Documents Support Saddam-Taliban Connection

[@DCGoldPants]

Has the White House put themselves behind this story?

[Larry]

it does to the far left, cause they need to try to convince Americans this is an illegal war and that it is not part on the global war on terror. So any bit of intel that is released that links Iraq to any terror group needs to be marginalized to fit their political need.

And it matters to the far right, cause they need to try to convince Americans that this is a legitimate war and not simply an excuse to invade whoever we want using the nebulous standard of "links to terror" as a justification. So any bit of intel indicating any six-degrees-of-seperation trail from a country we want to invade needs to be immediatly declasified to fit their political need.

(Any dissenting intel, and any intel providing similar links to countries we don't want to invade, must of course remain classified.)

[/sarcasm]

Yeah, Saddam had "links" to terrorists. (So does W.) So does the government of every country in that region (including Israel, I'd bet). And so does, I'd bet over half of the nations on earth. Including us.

The problem with dancing around the flagpole yelling "See, I was right! There was a meeting ten years ago between a former government employee and a sympathiser with a bad cause!" is that (to many folks) that isn't a good enough reason for a war.

The "War on Poverty" doesn't mean "The US has authority to invade any country we want, if there are poor people there." (And poor people don't matter, if they're in countries we don't want to invade.)

This war was sold, to the american people and to the world, as a war of american self-defense.

And, frankly, it's becoming more obvious every year that this war was really about "well, we've decided we want some bases, and nobody in that area wants to give us permission."

[Larry]

When you personally decide to do something, is it better to do something for one reason or do multiple reasons for an action make it more compelling?

And If you really need on reason. Lump it all into the war on terror as a whole and it will still encompass all of the reasons Saddam had to go.

I'll agree with Mike on this one.

I doubt there's ever been a war in history that only had one reason. Maybe Desert Storm. The Bushies claiming that there were multiple reasons doesn't doesn't prove that Bush didn't really have one. All it really says is "hey, this is reality."

Just as an example, what was the reason for the Civil War?

(Now, claiming that there were multiple reasons, when none of them hold up? Now, that's cause to ask "OK, what was the real reason? You know, the one you're hiding.")

[Larry]

Thats funny. I find it laughable that whenever anyone says "Iraq involved in terrorism" someone responds with "Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11". Terrorism is not a tactic that begins and ends with the actions of AQ on 9-11-01. Do you acknowledge that it is possible for someone to be involved with terrorism, an active sponsor of terrorism, an enabler of terrorism, etc WITHOUT being involved with 9-11?

GWOT isn't only about punishment for 9-11, it is also about prevention of 9-12.

But I think the reason "the lefties" keep saying "but Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11", is because whenever "the lefties" say "but every single nation in the mideast, and a lot of nations elsewhere, and the US, are involved in terrorism, and have been for 50 years, so what's special about this one?", "the righties" respond with "I see the lefites are trying to claim that 9/11 didn't happen".

[Popeman38]

So I have a question. Do the more left leaning members on this board accept the final conclusion of the 9/11 Commission? Because I seem to remember some dissent on how "thorough" the Commission was. If no satisfied, looks bad quoting a report you disagree with to support your argument. Other than this observation, this thread has deteriorated into a sludge fest: The right is right! Nu-uh, the left is right! Your wrong!

[Redskins Diehard]

But I think the reason "the lefties" keep saying "but Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11", is because whenever "the lefties" say "but every single nation in the mideast, and a lot of nations elsewhere, and the US, are involved in terrorism, and have been for 50 years, so what's special about this one?", "the righties" respond with "I see the lefites are trying to claim that 9/11 didn't happen".

I actually haven't seen that, (which doesn't mean the same as it never happens). I have followed that discussion through to a reasonable conclusion many times. I think it is a reasonable question to ask. And one that requires thought to answer.

[@DCGoldPants]

and I have a question (again). Its really a simple "yes" or "no"

Is the Admin backing up this story?

[Redskins Diehard]

and I have a question (again). Its really a simple "yes" or "no"

Is the Admin backing up this story?

I do not know the answer to that. Do you?

