GOP lawmaker: Saddam linked to 9/11

[Kilmer17]

I think there is a way, I just dont think anyone of us has the stomach for it.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

I think there is a way, I just dont think anyone of us has the stomach for it.

Yeah, you could nuke the Middle East and wait a 1000 years and start over...:laugh: :laugh:

[KevinthePRF]

Originally posted by codeorama

I don't believe there will ever be peace in the middle east, just my opinion, but I just don't see it happening.

Or that there is a finite number of terrorists in this open military war on terror.

Was there a finite number of drug dealers to remove in the war on drugs? A finite number of poor to help in the war on poverty?

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by codeorama

Yeah, you could nuke the Middle East and wait a 1000 years and start over...:laugh: :laugh:

Not that extreme Code.

But wars only end when their is a clear victor and clear loser.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by KevinthePRF

Or that there is a finite number of terrorists in this open military war on terror.

Was there a finite number of drug dealers to remove in the war on drugs? A finite number of poor to help in the war on poverty?

Exactly. There is no set way to win, you can't just kill them all because 2 more take their place.

The more you kill, the more terrorists you create.

[Funkyalligator]

What needs to be addressed are the underlying economic and political problems that exist? many middle easterns dislike the US because of our high and mighty stance about civil rights and freedoms and then we go and support such autocratic regimes as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.....the Bush administration is on the right path by making diplomatic noises about improved human rights in those countries and free elections but we still don't do enough...especially with regards to Egypt and Saudi Arabia.....that is why the masses in the middle east have sympathy for the islamic extremists because of the hypocracy that the US demonstraits in dealing with these countries while at the same time talking about how we support freedom and human rights.....

[codeorama]

Kind of hypocritical to be talking about human rights (not you Funky) when we just ignore China.

Again, Russia has "probably" aided terrorists, China has no human rights what so ever... why are'nt we at war with them?

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by codeorama

Kind of hypocritical to be talking about human rights (not you Funky) when we just ignore China.

Again, Russia has "probably" aided terrorists, China has no human rights what so ever... why are'nt we at war with them?

The answer my friend can be found in this great quote.

You only think I guessed wrong - that's what's so funny. I switched glasses when your back was turned. Ha-ha, you fool. You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian, when *death* is on the line.". Hahahahahah.

[Kilmer17]

_Princess Bride.

Dammit, wrong thread.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

_Princess Bride.

Dammit, wrong thread.

:laugh: :laugh:

[airborneskins]

Originally posted by Brown 43

Code, in due time.

I'm sure Iraq has some U.S. weapons also?

PLENTY!!!

[@DCGoldPants]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

World War III

By Dan Froomkin

Special to washingtonpost.com

Wednesday, June 29, 2005; 1:20 PM

President Bush last night offered no new evidence to dissuade the growing majorities of Americans who believe that the United States is bogged down in Iraq, that the war was a mistake in the first place, and that he has no clear plan to bring troops home.

His prime-time speech did, however, contain a bold rhetorical shift. The president who took his country to war in Iraq on account of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, then recast the invasion as a pro-democracy move, is now arguing that Iraq is ground zero for World War III, the battle against terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001.

And having failed to capture or kill the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, the president who has been notoriously averse to even mentioning his name out loud last night actually quoted Osama bin Laden in support of the speech's central argument.

"Hear the words of Osama bin Laden," Bush said: " 'This Third World War is raging' in Iraq."

Aside from Bush's repeated invocation of Sept. 11, there was no looking back in his speech, and certainly no admission of error. No acknowledgement that his fixation on Iraq may have let bin Laden get away, or that his own acts created the conditions in Iraq in which terrorists and their supporters are flourishing.

There was also no talk of the unfound weapons of mass destruction, or of the growing credibility gap fueled in part by the Downing Street memos, which suggest that Bush misled the public about Iraq in the run-up to a war that he craved.

And in spite of all the clamoring, there was no exit strategy. Although press secretary Scott McClellan had promised that Bush would "talk in a very specific way about the way forward," the only forward-looking talk was incredibly vague.

