Documents Support Saddam-Taliban Connection

[NattyLight]

All of the media, reports, and connections are fabrications to some extent; inferences of cooperation between Taliban, OBL, and Iraq. The fact remains, whether there is a concrete connection or not, the US committed itself to play a dominant roll and permenant presence in the middle east. So what do you do? You put your military on either side of the state that may impose the most threat: Iran.

Don't have too much faith in America's "free-press" when it comes to this nonsense. I don't believe 100% of anything I ****ing read with respect to this wars jusitification (or lack thereof), because there's a good probability that I'm being lied to in some arena. Do I care? Why would I care, there's nothing I can really do about it.

But if these reports generate more "faith" in what we're doing...more power to ya!!

[@DCGoldPants]

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

this is a clear "Where there's Smoke, there's fire" moment.

not really.

[Popeman38]

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

And your point? No on on the right of this argument is claiming that the US never had ties to Saddam. But nice try...

[@DCGoldPants]

And your point? No on on the right of this argument is claiming that the US never had ties to Saddam. But nice try...

I think his point was that. The evidence some folks are using (and that no officials seem to be backing up), is as strong as the folks who try to use the connection in that picture to prove something.

Its weak and flimsy. Or the President would be in the Rose Garden right now announcing the link.

[Larry]

OK, my personal answer to your question:

1) I, personally, haven't read the commission report. Don't much care to. (And I don't think I've ever referred to it, either.)

2) From what I've read of their conclusions, I guess I mostly agree with them.

3) The problem with the conclusions being drawn from the report, is that the things people are looking in the report for, are things that are just about impossible to prove.

Was Saddam (or any other country in particular) involved in a material way with 9/11? I'd certainly believe that there are links between some coun tries and AQ, but OTOH, I'd also bet big chunks of money that such links are well-hidden, used lost of deniable middlemen, and it likely didn't contain any major information. (If for no other reason than that Ossama didn't get to be an old terrorist by telling people like Saddam about future major operations.)

In short, while I have no doubt that several ME countries are on the side of the terrorists, the odds of there ever being proof of a major link were always just about zero.

And, by a similar reasoning, while I believe it's pretty clear that Bush was telling the CIA what he wanted to hear, I also bet that he never outright ordered them to spin the intel. (When a President wants a reason to invade Iraq, he doesn't tell the CIA "I order you to come to the following conclusions". Instead, during the breifing, he asks "Do you have any evidence that Saddam was involved?", and when CIA says "No", you ask him "Well what about (this piece of information I've got from the unit I've set up for the specific purpose of feeding me intel that hasn't been checked for reliability, as long as the evidence points where I want)?" In short, the President assumes that the CIA is capable of taking subtle hints.)

In short, the fact that there's no hard evidence (of a Saddam-AQ link, or of Bush demanding slanted intel) A) Doesn't surprise me, and Doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Edit:

Pretty much the only real conclusion I've drawn from this whole thing?

If we don't have a good reason for the war now, then it's pretty clear we didn't have a good reason then.

[Midnight Judges]

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.

Have you read "Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix and "Cobra II" by General Trainor? Neither has John Q. Public. I have. They lied. At this point I'm more inclined to think Cheney/Libby lied and Bush is just an idiot that got duped.

[oriolesfan93p]

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.

.

I'm sorry, but I get sick of ppl saying that " they lied".... they were WRONG, they didn't LIE, Lieing implies that they knew that they were wrong before they said it. They didn't lie, they were just wrong...

Besides, just because a WMD is 20 years old doesn't mean that those missiles don't fire or that they are all broken or of no threat. People that lived 20 years ago certianly thought those weapons were a threat. Would you want to keep one of those weapons in your back yard? Is there some kind of shelf life for these things that I don't know about?(that last part is an honest question as I have never heard of a shelf life where a missile or sarin gas and the like expire and become no longer effective, I would like to know if I am wrong, I know I didn't lie but I may be wrong)

[NattyLight]

Have you read "Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix and "Cobra II" by General Trainor? Neither has John Q. Public. I have. They lied. At this point I'm more inclined to think Cheney/Libby lied and Bush is just an idiot that got duped.

'America's "War on Terrorism"' is also a well cited and insightful read.

