury to his leg during the war in Afghanistan, Al Zarqawi traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment,”staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated
to fight another day.”Al zarqawi didn’t check into just
Baghad medical facility.” The Olympic hospital treated Baghdad’s elite, including many high-ranking regime officials. The hospital’s director was Saddam’s
eldest son, Uday Hussein.
Yea Saddam was looking real hard to kill a Sunni
terrorist that held the same goals of death to the west that his sunni heritage held.
George Tenet,the head of the CIA went even further:
He is a senior Al-Qaeda associate who has met with
Bin Laden, who has received money from Al-Qaeda leadership, and on my list of top 30 individuals that are required to decapitate and denigrate this organization, Mr. Zarqawi’s on that list.”
Feb.12, 2003 testimony to the Senate
We know how much liberals love Patrick Fitzgerald,
lets look at some of his testimony concerning Al-qaeda/Iraq from Mahmud Salim:
“tried to reach a sort of agreement where they wouldn’t work against each other-sort of the enemy of my enemy is my friend-and that there were indications that within Sudan when al-Qaeda was there, which al-Qaeda left in the summer of 96, or the spring of 96, there were efforts to work on jointly acquiring weapons.”
Mahmud/Fitzgerald testimony before the
9/11 commission
CIA executive memorandum on Feb. 21, 2003:
Close al-qaeda associate al-Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS
to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIs officer in Baghdad.”
Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a US occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of secure operatiing bases and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible US invasion.”
Let’s see, the US invaded and behold,Zarqawi sent
his operation in motion to start a civil war,driving Americans out and having sunni/Al-qaeda control over Iraq.
coulterfan,
“Al-qaeda AFTER THE INVASION OF IRAQ,but has
NOT conducted any attacks outside of Iraq at all!!”
Besides the obvious fact that coalition forces have
given Al-Qaeda a humiliating defeat in Iraq, thus keeping them focused on fighting us their,instead of
allowing them to focus on attacks elsewhere.
Zarqawi still was able to set up cells and help with
attacks elsewhere.
The New Yorker:The Master Plan(Lawrence Wright)
“Meanwhile, Zarqawi’s operatives had spread into
Europe, where they forged documents and smuggled illegal aliens into the continent while gathering recruits for Iraq. One of his lieutenants, Amerel-Azizi
is a suspect in the March 11, 2004 train bombings in
Madrid. Like Zarqawi’s organization, the Spanish cell included former prison inmates and operated more like a street gang than like the highly bureaucratic Al-Qaeda.Zarqawi and his men were putting into action the vision that Abu Musab al-Suri had laid out for them:small, spontaneous groups carrying out individual acts of terror in Europe, and an open struggle for territory in Iraq.
Let’s not forget that Zarqawi is not the first Al-qaeda member who found safe haven in Iraq:
“Us intelligence officals have confirmed that abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, was being harbored in Iraq. Documents recently found in Tikrit indicate that Saddam provided Yasin with monthly payments and a home. According to federal authorities, the Ramzi Yousef-led terror cell that carried out the 1993 bombing received funding from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of the 2001 attack.”
Opinion Journal, Mar. 13, 2005
Besides, if Al-qaeda did not have any connections to
Iraq, Why did Bill Clinton,Hillary Clinton,Harry Reid,John Kerry, John Edwards,Richard Clarke,Albright, Sandy Berger, the CIA and many of
the worlds leading intelligence agencies say they did
before Bush was President and on until the time that
we went to war with Iraq????
For a group of people who see conspiracies everywhere whether it is Bush stealing the 2000-2004 election,Bush lied about pre-war intel(saying the same things democrats and most of the worlds intelligence agencies said before he was president and before they voted to go to war),Bush did 9/11 and all the other super intelligent claims by
the left, the fact that they can’t see that Saddam supported terrorism including al-qaeda with the overwhelming evidence that has been presented through the years is just laughable.
Obama wants to debate 2003 because he does not
have an answer beyond surrender for the challenges
of the War on Terror in 2008 and beyond.
Running from Al-Qaeda in Iraq where they have
already set up cells that have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people and then saying “we will come back if they set up base’s ” is just beyond
stupid.
Obama puts out a video saying he is going to cut pretty much every major military program we have than talking about invading Pakistan(a nuclear powered country with over a 20 million man army in some of the roughest unmapped terrain in the world)
with our “Broken” army just adds to his ignorance of
the threats we face and how to defeat them.
You liberals have declared surrender in Iraq,you say
we can’t win their,so just how the he!! do you think you can take Pakistan.