"We're building up Iraqi security forces as quickly as possible," Bush said. "We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed, and not a day longer."

Bush was greeted with stony, untelegenic silence by the troops the White House had gathered at Ft. Bragg to serve as his audience. There was only one outburst of applause, apparently provoked by a member of Bush's own advance team.

Here's the text of the speech. Here are overviews from Peter Baker and Dana Milbank of The Washington Post, David E. Sanger of the New York Times, and Paul Richter and Edwin Chen of the Los Angeles Times.

Live Online

I'm Live Online today at 1 p.m. ET, eager to respond to your reactions to and questions about the speech.

The 9/11 Allusions

Dan Balz writes in a Washington Post news analysis that Bush's "clearest message was to argue anew that Iraq is the critical battle in a war against terrorists that began with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He made repeated references to those attacks to underscore that U.S. security depends on defeating the insurgency in Iraq. 'After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people,' he said. 'This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy.' He then added, 'Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war.' "Sept. 11 remains Bush's most reliable argument with the public when he faces political headwinds; it gave him the highest-rated moments of his presidency and helped sustain him through a difficult reelection campaign. Surprisingly, given how effectively he has used the collective emotion of that day in the past, Sept. 11 has been largely missing in the administration's discussions of Iraq this year."

Craig Gordon writes in Newsday: "In the past, when sagging polls have put President George W. Bush in trouble, he has invoked the event that shaped his presidency to confront critics and rally public support, the Sept. 11 attacks.

"He did it again last night, wrapping the Iraq war in the mantle of 9/11 to reject calls for an exit timetable and appeal for patience from an increasingly skeptical public. Never forget 'the lessons of September the 11th,' Bush warned, or risk handing victory in Iraq to the likes of Osama bin Laden.

"It was Bush's most direct and high-profile link between Iraq and Sept. 11 since winning re-election - and as usual, he failed to mention that the Sept. 11 commission found no credible evidence linking the former Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein and the 2001 terror attacks."

Rick Klein writes in the Boston Globe: "For members of Congress who have clamored for President Bush to lay out a concrete plan for success in Iraq, his address to the nation was a disappointment that came under quick and harsh criticism -- particularly for its repeated, overt references to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"Democrats accused Bush of using slogans to obscure a series of failures in the war."

Susan Milligan writes in the Boston Globe: "Dan Bartlett, a chief aide to Bush, acknowledged that there was no connection between Hussein and September 11, but said the comparison was fair because they were both part of a threat from terrorists nurtured in the Middle East.

" 'You can't delink the two, because foreign policy had to change after our nation was attacked,' Bartlett said. 'Sixty years of tolerance and excuse-making by Western nations had to change, and it is changing.' "

Terrorist Haven? Since When?

Ronald Brownstein writes in the Los Angeles Times: "President Bush on Tuesday retooled his original argument for the Iraq war, justifying the U.S. military presence there as the solution to a problem that critics say the war itself caused.

"More than two years ago, Bush argued that Saddam Hussein's control over Iraq could make the nation a haven for terrorists. But in his nationally televised speech, Bush asserted that the tumult that has followed Hussein's removal created the same threat."

Brownstein writes that "mostly Bush defended the war as a means of preventing another terrorist attack on the United States. The most striking argument Bush offered for his policy in Iraq was that the Mideast nation could become a sanctuary for terrorists if U.S. forces withdrew. . . .

"That argument drew instant scorn from some Democrats, who argued that Bush was defending the continued military operations on the basis of a threat that did not exist before the invasion."

Peter S. Canellos writes in the Boston Globe: "In a bold redefinition of a war that began primarily as an attempt to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, President Bush yesterday said Iraq is where the United States will make its stand against terrorists from around the world who flowed into the country after the fall of Saddam Hussein. . . .

"There was no discussion, however, of how those fighters slipped through borders that US forces failed to secure, or any other flaws in postwar planning."