[Midnight Judges]

And, by a similar reasoning, while I believe it's pretty clear that Bush was telling the CIA what he wanted to hear, I also bet that he never outright ordered them to spin the intel. (When a President wants a reason to invade Iraq, he doesn't tell the CIA "I order you to come to the following conclusions". Instead, during the breifing, he asks "Do you have any evidence that Saddam was involved?", and when CIA says "No", you ask him "Well what about (this piece of information I've got from the unit I've set up for the specific purpose of feeding me intel that hasn't been checked for reliability, as long as the evidence points where I want)?" In short, the President assumes that the CIA is capable of taking subtle hints.)

.

Cheney had unprecedented access (for a VP) into the intel files and the interrogators and analysts themselves. One logical theory would be that Cheney was cooking the Intel in order to manipulate his boss into a war that Cheney had wanted for years (at least since he signed that PNAC letter in 1998). If you examine the quotes from the build up to war, Cheney's were always the most blatantly dishonest.

[Midnight Judges]

.

I'm sorry, but I get sick of ppl saying that " they lied".... they were WRONG, they didn't LIE, Lieing implies that they knew that they were wrong before they said it. They didn't lie, they were just wrong...

Besides, just because a WMD is 20 years old doesn't mean that those missiles don't fire or that they are all broken or of no threat. People that lived 20 years ago certianly thought those weapons were a threat. Would you want to keep one of those weapons in your back yard? Is there some kind of shelf life for these things that I don't know about?(that last part is an honest question as I have never heard of a shelf life where a missile or sarin gas and the like expire and become no longer effective, I would like to know if I am wrong, I know I didn't lie but I may be wrong)

Cheney lied. There is no doubt. In 2002, when the intelligence community was having a fierce internal debate as to whether or not Iraq had an active WMD program, Dick Cheney went on meet the press and said this:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction"

He said there was "no doubt" even though he knew there was a huge portion of our own intelligence analysts who dissented from this opinion. He lied about the conclusiveness if nothing else.

....and yes there is a shelf life for these things that apparently you don't know about.

[Midnight Judges]

'America's "War on Terrorism"' is also a well cited and insightful read.

Who wrote it?

[Popeman38]

Have you read "Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix and "Cobra II" by General Trainor? Neither has John Q. Public. I have. They lied. At this point I'm more inclined to think Cheney/Libby lied and Bush is just an idiot that got duped.

MJ,

Disarming Iraq delves into the inspection process. It proves only what Hans Blix wants to prove: that his inspections were"working". Now why would he want to do that?

Cobra II focuses on the conduct of the war.

Neither of these books goes to any length to prove that the administartion lied. If you want to claim that they lie that is ok. But you can not prove that they lied. And besides, the Administration gave multiple reasons for the invasion, to include regime change. WMD was just the first and the one that Admin knew that American people would support. And oh, by the way, the entire worlds (France and Germany included) intel services agreed with our stance...

[Destino]

I don't even need to read this crap (even though I did go through much of it just for the hell of it) to form an opinion and I'll tell you why: The people that have the most to gain from screaming "Iraq was in bed with Al Qaeda" are silent.

If you don't think the fact that the President and Vice President aren't screaming "we found WMD" and "we found a link to Al Qaeda" from every mountain top in America is significant then you don't understand politics. Such a claim supported by hard evidence would be a huge political victory. It would strength Dubya's political pull (which has been weakening) and all but assure a GOP victory in November. You could hand out GOP bumper stickers reading: We were right!

Yet what do we get? FOX News headlines aimed at "informing" their viewers and a bunch of quiet politicians. It's not the first time FOX has done this and it won't be the last. They know they have a competitive advantage among right wing views and they will continue to make news their viewers want because their ratings (the free market) is motivating them to do so.

I don't think the President lied about thinking Saddam had weapons. The whole world did, but the US is the only nation that put it's money on the table over it. I'd LOVE to see us win the bet and find a massive stash of weapons he made after the first gulf war. I'd love the US to enjoy a "I told you so" moment at the UN while nations like France and Russia (both happy to do business with Saddam) look at their shoes. But it hasn't happened yet.

[Popeman38]

Cheney lied. There is no doubt. In 2002, when the intelligence community was having a fierce internal debate as to whether or not Iraq had an active WMD program, Dick Cheney went on meet the press and said this:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mas destruction"

He said there was "no doubt" even though he knew there was a huge portion of our own intelligence analysts who dissented from this opinion. He lied about the conclusiveness if nothing else.