25. bongoman | February 28th, 2008 at 4:33 am
Islam’s war against the West?
It’s overstated.
One of the largest-ever opinion polls conducted in the Islamic world found that only seven percent of Muslims condoned the Sep 11, 2001, attacks on the US, and that none of them gave religious justification for their beliefs, according to the figures released Tuesday.
Let’s not get too carried away with all this “Clash of Civilisations” fear-mongering.
Oh, and let’s not forget that Osama’s intention was to draw the USA into an unwinnable war in the Middle East. We played right into his hands.
26. bongoman | February 28th, 2008 at 4:34 am
Here’s the link for the opinion poll.
27. NeoClown | February 28th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Coulterfan,
I am suggesting that Obama is getting a free pass from the media because he’s black.
The reason so many people are voting for him is because the media has done nothing but paint him in a positive light.
And it ain’t over till it’s over. If Hillary wins Ohio, and holds her own in Texas, and wins Pennsylvania, she will win the nomination.
BO has won nothing but a bunch of fly-over red states that McCain will win in November.
And if BO wins the nomination he will loose in November.
28. Magnum Serpentine | February 28th, 2008 at 5:08 am
Its amazing how many people fall for the story that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the United States invaded.
Al Qaeda entered Iraq because the United States was there.
End of story.
29. coulterfan | February 28th, 2008 at 7:53 am
>>I am suggesting that Obama is getting a free pass from the media because he’s black.
>>The reason so many people are voting for him is because the media has done nothing but paint him in a positive light.
Like Bush received all the favorable press in 2000 against Gore (where the press meme was ‘Gore is a serial liar who claims to have invented the internet’)? The press was positively FAWNING over Bush in 2000 (Chris Matthews had a man-crush on him like he now does with Obama)! Why? Because of affirmative action? NO, of course not. . .
The press wants to SELL SELL SELL. Right now, Obama is HUGE, he is resonating with folks of all political persuasions. Putting him on the front page of papers and web pages SELLS- so he’s even always on the front page of FOX!
You’ll remember that Guiliani and Clinton got their free publicity for a while (and Chris Matthew’s doting affection). THen Fred Thompson was the darling of the press. The press is fickle, they want to go with a WINNER and Obama is capturing people’s attention in the same way REAGAN did in 1980!
Calling it ‘affirmative action’ because Obama is the ONLY candidate resonating with people shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s really going on. . . Not to mention that it’s got undertones of racism! Remember, Bush won in 2000 even though he received FEWER VOTES- this is because the ONLY ‘Affirmative Action’ in our Electoral System is the Electoral College!
>>BO has won nothing but a bunch of fly-over red states that McCain will win in November.
HAHAHA!!! Do you realize that Obama has not lost a single night in terms of number of delegates awarded? Do you THINK that NY, CA, MA, NJ, etc are going to NOT vote for Obama???
In fact, hasn’t Huckabee won the ‘Red states’??? Are you as worried about McCain winning only ‘Blue States’ as you are about Obama? Furthermore, you may want to consider what high Democratic turnout is going to do in November (with Obama on the ticket) even if he doesn’t win these ‘Red states’- especially with all the GOP retirements!
30. eric | February 28th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Only 7%. Wow. That is real comforting considering there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. I guess it is okay if 84 million Muslims condone 9/11.
31. coulterfan | February 28th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Freedom1-
>>Just curious for a socialists opinion on this: Would you like Obama to choose Hillary for VP or would you want him to choose someone else? Again, just curious.
Well, I don’t know what a socialist would say, but I’ll give you my opinion as a proud Democrat. . .
Obama should pick Sen. Webb as VP. Webb, you may recall, was Reagan’s Sec of Navy until Reagan wanted to drastically CUT the size of the Navy (a plan which Webb objected to, he wanted to INCREASE the size of the Navy). Webb is strong on military credentials, would help carry VA in the GE, and is a southern moderate. Otherwise, Wesley CLark would be a good choice, or Bill Richardson.
Choosing Clinton would not be wise, since it would undermine the message of change and squander the goodwill the Independents and Republicans feel towards Obama since Clinton is so divisive. It’s only a ‘dream ticket’ in that it would NEVER happen! It would be like McCain choosing JEB BUSH as his running mate!
Just curious, what would a fascist’s opinion be on who McCain should choose as VP? Or, if you also dislike the stupid hyperbole, what would a Republican opinion be? I think Pawlenty from MN would be a WISE choice. . . but you’ll still lose!