And, Cannellos writes: "It is a compelling argument, but like so much about Iraq, it may be less simple than Bush is making it. Most military specialists count the numbers of foreign fighters in the hundreds or low thousands; a larger part of the insurgency is powered by thousands of Iraqi fighters, mostly Sunni nationalists in the volatile Al Anbar Province. Their aim is not to pursue terrorism against the United States. It is to achieve a Sunni-led Iraq or, failing that, a separate Sunni nation."

Christopher Cooper and John D. McKinnon write in the Wall Street Journal: "Among Americans, however, there has been a debate over whether the Iraq war represents a blow against terrorism or a distraction from it."

Familiar Lines

Richard W. Stevenson writes in the New York Times: "It was, in essence, a repeat of a speech he delivered 13 months ago, when he assured the nation during an appearance at the Army War College that while the job of achieving stability in Iraq would be hard, he had a plan - and the United States had the will - to see it through. . . .

"The questions now are how many more times over how many years he might have to deliver the same message of patience and resolve - and whether the American public, confronted with a mounting death toll, an open-ended military commitment, lack of support from allies and a growing price tag, will accept it."

Not Must-See TV

TV critic Tom Shales writes in The Washington Post that "since the military men and women were technically at attention, noted anchor Brian Williams of NBC News, they didn't even applaud when Bush walked onstage to deliver the address.

"The sole supportive interruption followed a sequence in which Bush built to the line, 'We will stay in the fight until the fight is won.' NBC's Kelly O'Donnell, reporting from Fort Bragg, told Williams afterward that the applause appeared to have been 'triggered by members of the president's advance team' and that once they began clapping, the soldiers joined in. . . .

"This was not a major speech by Bush, nor was it particularly well delivered until the end, when he seemed to be straining to hold back his emotions as he spoke of the U.S. troops fighting and dying in Iraq."

But, Shales notes: "Having made the decision to carry the speech, NBC and CBS could hardly then come on the air and say it wasn't important. So, whatever they thought, anchors and reporters treated the speech as a news event."

Paul Brownfield writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Five years into his presidency, Bush still conveys the sense that a speech is something he is trying to get through rather than deliver. Tuesday night, with the networks' attention once again undivided, his poll numbers down and the war in need of his public relations help, he still wasn't must-see TV."

Echoes of LBJ

Marc Sandalow writes in the San Francisco Chronicle that the speech could widen Bush's credibility gap, and he finds some "striking rhetorical similarities" with a speech President Lyndon Johnson delivered in 1968, after the Tet offensive.

Fact Check

Glenn Kessler and Robin Wright writes in The Washington Post: "In his speech last night, President Bush ignored some uncomfortable facts about the U.S. enterprise in Iraq and overstated the extent of overseas support."

Insta Reactions

Bill Schneider and Aaron Brown discussed a Gallup insta-poll in the wake of the speech last night on CNN. Some 46 percent of those polled had a very positive reaction to the speech -- but as Schneider noted, the poll tilted heavily towards Republicans. Schneider explained the fascinating reasons why:

"Now, this not a random sample of the American public. People who watched the president's speech were more likely to be Republicans. . . .

"And here's something interesting . . . a thousand people told us -- told the Gallup poll that they intended to watch the speech. But when we contacted them after the speech, only a third of them actually watched. There are a lot of other things people do on a summer evening."

Kirk Johnson writes in the New York Times: "Hearing the president declare that 'we have a clear path forward,' a sampling of people across the country who . . . have been part of the mission in Iraq, expressed wide support for the troops, but some concern about the mission's execution and its conclusion."

Tim Whitmire writes in the Associated Press: "For those Americans with the greatest stake in the outcome of the war in Iraq -- the people fighting it -- President Bush's call Tuesday to stay the course brought mostly sober nods of agreement."

Editorial Roundup

The Washington Post : "Mr. Bush didn't explain how a war meant to remove a tyrant believed to wield weapons of mass destruction turned into a fight against Muslim militants, a transformation caused in part by his administration's many errors since Saddam Hussein's defeat more than two years ago. . . .