[chomerics]

i

There is a poison in our political system that uses any foreign engagement as a political tool

I actually agree with you here Wolf, as BOTH sides constantly use it as a political tool. The people who are screaming "a time table for withdrawl aids the terrorists" are the same people who claimed "there was no plan for withdrawl" in Kosovo. Similarly, the side for Kosovo are screaming for a withdrawl in Iraq.

I can differentiate between the two conflicts though. One was a UN event, in a country already amidst civil war, the other was an imperialist venture based on half truths and cherry picked "evidence". I mentioned before I don't really know as much about kosovo because i was not paying that much attention during the time.

[@DCGoldPants]

No, that's why I'm asking.

I'd think a story like this could help a lot of things for an Admin who's having trouble getting some traction these days.

I remember Chris Rock hosting some awards show and said "Hey! There's Ricky Martin! He needs another hit like a crackhead needs another hit"

This Admin needs a hit, badly. Especially with mid-term elections coming up. This would be perfect for them.

[Zguy28]

Dubya has ties to terrorists?

:laugh:

[Thiebear]

I'd definintely give this the 72hr rule before i said YAY! or NAY!.... to many things pop up. Put with everything else it looks promising. With millions of documents left, I am not surprised if its true.

If I was actively against the War and mocking people about Al qaeda ties and WMD i would continue the same course till I had no other avenue.. They've gone too far down this path to let a little documentation derail them...

[chomerics]

Originally Posted by ZoEd

The anti war junkies make it seem like Dubya himself wrote the intel reports for the law makers to read.

Basically the DID write the NIE, here is a great documentary you should watch on HOW the NIE was made, the hurried response in which it was put together, and how almost ALL dissenting opinion was squashed out by the Bush Administration. It was called Why Intelligence Fails: Intelligence to Please, and it was on the discovery times channel.

You can download the torrent here

NOTE: It is 350MB, so be warned. It does go through exactly which you said did not happen, and it basically contradicts your premise, that the Bush Admin. basically DID write the NIE.

It is a good watch and I would challange anyone who thinks the NIE was both "up to snuff" and "the best intel" to watch the show (and this means you too Mike)

[Popeman38]

Basically the DID write the NIE, here is a great documentary you should watch on HOW the NIE was made, the hurried response in which it was put together, and how almost ALL dissenting opinion was squashed out by the Bush Administration. It was called Why Intelligence Fails: Intelligence to Please, and it was on the discovery times channel.

You can download the torrent here

NOTE: It is 350MB, so be warned. It does go through exactly which you said did not happen, and it basically contradicts your premise, that the Bush Admin. basically DID write the NIE.

It is a good watch and I would challange anyone who thinks the NIE was both "up to snuff" and "the best intel" to watch the show (and this means you too Mike)

Nice bait and switch Chom. He said the left makes it sound like Dubya himself wrote the NIE. You proceed to offer a documentary on how the Bush Admin wrote the NIE. And for your theory to be true (the Bush Admin writing th NIE) hundreds of people would have to be censored. Don't you think at least one would come forward with solid evidence that the Bush admin created the whole thing?

Oh, and I tried to watch your video using the link and it don't work...

[chomerics]

Probably the reason for the down play is the validitry of the issue. we could all assume there was a connection we can all assume there was no connection.

If you CLAIM there is a connection, and go to WAR over a connection (even when the top world leaders say there is no connection) then you better damn well have proof of a connection.

The reason nobody believes any of this stuff is because bin Laden has stated many MANY times that he despised Saddam. He hated Saddam almost as much as he hated us, for killing Muslims, invading Kuwait and having a secular government. Everything OBL is against. It is because of his teachings and rants that we were skeptical to say the least, and the only thing which has been given as proof is half hearted meetings with Pakistan, which show at least two layers of removal from Bin Laden. It is a joke to say the least that "there could have been a connection" without proof and in the absence of any.

Hell I could say George bush was in cahoots with Bin Laden, all I would have to do is point to sketchy documents with his companies dealings with Bin Ladens families, and that would be the same thing.