32. Baxter | February 28th, 2008 at 8:35 am
magnum,
“it’s amazing how many people fall for the story that
al-qaeda was in Iraq before the United States invaded.”
Zarqawi was one of the most ruthless leaders in Al-Qaeda’s history,he was in Iraq before we invaded,this is a proven fact.
Rahman Ysin worked with Al-qaeda to bomb the Trade center in 1993.He was given safe haven by
Saddam Hussein’s leadership. This is a proven fact.
End of story.
33. eric | February 28th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Diane says “The only link to al Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion of Iraq by Us forces in March 2003 was in Ansar al Islam in the Kurdish north which was outside of the sphere of influence of Saddam Hussein al Tikriti.”
Maybe, she forgot about Abdul Rahman Yasin. Abdul Rahman Yasin was heavily involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Yasin is an Iraqi (grew up in Baghdad) and Yasin is a member of al-Qaeda. After the first attack on the World Trade Center, Yasin returned to Baghdad and lived there freely with a government salary.
That is a pretty clear link between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government prior to the invasion in 2003. And, it is not the only one.
34. Michael | February 28th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
but but but it wasn’t “meaningful” and it was “overstated.” Pure eloquence blows away facts every time. Just ask Barry O.
35. congressive | February 28th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
BOTTOM LINE, PEOPLE:
A 2006 Republican-majority Senate report concluded in part: “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.”
The same report also concluded: “Postwar findings have identified only one meeting between representatives of al-Qa’ida and Saddam Hussein’s regime reported in prewar intelligence assessments. Postwar findings have identified two occasions, not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa’ida operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al’Qa’ida and Iraq.
Stop repeating the lies. It doesn’t make them true.
36. Southerner | February 28th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
It’s interesting to note that none of the quotes in any of the posts above claiming a link between Al Qaida and Saddam’s administration give ANY sources for their claims. This isn’t surprising since they are all factually incorrect or such complete distortions as to be utterly misleading.
I’m not going to correct all the errors but believe me none of these claims are going to be given any credibility without something called SOURCES people. To point out just one error though, Eric above claims:
This is a complete and wilfull distortion. No evidence has ever been presented that Rahman Yasin received any support from the Iraqi government prior to the bombing or that there was any connection of any type, between him and the Iraqi government prior to the bombing. He happened to come from Iraq and lived there until 1992, after the WTC bombing he attempted to return to Iraq and was jailed by the Iraqi authorities. The Iraqis offered to turn him over to the US but used him as a bargaining chip while doing so in an attempt to get the US to revoke its sanctions against Iraq. You rembember the sanctions against Iraq? The ones which the World Health Organization claims were responsible for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children? Another of our fine foreign policy moments, but that’s a different story.
Anyway, you can read about the above here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Yasin
or simply by googling Abdul Rahman Yasin.
But of course, the radical right are not going to pay any attention to facts or history. For them the mere fact that a small handful of Al Qaida operatives (out of the thousands in the organization) even happened to pass through Iraq at various times is enough reason to claim some sort of ‘link’ between Saddam and Al Qaida. Hey, on that note, since Al Qaida operatives were living and plotting their strikes in various American cities before 9/11, does that mean that George W Bush or Bill Clinton had ‘links’ with Al Qaida?
The simple fact is that Saddam’s regime was secular and was hated by Bin Laden/Al Qaida. They were philosphicaly and politically oposed to each other and claiming that there was some sort of ‘link’ has been proven time and time again and quite conclusively by analysts in our own defence departments to be completely untrue.
But hey, when reality doesn’t match up with your partisan support of George W Bush’s bungled invasion of Iraq it’s time to ignore reality, right guys?
37. Southerner | February 28th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes:
“We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.
SOURCE: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/25/60minutes/main2728375_page4.shtml
38. Southerner | February 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
When discussing the belief on the part of the Bush administration and its supporters that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida, Dr. Robert S. Leiken of the Nixon Center has stated:
SOURCE:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=30B099F2-0C06-4BC0-AD25-6258BD40E184
39. eric | February 28th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Southerner,
Did you read the entire article you posted? Because I found these useful nuggets from Deroy Murdock:
“In my article, I cite both The 9/11 Commission Report and the Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report. As The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol observed, both studies concluded that Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda were, in fact, in communication. However, both documents deny a formal, Hussein-bin Laden treaty-type alliance.
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (Conclusion 95, page 347): “The Central Intelligence Agency’s assessment on safe haven — that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control — was reasonable.”
The 9/11 Commission Report (page 61): “With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.” However, “the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.”