"The president's evasion of the hardest facts about Iraq is coupled with a reluctance to candidly describe the likely price of success -- though Mr. Bush did make an appeal last night for military service."

The New York Times : "We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks. We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal - beyond repeating the same wishful scenario that he has been describing since the invasion.

"Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking."

The Los Angeles Times : "President Bush's pep talk to the nation Tuesday night was a major disappointment. He again rewrote history by lumping together the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the need for war in Iraq, when, in fact, Saddam Hussein's Iraq had no connection to Al Qaeda. Bush spoke of 'difficult and dangerous' work in Iraq that produces 'images of violence and bloodshed,' but he glossed over the reality of how bad the situation is. He offered no benchmarks to measure the war's progress, falling back on exhortations to 'complete the mission' with a goal of withdrawing troops 'as soon as possible.' " The Chicago Tribune : "Bush needed to explain that the mission in Iraq has great long-term value for this country and that his administration has a strategy to succeed there. The president argued both lines of thought. But he wisely avoided the self-imposed treachery of timetables, he mouthed no empty promise about when peace would be at hand. . . .

"[Abu Musab] Zarqawi and the other architects of attacks in Iraq have done a superb job of filling our television screens with images of violence and death. Their successes have stripped the war effort here of some support.

"Tuesday night, in response, Bush tried to help his countrymen see that orchestrated violence as an effort to intimidate them."

USA Today : "Bush's half-hour speech outlined a sound, steadfast approach to dealing with the mess that Iraq has become. But whether it can stem erosion in support for the war remains to be seen. There was no acknowledgement of the misjudgments that many Americans now see plainly, but Bush seems unable or unwilling to recognize."

Baltimore Sun : "Mr. Bush addressed the nation last night in an attempt to rally support for his policy on Iraq, and instead it became disturbingly clear that the events of the past two years have barely made an impression on him.

"He was right about one thing: that an abrupt U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be a humiliating disaster. But nothing he said last night should lead anyone to suspect that he has a better idea."

Hawking a Web Site

Jeff Zeleny writes in the Chicago Tribune: "Bush asked Americans to log on to AmericaSupportsYou.mil , a Department of Defense Web site, and register support for the troops. . . .

"The technology resembles the Bush campaign's Internet site from last year's presidential race. Like the Bush 2004 site, the pages are chock-full of good news and smiling pictures. And dissenting views on the war are not allowed."

As of 11 a.m. ET today, the site boasted 73,216 messages received -- but only 25,913 were viewable by the public .

And indeed, none of the messages I saw expressed any reservation about the war effort whatsoever.

Searching for the word shame, for instance, you find things like: "The media definitely doesn't tell of all the good they are doing. What a shame."

Searching for the word rotten, you get: "Don't let the rotten news from home get you down . . . it's only the dirty press looking for headlines."

And searching for the word quagmire, you get nothing.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Bufford

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/index.html

I'm curious what info he's got that makes it clear. That's pretty bold.

If he's got it, we should all see it. I think it would help with public support.

unless it is information they are using for his trial which would not be allowed out in the open?? who knows

[Baculus]

Kilmer, it is incredibly easy to see how Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the administration has tried to draw a connection between Saddam, 9-11, and Al Queda. They would often use all three phrases repeatedly in the same speech - why do you think so many Americans, at one time that is, thought there was a connection? Heck, there are folks on this board that still believe there is a connection. (And part of the reason is for administration members such as Cheney who HAS tried to draw a connection between Saddam, 9-11, and Al Queda, when he mentioned about Mohammad Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence.)

The problem, for the Bush administration, that people are starting to believe fewer and fewer things that they state. They are losing credibility, and fast.

Code, if we minded our own buisness the world would be ruled by communists. Every nations should be kissing our behinds!

Yeah, just like how, if Vietnam fell, the rest of SE Asia would become Communists. Right. Ironically, these days, we could care less about the Vietnamese communist government since they are starting to open their doors to american manufacturers and business.