Didi Saddam have ties to terrorists? Of course he did, but the were MUCH MUCH less then countries such as Saudi Arabia, or Syria. he was a isolated piss ant dictator who was living scared and without international support. We removed him and created a world wind of crap in the ME, and now people are saying that we have to stay and fix it. . . well has anyone taken a history class? What happened to the British occupation of Iraq? How did it fair for them? All we are doing right now is fueling the insurgency, increasing the divide between Iraqi factions, and making sure an entire generation of Muslims will be willing to kill themselves to hurt us.

It is not just horrible foreign policy, but completely tragic to both the Iraqi people and to our soldiers, of over 60,000 which have been hurt in this war. Sorry, but we are not making the world safer, we are making it more dangerous by our presence in Iraq, and we are loosing young Americans, money and world opinion in the process. It is a lose, lose, lose situation. The best course of action is to declare victory and leave. it is what the American people want, it is what the Iraqi's want and it is what the world wants. BTW, it is not what Bin Laden wants either, he would rather have us in Iraq, so he can use us as a scapegoat, and not other Muslims.

[chomerics]

Nice bait and switch Chom. He said the left makes it sound like Dubya himself wrote the NIE. You proceed to offer a documentary on how the Bush Admin wrote the NIE. And for your theory to be true (the Bush Admin writing th NIE) hundreds of people would have to be censored. Don't you think at least one would come forward with solid evidence that the Bush admin created the whole thing?

Not true, you need to watch the video to see how pressure was placed on the Intel community to give them the results they wanted.

For example, Cheney went to the CIA building 10 times and spoke to analysists on what he was looking for. when they would say they didn't have it, he would come back and tell them to check again. It is all in the documentary, and it explains how the NIE and intel was put together with really no evidence. It is called Intelligence to please, and it is a great documentary.

BTW, you need a torrent client to download and watch the documentary. you can get one here

[chomerics]

i will also state that I agree with Lucky about the democratic party laying the foundation for Iraq, and basically being complacent to the neo-cons wishes. It was then that we needed a true opposition to examine the ludicrous claims, but they neither had the political might, nor the balls to stand up to the cons. They are not clean in any of this at all.

[Popeman38]

If you CLAIM there is a connection, and go to WAR over a connection (even when the top world leaders say there is no connection) then you better damn well have proof of a connection.

The reason nobody believes any of this stuff is because bin Laden has stated many MANY times that he despised Saddam. He hated Saddam almost as much as he hated us, for killing Muslims, invading Kuwait and having a secular government. Everything OBL is against. It is because of his teachings and rants that we were skeptical to say the least, and the only thing which has been given as proof is half hearted meetings with Pakistan, which show at least two layers of removal from Bin Laden. It is a joke to say the least that "there could have been a connection" without proof and in the absence of any.

So Chom, are you suggesting that UBL is more trustworthy than GWB? Because this second paragraph basically says that because UBL said he hated Saddam he would never associate with him. Let us remember back to the 80's when UBL associated with us. Using your logic, UBL wouldnever attack us, because he likes us. Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the guy that wants to wipe America and Israel off the face of the earth would sacrifice his "hatred" of Saddam to accomplish his goals? He is of the belief that Muslim men should never shave their beards., Yet the Muslims he sent to the US shaved theirs. Doesn't this contradict their religious beliefs? Yes, but they sacrified these beliefs to accomplish the mission.

In summary, to say that you are doubtful that UBL would align with Saddam "Because he said so..." is a littel bit of a stretch. I would put your skepitism more olong the lines of your sever dislike of the Bush Admin...Thousands of pages of evidence connectind point A to point B is a smoking gun....

[Popeman38]

BTW, you need a torrent client to download and watch the documentary. you can get one here

I downloaded that, and was still unable to view...

[Midnight Judges]

You are a minority on this board. I agree 110% that it is fueled by partisanship as well. Thing is most of the Bush bashers say that Bush is the reason for this. They say that he has splintered the unity between the parties. That's funny to me because I can't remember the last time the parties were truely united.

I remember during the debates when Kerry was asked what his plan was for Iraq his answer was always "I have a plan but I can't tell you, but I can assure you I have a plan" WTF? That's my point, what plan can there be except finishing what we've started. It's way too late to continue pointing fingers. Let's just finish it.