The 9/11 Commission Report (page 66): “In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, [Ayman al] Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.”"
Also, from your Wikipedia cite:
“In Baghdad, Iraq, Yasin lived freely for at least a year. Pointing to Saddam Hussein regime’s involvement in World Trade Center bombing was evidence it gave money and housing to Yasin. The Iraqi government later claimed he was arrested and put in prison.”
Where is the “willful distortion”? You pointed to two references that support my position. Not a very good way to debate. The only willfullness I see is your willfullness to utterly ignore the facts.
40. eric | February 28th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Southerner,
If you want to show your support for the terrorists, maybe you should get yourself one of these:
http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/?p=8885
41. Southerner | February 28th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Again Eric, I’m curious to know why you think George Tenet’s quote below is incorrect. Do you know more about Al Qaida and Iraq than he did when he made the below statement last year? You mush be one heck of a well informed son of a gun if that’s the case. Or perhaps you are just a partisan clown who doesn’t give a damn about getting to the truth of this issue, is that a possiblity also?
SOURCE:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/25/60minutes/main2728375_page4.shtml
42. eric | February 28th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
“partisan clown”
Nice.
You are trying to speak in absolutes, but the statement from Tenet is not an absolute. “We could never verify …” Just because something cannot be verified does not render it nonexistent. Can you provide facts for certain that no connection existed? Or (and wrap your little brain around this) is there a possibility that a connection existed? It sure would seem that some connection did exist.
Why do you ignore the other facts provided by my posts and your references? Maybe, you are just a southern dumbass?
I do not need to waste my time arguing with a condescending prick who will not listen to reason or argue the facts.
43. Baxter | February 28th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Southerner,
Every statement I posted is backed up with where and when it was said and is easily available to people who want the facts on Saddam and his support for terrorism.
Your quote from Tenet on 60 minutes does not in any
way refute the fact that Al-qaeda was in Iraq before
the 2003 invasion.It merely goes to the questions of
whether they worked together on 9/11.
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS NEVER CLAIMED
THAT SADDAM WAS PART OF 9/11.
George tenet testifying before the Senate 2002.
“Sir, let me just take a few minutes because you raised a number of important points. Let me put this
poisons and gas thing in some context because aren’t-there are 116 people in jail in France, in Spain
Italy, and in the Great Britian who received training and guidence out of a network run by an individual
(Zarqawi) who is sitting in Baghdad today and supported by two dozen of his associates. Now that is something for the American people to understand.
Iraq has provided a safe haven in a permissive environment for these people to operate. And the other things that are very compelling to us are just
so I can close the loop on this issue is-we also know from very reliable information that there’s been some transfers, training in chemical and biologicals from the Iraqis to Al-Qaeda. So we’re already in this
mix in a way that’s very,very important for us to worry about how far it goes.”
Tenet is very clear in his belief that Saddam had
connections to and allowed Al-qaeda to operate in
his country.
For someone who is so worried about sourcing,
Wikipedia is not even accepted in most colleges and
high schools as a reliable source of information considering the “editing” that goes on.
Yasin was not found in any prison when we invaded.He has not been found period.Saddam usually killed most of the people that crossed him,this does not dispute the fact that he harbored an Al-qaeda operative that was involved in an attack
on the United States before we invaded in 2003.
The information from the intelligence officials on Yasin includes documents that showed he received payments and was furnished housing.
There was another liberal hero that also believed and stated that Saddam and Al-qaeda were linked.
According to 9/11 commission co-chairman Thomas
Kean, Clinton believed with “absolute certainty” that
Iraq provided Al-qaeda with weapons fo mass destruction expertise and technology in the 1990s. He believed it as President when he ordered the destruction of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, and he believes it now. And it’s not just Mr. Clinton. According to Mr. Kean, “top officials -Bill
Clinton, Sandy Berger and others told us with absolute certainty that there were chemical weapons
of mass destruction at that factory and that’s why we sent missiles.”
More on this in the 2003 Senate report on terrorism
chaired by Democrats and Republicans.
” Iraq continues to be a safe haven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the US, Israel, and other allies. Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism. During the last four decades, it has altered its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It continues to harbor and sustain a number of smaller anti-Israel terrorist groups and to actively encourage violence against Israel. Regarding the Iraq-Al-Qaeda relationship, reporting from sources of varying credibility points to a number of contacts, incidents of training, and discussions of Iraqi safehaven for Osama bin Laden and his organization dating from the early 1990’s.