Also, while Saddam is a thug, he is not the same as Al Queda. He is a secularist and self-serving. Heck, even Bin Laden declared Saddam to be a infidel because of his secular viewpoints and supression of the militant islamic groups in his nation. Like all dictators, he wanted absolute control.

By the way, it's odd that we talk about Saddam-Al Queda-Bin Laden relationships, when we, the U.S., probably have stronger ties in the past then anyone. Saddam was an agent of the CIA since the late 50's, and Bin Laden even toured the U.S. under the name of Tim Osman. I've posted about this before, with links, and a quick google will verify my assertions. If we want to go after the folks that helped Saddam and Bin Laden, we better start with the CIA, the Bush's and their close ties with the Bin Laden family, and the military-industrial complex that thought that these two were useful puppets.

With all of the issues that have propped up with the Bush administration, there is very little that I believe when they speak. I just do not feel they are honest, and there are millions of people that feel the same way. Incidentally, Rep. John Conyers recently delivered, to the White House, a demand from House members, and 560,000 signatures from U.S. citizens (including my own), demanding an answer for the Downing Street Memo and its revelations.

[aREDSKIN]

Originally posted by Hooper

Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places. You just have to watch Fox News damnit!"

Or perhaps if one was actually reading some print media in the 90's here are some additional sinpets:

Bin Laden and Iraq FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | July 14, 2003 | Anonymous

Bin Laden and Iraq By Anonymous FrontPageMagazine.com | July 14, 2003

I decided to look back to 1999 to see what links there may have been between Saddam and OBL. I found hundreds of articles. Here are condensed summaries of some of the more relevant ones.ÝÝI wonder why no one is talking about these articles and links today.

- - - - -

The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), December 28, 1999.

Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West Exclusive. By: Ian Bruce, Geopolitics Editor.

THE world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq if his worldwide terrorist network succeeds in carrying out a campaign of high-profile attacks on the WestÝ ...

Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying.

"We might be looking at the most wanted man on the FBI's target list gaining access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons courtesy of Iraq's clandestine research programmes."

The U.S. intelligence community has been squeezing bin Laden's finances steadily for several years. His personal fortune of anything up to £500m has been whittled down to single figures ...

- - - - -

U.S. Newswire, December 23, 1999.

Terrorism Expert Reveals Why Osama bin Laden has Declared War On America; Available for Comment in Light of Predicted Attacks.

... (author Yossef) Bodansky also reveals the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and how the U.S. bombing of Iraq is "strengthening the hands of militant Islamists eager to translate their rage into violence and terrorism."Ý ....

- - - - -

The Observer. December 19, 1999.

Sanctions reviewed in West as Saddam wields sword of Islam

The Iraqi dictator has rejected a UN deal to lift sanctions. The Western blockade, far from toppling the regime, has bolstered it. He's ditched the sunglasses and taken up the Koran to harness the fervour ofÝ fundamentalists.

By: Jason Burke, in Baghdad

... This time last year the U.S. claimed that another delegation had met Osama bin Laden, the alleged terrorist mastermind and tried to woo him to Iraq.

Senior officials claim that the Islamisation programme is an attempt to defuse the threat of Islamic militancy rather than encourage it ...

- - - - -

United Press International. November 3, 1999, Wednesday, BC cycle.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government has tried to prevent accused terror suspect Osama bin Laden from fleeing Afghanistan to either Iraq or Chechnya, Michael Sheehan, head of counter-terrorism at the State Department, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee ...

- - - - -

Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio). October 31, 1999. Sunday 1 STAR EDITION.

BIN LADEN SPOTTED AFTER OFFER TO LEAVE By: From Beacon Journal wire services

DATELINE: JALALABAD, AFGHANISTAN:

... The Taliban has since made it known through official channels that the likely destination is Iraq.

A Clinton administration official said bin Laden's request "falls far short" of the UN resolution that the Taliban deliver him for trial....