I've read a few of your posts and you are severely mistaken on a few issues.

1. The Democrats in the Senate did NOT have access to the same information as the White House. Here are some examples:

a. Scooter Libby said there was a photograph of an Iraqi Government worker meeting with Muhammed Atta in Europe. The Bush administration allegedly saw the photo but when Colin Powell's office tried to get the photo they were unable to get access.

b. Only the Dems on the intelligence committee were supposed to be privvy to all intelligence. NOT everyone in the Senate has that access. Of course the Bush administration really didn't share intelligence when they weren't forced to. The Bush administration defied the UN resolutions (specifically 1441) by not sharing WMD intel with inspectors on the ground in Iraq.

c. Democrats and the state department were told there were four different sources for the curveball information. To this day the other three sources have not been revealed to the state department, the Democrats, or Collin Powell. It is now fairly obvious that the Bush administration was heavily influenced by curveball and known manipulator, Ahmed Chalabi.

Bottom Line: Anyone who claims the Democrats had access to all the same information as the Bush administration is saying so without any factual basis and they are saying it purely for political gain.

Don't believe me? Fine. You can hear it from 25 different CIA agents/state department employees right here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

You severely misquoted John Kerry. I would like to see a source on that quote. Something tells me you just made it up or you are echoing what some Republican pundit told you. Repeating the words of Republican pundits is dangerous because 90% of the pundits are liars and manipulators.

Seriously, you can't remember September 12th, 2001? When Bush had an 80% approval rating and all the Democrats stood behind him and declared war on the Taliban? If your memory is that short...nevermind.

[Air Force Cane]

last week other documents conclusively proved that we have found over 500 WMD artillery shells in Iraq in the last three years. Sarin, VX and other types of munitions.

Now we see the tentacles between Saddam and the terrorists.

Not to mention everyone knows he paid 20,000 dollars to every Palestinian homicide bomber. But that is okay- it is still easier for the dummies to chant "Bush Lied, People Died"..

[Midnight Judges]

last week other documents conclusively proved that we have found over 500 WMD artillery shells in Iraq in the last three years. Sarin, VX and other types of munitions.

Now we see the tentacles between Saddam and the terrorists.

Not to mention everyone knows he paid 20,000 dollars to every Palestinian homicide bomber. But that is okay- it is still easier for the dummies to chant "Bush Lied, People Died"..

Those WMD's were from the 1980's and they were no longer effective. They were useless, broken, and impotent.

Bush/Cheney said Saddam had a robust and active WMD program. They lied.

[Popeman38]

last week other documents conclusively proved that we have found over 500 WMD artillery shells in Iraq in the last three years. Sarin, VX and other types of munitions.

Now we see the tentacles between Saddam and the terrorists.

Not to mention everyone knows he paid 20,000 dollars to every Palestinian homicide bomber. But that is okay- it is still easier for the dummies to chant "Bush Lied, People Died"..

AFC,

We are together on a lot of things, but this is a little off. We found 500 old WMD arty shells, not the ones used to justify war. (Of couse, there are more than 10 UN resolutions that Saddam violate that authorize follow on force from the previous war, but we are not allowed to use these to justify war because that is an airtight reason and would not allow for debate, but that is for another thread)

And please refrain from calling people dummies. It makes your post a little less viable....

[Popeman38]

Those WMD's were from the 1980's and they were no longer effective. They were useless, broken, and impotent.

Bush/Cheney said Saddam had a robust and active WMD program. Thery lied. Thanks for playing.

You THINK they lied. History will be the judge, not you. You do not have access to any more info than the rest of John Q. Public, so how can ypou definitively say they lied? And let us not forget that these shells from the 80's are a violation of UN Resolution that authorize follow on force. Just a tid bit to think about.

[heyholetsgogrant]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200820,00.html

Folks, Saddam had one rule... "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". If you don't think Saddam was a legitimate target in the war against terror you are kidding yourself.

Was Saddam Regime a Broker for Terror Alliances?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200908,00.html

No links and nothing to see here folks, move along.

The rest of the story can be found here....

http://www.foxnews.com/column_archive/0,2976,146,00.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------