How about Thomas Pickering
Undersecretary of state under Clinton
August 24, 1998:
Yeah, I would like to consult my notes just to make
sure that what I have to say is stated clearly and
correctly. We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, Al-shifa officials, early in the company’s history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associates with Iraq’s VX program.”
You liberals can spin and try to re-write history all
you want, but there is reams of evidence of democrats, our intelligence agencies,and the worlds
intelligence agencies that stated that there was a connection between Saddam and Al-qaeda and that
Al-qaeda was operating in Iraq before we went in.
Here’s a bottom line for you:
Here is what the majority of Democrats and Republicans believed when they voted for War:
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of
American Citizens.
It does not get anymore bottom line than voting
to send our men and women to war.
Democrats stated for years the dangers of Saddam
and voted to send our Soldiers to war to eradicate this threat,all the spin from the heard of liberal sheep will never change that.
The least they could do is support it until the job
is done.But all we get from liberals is cut and paste
crap to push for the surrender of America to the Jihad.
44. southerner | February 28th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
No i cannot prove ’something does not exist’ Eric. Perhaps you’ve heard the tired truisim that it’s impossible to prove a negative? Can you prove, absolutely PROVE there are no purple spotted unicorns in Africa? There is no way to do this by evidence, however the fact that they have never been seen there makes most rational people believe they do not exist.
The same is true for the COMPLETE lack of evidence which anyone has presented for a lack of WMD in Iraq, or a link between Saddam’s regime and Al Qaida. I have presented you with ample evidence above that Al Qaida and Hussein were enemies of each other and were not in any way connected. You have failed to provide any positive evidence whatsoever of such a connection and in fact the Septemer 11th Commission has found no such evedence, nor has the Iraq Study Group, nor has the republican led Senate Sub Committee on Iraq’s supposed links to Al Qaida, nor did the joint FBI-INS-police PENTBOM investigation (the one which interviewed 175,000 people over two years in an attempt to find out EXACTLY who was behind September 11th). None of these organizations or investigations founds ANY MEANINGFUL LINK WHATSOEVER, however you believe one exists. Do you know something the FBI, Police, CIA, Congress and the Bush administration don’t? Because none of the above are on your side, clown.
45. southerner | February 28th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
And Baxter, thank you for your comment. I’m glad to see you admit that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaida in terms of September 11th, you are mearly intested in the fact that a tiny number of Al Qaida operative are known to have briefly spent time in Iraq at one time or another? Wow, that’s amazing. So the fact the Al Qaida operative lived, worked and plotted inside the borders of the United States for years before September 11th must therefore prove that there was some sort of ‘link’ between the Clinton and Bush administrations and Al Qaida. That’s your logic. Moronically half-assed logic, but there it is.
Also, post the SOURCES for your quotes. Why can’t you do that? Is it because you just copied them from some VERY out of date rightwing blog that has been completely discredited? That wouldn’t be the case would it Baxter? So just go ahea and post the SOURCES, everyone will have a lot more respect for you then.
Also, if you read your post, it’s filled with VERY weak stuff. Clinton was SAID to have BELIEVED that Iraw had WMD back in the mid 90s? That’s it? That’s your case? Hearsay based on what Bill Clinton supposedly believed over a decade ago? Wow, that’s good stuff. I can understand why you are readly to completely discount the findings of the Iraq Study Group, as well as the republican led Senate Sub Committee on Iraq’s supposed links to Al Qaida, as well as the joint FBI-INS-police PENTBOM investigation (the one which interviewed 175,000 people over two years in an attempt to find out EXACTLY who was behind September 11th).
How’s the weather in that reality-distortion field you surround yourself with Baxter?
46. southerner | February 28th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
From the INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE PHASE II REPORT
[Congressional Record: September 8, 2006 (Senate)]
[Page S9243-S9246]
SOURCE:http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s090806.html
So, can we just leave it at that? I know that the Bush-to-the-end fanatics cannot bear the idea that their sweetheart president got something as serious as this COMPLETELY WRONG, but all that awkward evidence shows, again and again, that he did.
47. southerner | February 28th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Not true. The quote is below and clearly shows that Tenet found that the Iraqi regime did not have ANY operational connection with Al Qaeda whatsoever. Read the quote again, jackass:
SOURCE: George Tennet speaking on 60 Minutes, quote here -
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/25/60minutes/main2728375_page4.shtml
48. TiredofLibBullShit | February 29th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Read your quote again jackass:
“We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.”
Your quote explicitly implies that the IRAQI REGIME had no connection to 9/11 or any operational actagainst America. It does not say that Al Qaeda was never in Iraq before the invasion of 2003. He also could not verify, that is not absolute proof of anything.