- - - - -

The Kansas City Star. March 2, 1999, Tuesday.

International terrorism, a conflict without boundaries

By Rich Hood

... He (bin Laden)Ýhas a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States and any country friendly to the United States....

- - - - -

Los Angeles Times. February 23, 1999, Tuesday, Home Edition. SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; Letters Desk. HEADLINE: OSAMA BIN LADEN

Where is Osama bin Laden (Feb. 14)? That should be the U.S.'s main priority. If as rumored he and Saddam Hussein are joining forces, it could pose a threat making Hitler and Mussolini seem like a sideshow....

- - - - -

National Public Radio (NPR) MORNING EDITION (10:00 AM on ET) February 18, 1999.

THOUGH AFGHANISTAN HAS PROVIDED OSAMA BIN LADEN WITH SANCTUARY, IT IS UNCLEAR WHERE HE IS NOW. ANCHORS: BOB EDWARDS REPORTERS: MIKE SHUSTER

... There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi(ph), sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq.

Mr. VINCENT CANNISTRARO (Former Chief of CIA Counterterrorism Operations): Farouk Hijazi, who was the Iraqi ambassador in Turkey ... known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama's entourage let it be known that the meeting had taken place.

SHUSTER: Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. There is a wide gap between bin Laden's fundamentalism and Saddam Hussein's secular dictatorship. But some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony....

- - - - -

Agence France Presse. February 17, 1999.

Saddam plans to use bin Laden against Kuwait, Saudi: opposition

Iraq's President Saddam Hussein plans to use alleged terrorist Osama bin Laden's network to carry out his threats against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, an Iraqi opposition figure charged on Wednesday. "If the ... Jaber, a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), said Iraq had "offered to shelter bin Laden under the precondition that he carry out strikes on targets in neighbouring countries."

... Islamic fundamentalist bin Laden, who has gone missing from his base in Afghanistan, would never seek refuge in secular Iraq on ideological grounds. "I think bin Laden would keep quiet or fight to the death rather than seek asylum in Iraq," the London-based dissident, who asked not to be named, told AFP last week.....

- - - - -

Deutsche Presse-Agentur. February 17, 1999, Wednesday, BC Cycle

Opposition group says bin Laden in Iraq

DATELINE: Kuwait City

An Iraqi opposition group claimed in a published report Wednesday that Islamic militant Osama bin Laden is in Iraq from where he plans to launch a campaign of terrorism against Baghdad's Gulf neighbours.

The claim was made by Bayan Jabor, spokesman for the Teheran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).

Bin Laden "recently settled in Iraq at the invitation of Saddam Hussein in exchange for directing strikes against targets in neighbouring countries," Jabor told the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai al- Aam ... Taleban leaders in Afghanistan, where he had been living, said they lost track of him. Media reports have speculated he sought refuge in Chechnya, Somalia, Iraq, or with a non-Taliban group in Afghanistan.

Jabor, who was interviewed in Damascus, Syria, said Iraq began extending invitations to bin Laden six months ago, shortly after the United States bombed his suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan after linking him with the August 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and in Dar-es-Salam, Tanzania.

The United States indicted Bin Laden for the embassy bombings and has offered a five million dollar reward for information leading to his capture. Bin Laden's disappearance has coincided with stepped up threats by Iraq against neighbours Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey for allowing the United States and Britain to use their air bases to carry out air patrols over two "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq ....

- - - - -

Associated Press Worldstream. February 14, 1999.

Taliban leader says whereabouts of bin Laden unknown

... Analysts say bin Laden's options for asylum are limited.

Iraq was considered a possible destination because bin Laden had received an invitation from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein last month. And Somalia was a third possible destination because of its anarchy and violent anti-U.S. historyÝ....

- - - - -

San Jose Mercury News (California).Ý February 14, 1999 Sunday MORNING FINAL EDITION

U.S. WORRIED ABOUT IRAQI, BIN LADEN TIES TERRORIST COULD GAIN EVEN DEADLIER WEAPONS

U.S. intelligence officials are worried that a burgeoning alliance between terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could make the fugitive Saudi's loose-knit organization much more dangerous ...