You forget the liberal talking point of the time that Al Qaeda was in Iraq but they were in northern Iraq because Saddam had no control of the area. Therefore there was no link between the two.
Proof is that Al Zarqawi was in northern Iraq after fleeing form Afghanistan. That has been proven. He operated in that region and Saddam was powerless to do anything about it. Zarqawi had planned a huge attack on Jordon while he was in Iraq. Luckily his Al Qaeda operatives were intercepted before they could execute their plan.
You keep posting the same quote and trying to extract a meaning that isn’t there. Too much evidence is out there to prove your boy wrong no matter how much you try to spin it.
49. southerner | February 29th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
No you’re the Jackass TireofLibetc, you didn’t see the last seven words in Tenet’s quote - ‘or any operatonal act against America, period.’? That not easy enough for you to understand? The issue is not whether people who may or may not be Al Qaeda members were in any country at any particular time (how could it be, since they have lived in the US, the UK, Germany, France, etc, etc.). The issue is whether there was any link whatsoever between them and the regime in Iraq. There was none, whatsoever. Put that in your pipe and smoke it dimwit.
For the fifth time, the Iraq Study Group did find ANY evidence of ANY link between Saddam and Al Qaida, in fact it found that they were strategic and tactical enemies. The same result was found by two republican led Senate Committee on Iraq’s supposed links to Al Qaida, as well as the joint FBI-INS-police PENTBOM investigation (the one which interviewed 175,000 people over two years in an attempt to find out EXACTLY who was behind September 11th).
This point has been setttled by every branch of the US government, even Bush himself has backed away from it. The only person in his administration who still hums and haws about it (in other words, does his best to obstruct the reality of the issue) is Dick Cheney. And that’s only because Cheney’s early pronouncements about the supposed linkd in 2002 and 2003 have been proven to be so spectacularly wrong!
50. Ray Robison | February 29th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
My book shows pretty conclusively that Saddam was working with al Qaeda. We have translated documents captured in Iraq and Afghanistan amd done a link analysis that clearly shows Saddam was using al Qaeda to attack Americans.
Both In One Trench: Saddam’s Secret Terror Documents
www.bothinontrench.com
51. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 29th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
southernmoron…..
You cannot discount half the quote:
“We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.”
“IRAQI AUTHORITY (SADDAM), DIRECTION OR CONTROL….” this is important - for acts against the US on 9/11 or other act. Iraq did not authorize, direct or control Al Qaeda.
Newsflash USEFUL IDIOT: The topic is not about Iraqi involvement on 9/11 but the fact that Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the invasion - which Obama got wrong. Liberals were bitching about Iraq was not involved on 9/11 even though Al Qaeda was established in Iraq after members fled Afghanistan.
The Iraqi government did not have to be in control or directing or give authority for Al Qaeda to be in country. Period. You can’t parse the words any way you want (what is the definition of “is”). But Al Qaeda was in Iraq and Saddam could do nothing about it. Facts prove it. There was no relationship for 9/11 - I can accept that, but Al Qaeda was in Iraq.
So take your Obama talking points and go to Moveon.org, democratic underground or the daily KOS and mingle with your fellow USEFUL IDIOTS and have an Obama love/fainting fest.
52. Baxter | February 29th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
southerner,
“So the fact that an Al-qaeda operative lived, worked and plotted inside the boarders of the United States for years before September 11th must prove that there was some sort of link between the clinton and Bush administration and al-qaeda.”
No, but it would prove that al-qaeda was in the United States which is the point you dumba$$
Obama said their was no al-qaeda in Iraq before we
went in,he does not know what he is talking about
and obviously neither do you.
The 9/11 commission and other studies only state that they can not verify any operational links between Saddam and Al-qaeda.This does not mean
that al-qaeda and other terrorist groups did not find
safe haven and work to launch attacks from Iraq.
You said yourself that Saddam had no control over
the kurdish region.If he has no control,how would
be be able to keep Zarqawi from launching attacks(which he did confirmed by the CIA that I posted above)genius.
Every post that I have made is backed up with who
said it and when it was said or which group assessment it came from.Maybe you could get your mother to help with verifying such hard to find information from such obsolete studies as the 9/11
commission and 2003 senate intelligence report.
“also if you read your stuff, it’s filled with very weak
stuff.”
I quoted the head of the CIA you moron,the same person you quoted,except your quote has nothing to
do with whether al-qaeda was in Iraq or not.It concerns whether Al-qaeda and Saddam had anything to do with working together on 9/11 and
operational ties concerning attacks on America.
Bush,nor anybody on this thread has stated that Saddam and Al-qaeda worked together on 9/11
dumba$$.
Your quote in no way disproves that al-qaeda was
in Iraq before we invaded.The fact that he was in the
North and free from Saddam’s reach does not help your argument.The threat is from Zarqawi being able to set up a base and launch attacks,which intelligence showed that he did.The threat is from al-qaeda being able to reach into Iraq like they have done in Somilia,Afghanistan,Sudan and many other
places idiot.
If you consider sources such as Tenet,the 9/11 commission,the 2003 senate intelligence report,CIA,Senators,undersecretary of state under
Clinton Thomas Pickering,Secretary of Defense under
Clinton Cohen ,and the Resolution to go
to war that stated Al-qaeda was in Iraq, as “weak”,
then you have just blown all the credibility of your own posts out the window you left wing idiot.
By the way, a study in 2005 does in no way discount
the fact that up until the war,Democrats,
Republicans,the CIA,and basically the worlds intelligence did state that al-qaeda was working with
Iraq.
As shown in the 9/11 commission report,defense secretary Cohen still stands by his assessment that
al-qaeda and Iraq worked together on the Al-shifa
plant.Bill Clinton committed an act of war by bombing this place based on this intelligence and it
was confirmed by the 9/11 commission.
let me simplify this for you southerner:
Iraq’s chemical weapons leadership +Bin Laden +
Sudan + Al-Shifa plant + VX gas(wmds)
= a direct relationship between Iraq and Al-qaeda
in making WMD’s.
If you can’t wrap your scrawny IQ around this than
take it up with the 9/11 commission and President
Clinton.
53. Baxter | February 29th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Southerner
“Saddam viewed Islamic extremist as a threat to his
regime.”
That does not mean he was not willing to work with them if they had the same goals.
Third public hearing of the National Commission on terrorist attacks upon the United States.
Statement of Judith S. Yaphe to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States . July 9,2003
Iraq under Saddam supported international terrorist organizations to bolster Iraq’s revolutionary
credentials, ensure his own role as Great Arab Leader, and intimidate rival governments:
“In examining the history, methods, and patterns
of behavior of Saddam Hussein in supporting international terrorism, some “truths” stand out. Beginning in the early 1970s, Saddam provided safe haven, training, arms, and other forms of assistance to Palestinian and Arab extremists. Baghdad hosted
the Abu Nidal Organization(ANO),the popular Front for the Liberation of palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Hawari faction of the PLO. in addition,Baghdad created the Arab Liberation Front as its personal surrogate in the wars against Israel. Although the ALF conducted no terrorist operations, Saddam used it in the 1970’s and resurrected it again in the current Palestinian intifada as a means to recruit Palestinians and, in 2001, to win praise for offering $25,000 to the family of each palestinian “martyred” in an Israeli attack.
Some examples of Iraqi support include:
Abu Abbas: Palestinian terrorist Mahmud Abbas, known as Abu Abbas, and his organization,the Palestine Liberation Front(PLF), enjoyed safe haven
and support in Saddam’s Iraq. Abu Abbas was responsible for the Oct. 1985 hijacking of the Italian
Cruse ship Achille Lauro.In Oct. of 2000,following the outbreak of Israeli-Palestinian fighting, Abu Abbas announced from Baghdad that the PLF would resume
attacks on Israel.
Abu Nidal:While enjoying safe haven in Iraq, the Ano conducted a number of terrorist attacks on Jewish and Israel targets in the 1970’s and 1980’s, including murders at synagogues and attacks on El A1 airline passengers in Turkey, Austria, Belgium, and Itlay, and the hijacking of a Pan Am airliner(Pan Am 73) in Karachi, in which 22 people(2 americans) were murdered.ANO also attacked PLO representatives in Europe, murdered Jordanian diplomats, and attempted to assassinate Israel’s ambassador in London.
quoted from the AP’s Sameer n. Yacoub august 21,2002:
the Beirut office of the Abu Nidal Organization(ANO)
said he entered Iraq”with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.” “Nidal’s attacks in 20 countries killed at least 275 people and wounded some 625 others.
Dam# southerner,looks like a lot of terrorist operations coming out of the kite flying wonderland
you seem to think Saddam was running.But I am sure there are no verified links between Saddam
and these terrorist,but that did not stop them from
using Iraq as a launching pad for international terrorism just like Zarqawi did now does it moron.