In addition, the officials said, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal is now in Iraq, as is aÝrenowned Palestinian bomb designer, and both could make their expertise available to bin Laden.

"It's clear the Iraqis would like to have bin Laden in Iraq," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of counterterrorism operations at the Central Intelligence AgencyÝ ...

Saddam has even offered asylum to bin Laden, who has expressed support for Iraq.

... (in) late December, when bin Laden met a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan, there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world.

Bin Laden, who strikes in the name of Islam, and Saddam, one of the most secular rulers in the Arab world, have little in common except their hatred of the United States ...

More worrisome, the American officials said, are indications that there may be contacts between bin Laden's organization and Iraq's Special Security Organization (SSO), run by Saddam's son Qusay. Both the SSO and the Mukhabarat were involved in a failed 1993 plot to assassinate former President George Bush ...

"The idea that the same people who are hiding Saddam's biological weapons may be meeting with Osama bin Laden is not a happy one," said one American official....

- - - - -

Associated Press Worldstream. February 13, 1999; Saturday 14:32 Eastern Time

Bin Laden said to have left Afghanistan, whereabouts unknown

... It is very unlikely bin Laden could remain in Afghanistan without Taliban officials knowing his whereabouts.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who has expressed support for Iraq.

U.S. officials believe bin Laden masterminded the Aug. 7 bombings of its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania ...

Bin Laden urged devout Muslims to attack U.S. and British interests in retaliation for their joint assault on Iraq.

U.S. officials demanded that the Taliban hand over bin Laden, who has been indicted in a U.S. court on murder charges in connection with the bombings. But the Taliban had refused.

- - - - -

The Bulletin's Frontrunner. January 4, 1999, Monday.

Defiant Saddam Looks To Provoke U.S.

... Time also reported, "For now, the White House will respond to each provocation by counterattacking the offending battery."

Saddam Reaching Out To bin Laden.

Newsweek (1/11, Contreras) reported, "U.S. sources say (Saddam) is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden." ...

(Osama bin Laden was) calling for all-out war on Americans, using as his main pretext Washington's role in bombing and boycotting Iraq." In a Newsweek interview, bin Laden said that "'any American who pays taxes to hisÝ government," is a legitimate target." Newsweek reported, "The idea of an alliance between Iraq and bin Laden is alarming to the West," although "Saddam may think he's too good for such an association." However, "Now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective....

- - - - -

The White House Bulletin. Copyright 1999. Bulletin Broadfaxing Network, Inc.

In a Newsweek interview, bin Laden said that "'any American who pays taxes to his government," is a legitimate target." Newsweek reported, "The idea of an alliance between Iraq and bin Laden is alarming to the West," although "Saddam may think he's too good for such an association." However, "Now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective, he....

- - - - -

United Press International. January 3, 1999, Sunday, BC cycle.

UPI Focus: Bin Laden 'instigated' embassy bombings

... (The Taliban) government in Afghanistan says the Saudi does not have the money to finance projects in the country. Newsweek also reported that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has been making new overtures to bin Laden in an attempt to rebuild his intelligence network and to create his own terror network....

Indeed no connection whatsoever :doh:

Newspapers

[Baculus]

I noticed all those articles are from 1999, which leads me to believe they are probably repeating a lot of the same "intel" that was coming out at that time. Well, you can judge for yourself if it was accurate: Did Bin Laden set up in Iraq or elsewhere at that time? And did he start his reign of terror on his neighbors, as these articles were suggesting? Also, some of these sources for the articles may be questionable:

"The claim was made by Bayan Jabor, spokesman for the Teheran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)."

Interesting how there isn't any mention of Al Queda. In fact, you never really heard about Al Queda until 9-11.

[Larry]

I was planning on doing a piece-by-piece response to that deluge, but it's just too big.

I've been halfway through that list, and I haven't seen one single article showing a link.

What I've seen is a really long string of articles claiming that there may be a link in the future.

I'll also join Baculus in pointing out the number of times the information is credited to "Iraqi opposition groups".

The problem with taking intel from opposition groups is, they have a vested interest in feeding you information and trying to get you to go invade Iraq. (Their information may also be true, but you have to remember that they have an agenda.)

(I'm also noticing how many of those '99 articles refer to Osama as "The most Wanted man in the World". Gee, I thought Bill Clinton liked Osama. I thought he had him in the Lincoln Bedroom, or something, didn't he?)

[@DCGoldPants]

Curveball mean anything to anyone?

[jpillian]

We're gutless and we're soft. The majority of this thread makes me want to puke.

The fact that any of you can deny the justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- it makes my head swim.

This is Saddam Hussein here, folks. Iraq. The butt of all jokes during the 90's as to what America was willing to overlook to ensure a state of peace and balance of power that would perpetuate it's runaway case of gluttony and obsession with all things comfortable.

Is there a direct link between 9/11 and Saddam? Who the he11 cares? The reason why most people MAY think there is a link is because (I hope) most are smart enough to realize "where there is smoke, there is FIRE!" Saddam was a bad man in the middle east that hated the US. Osama was a bad man in the middle east that hated the US. At some point, they'd be in bed together -- if they hadn't already been in the past.

We went after the Taliban to ensure that Osama wouldn't have his own little jihadist state to chill in.

We then went after Iraq next because it was THE state in the middle east, that was easily the most legitimate and expedient target in the War on Terror.

Again -- for all you "experts" of international poltics and military matters -- do you honestly think that Iran, North Korea, or dare I say -- China!!!(as has been mentioned for their human rights abuses) -- would have been anywhere near the "walk in the park" that Iraq has been?

The goal of Iraq was to make a statement and gain a foothold. But we don't even have the intestinal fortitude for, what is all intents and purposes, "a police action." For shame on our generation in America that we are so obsessed with our own comfort, that we could care less about what our children's world will look like.

[flashback]

Originally posted by codeorama

Living in a "Free" country has a price. The cost of being free is reduced safety in some cases.

I'd rather be free than overprotected.

Remember back when that was a conservative sentiment? And they'd give Liberals hell for wanting to go all over the world and fix everybody else's problems? God, I miss those days...

[flashback]

Linking Saddam to Osama Bin Laden is not the same as linking Sadam to 9/11. Nice equivocation, though.

[Ax]

Originally posted by jpillian

We're gutless and we're soft. The majority of this thread makes me want to puke.

Originally posted by jpillian

The goal of Iraq was to make a statement and gain a foothold. But we don't even have the intestinal fortitude for, what is all intents and purposes, "a police action." For shame on our generation in America that we are so obsessed with our own comfort, that we could care less about what our children's world will look like.

These two statements are exactly what I've thought while reading most of this thread.

A terrorist, is a terrorist, is a terrorist. THAT's the connection. We have to kill them all. There is no other way.

To pull back to our own borders would only invite terror attacks from those who think we should NOT be disengaged from the world.

[aREDSKIN]

Originally posted by jpillian

Is there a direct link between 9/11 and Saddam? Who the he11 cares? The reason why most people MAY think there is a link is because (I hope) most are smart enough to realize "where there is smoke, there is FIRE!" Saddam was a bad man in the middle east that hated the US. Osama was a bad man in the middle east that hated the US. At some point, they'd be in bed together -- if they hadn't already been in the past.

Unfortunately, I think the reasonableness of your assumption needs to be tempered with a dose of reality as typified by some of the responses in this thread alone.

[Chief skin]

The 911 commission disagress with you Congressman, these people insult your intelligence, don't they realize they are doing motre damage to there party then good just another LIAR

[codeorama]

Originally posted by flashback

Remember back when that was a conservative sentiment? And they'd give Liberals hell for wanting to go all over the world and fix everybody else's problems? God, I miss those days...

I know what you mean.