Still more from the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States:
Saddam and Usama could not possibly have worked together because of the differences in religious sect
or the secular versus religious nature of their beliefs:
They could have. Terrorist groups and state sponsors have cooperated tactically even though they have sectarian or doctrinal differences. After the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Iran’s Islamist extremists sought to export their revolution by legitimate and illegitimate means. They tried to appeal to sunni extremist factions, for example offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, while
encouraging Hizballah groups among the shias of Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the smaller Arab states of the Persian Gulf.Iran’s clerical extremists based their appeal on similarities and ignored differences in
faith and practices. In this sense, Sunni extremists and Shia militants both shared a vision of living in an
Islamic state under shariah;they would have removed their illegitimate and unrepentant Muslim rulers and the foreigners- read the US-who kept them in power. In a similar vein, Saddam was willing
to back Sunni extremists against his rival for Arab and Ba’thist leadership-Hafiz al -Asad.
The terrorist have the same goals,destroy the
west and implement Shariah law.Different groups
have come together for this all over the Muslim world.If this is to difficult for you to understand
southerner, than I am sure your mother could explain it to you before she puts you to bed.
54. Baxter | March 1st, 2008 at 1:37 am
southerner,
“Clinton was SAID to have believed that Saddam had WmD back in the mid 90s? thats it?Thats your case?”
Let’s hold the liberals hand and take him back to
the history he is so intent on rewriting.
“In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now-a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened
tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with
impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton
address to joint chiefs of staff and Pentagon
staff, Feb. 17, 1998
“Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states,terrorist, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them.Saddam Hussein has spent the better
part of this decade and much of his nation’s wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.”
President Clinton
State of the Union address
Jan. 27, 1998
You keeping up with this southerner,is your mommy going to be able to help you look up
and verify the freaking state of the union address
in 1998 or are you going to make another “Bush-to-the -end-fanatics” rant.
“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the secruity of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government - a government ready to live in peace with it’s neighbors, a government that respects the rights of it’s people.”
President Clinton
Oval office Address to the American
People Dec. 16, 1998
“Every nation has to either be with us, or against us.
Those who harbor terrorists,or who finance them,are
going to pay a price.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton
During an interview on CBS Evening
News with Dan Rather
Sept. 13, 2001
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid,comfort,and sanctuary to terrorists, including
Al-Qaeda members….”
Sen. Hillary Clinton
addressing the US Senate
Oct. 10, 2002
UN ambassador Bill Richardson appeared on Cnn
August 29,1998 and pointed to direct evidence of
ties between Osama Bin Laden,Sudan,and Iraq:
” You combine that with Sudan support for terrorism,their connections with Iraq on VX, and you
combine that also,with the chemical precursor issue
and Sudan’s leadership support for Osama Bin Laden, and you’ve got a pretty clear picture.”
“To not have acted against this facility (Al-Shifa)would have been the height of irresponsibility” he argued. The Clinton Administration had “information linking Bin Laden to
the Sudanese regime and to the al-Shifa plant.”
Sandy Berger
Washington Times
Oct. 16, 1998 op-ed
Richard Clarke stated in the Washington Post
on January 23, 1999 that the US government was
“sure” Iraq was behind the VX precursor produced
at the factory.
“Clarke said US intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al-shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking Bin Laden to al Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the
National Islamic Front in Sudan.”
John Gannon, former chairman of the National intelligence council and deputy director of the CIA,
stated on OCt. 27, 2004 in the opinion journal:
“The consistent stream of intelligence at that time said it wasn’t just al Shifa, “Mr. Gannon recalls.
“There were three different structures in the Sudan. There was the hiring of Iraqis. There was no question that the Iraqis were there.”
Micheal Scheuer, who ran the CiA’s bin laden unit
from 1996 to 1999, wrote in his 2002 book “through our Enemies Eyes,”that “We know for certain…
that Iraq and Sudan have been cooperating with bin
laden on CBRN(chemical,biological, radiological, and nuclear)weapons acquisition and development.”
9/11 commission report page 61:
To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly
brokered an agreement that Bin Laden would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremist operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan)outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late
1990’s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they reformed into an organization called Ansar
al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al
Islam against the common Kurdish Enemy.
Southerner,
so Saddam and Ansar al Isalm that is backed by
Osama and had ties to Zarqawi worked together against the Kurds,but there is noooo waaaay that
they would work together against the West.
You are a true Dumba$$.
I think your hero John Kerry summed up the decision to go to war with Iraq quite well.
“Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.
No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer-and Iraq is better off- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars.”
Sen. John Kerry
Speech at Drake University in Iowa
Dec. 16, 2003