....and yes there is a shelf life for these things that apparently you don't know about.

Wrap your mind around this for a second: They found 500 arty shells with sarin and mustard gas. These, by definition, are WMDs. These prove his quote; Saddam had WMDs. Were they the ones cited by Powell before the UN? No, but they were WMDs.

[Midnight Judges]

MJ,

Disarming Iraq delves into the inspection process. It proves only what Hans Blix wants to prove: that his inspections were"working". Now why would he want to do that?

Cobra II focuses on the conduct of the war.

Neither of these books goes to any length to prove that the administartion lied. If you want to claim that they lie that is ok. But you can not prove that they lied. And besides, the Administration gave multiple reasons for the invasion, to include regime change. WMD was just the first and the one that Admin knew that American people would support. And oh, by the way, the entire worlds (France and Germany included) intel services agreed with our stance...

"Disarming Iraq" proves that the Bush administratrion wanted to go to war and they really didn't care if Iraq had WMD's or not. Iraq was complying with the most recent rounds of inspections. The inspectors were allowed access anywhere they asked, including Saddam's most coveted pallaces that were off limits in the previous round of inspections. Despite the success of the UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq, Bush/Cheney refused to share 80-90% of our alleged WMD intel with the UN. Now that does not make sense. If Bush/Cheney were so freakin' positive that their intel was correct, they would have sent the weapons inspectors to the locations where the suspected WMD were. The inspectors would have found everything and the entire world would be on our side in this war. Instead, they defied the UN resolutiuon by not sharing Intel with our allies only to kill 100,000 Iraqi civilians and 3000 Americans in the process of finding out THE UN WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG. :doh: :doh: :doh: It's one of the biggest blunders of all time.

"Cobra II," which you have obviously not read, proves beyond a doubt that war with Iraq was inevitable as of early 2002, regardless of Iraq's WMD status.

Oh yeah one more thing, France and Germany told us curveball was insane and full of it yet his BS was the centerpiece of Cheney's cooked intel.

[Midnight Judges]

Wrap your mind around this for a second: They found 500 arty shells with sarin and mustard gas. These, by definition, are WMDs. These prove his quote; Saddam had WMDs. Were they the ones cited by Powell before the UN? No, but they were WMDs.

That's the thing, they are no longer WMD's because they are inneffective, impotent. You could throw that crap on a neighborhood and nothing would happen.

[@DCGoldPants]

That's the thing, they are no longer WMD's because they are inneffective, impotent. You could throw that crap on a neighborhood and nothing would happen.

Look, I'll be 1st to say that even our Admin and Defense Dept said these were not the WMD we were looking for.

But, I wouldn't want that tossed into my neighborhood. They can still be dangerous.

They just weren't an immediate threat to the United States while buried in the sand.

We were led to believe they could and would attack us at any moment.

[NattyLight]

Who wrote it?

Michel Chossudovsky, I think he's a Candian (really).

[Popeman38]

"Disarming Iraq" proves that the Bush administratrion wanted to go to war and they really didn't care if Iraq had WMD's or not. Iraq was complying with the most recent rounds of inspections. The inspectors were allowed access anywhere they asked, including Saddam's most coveted pallaces that were off limits in the previous round of inspections. Despite the success of the UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq, Bush/Cheney refused to sharte 80-90% of our alleged WMD intel with the UN. Now that does not make sense. If Bush/Cheney were so freakin' positive that their intel was correct, they would have sent the weapons inspectors to the locations where the suspected WMD were. The inspectors would have gound everything and the entire world would be on our side in this war. Instead, they defied the UN resolutiuon by not sharing Intel with our allies only to kill 100,000 Iraqi civilians and 3000 Americans in the process of finding out THE UN WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG. :doh: :doh: :doh: It's one of the biggest blunders of all time.

"Cobra II," which you have obviously not read, proves beyond a doubt that war with Iraq was inevitable as of early 2002, regardless of Iraq's WMD status.

Mj,

Let us not forget that we did not need to go to the UN to invade.

Iraq violated the following UNSCRs since 1990:

660.678-Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.",687,688,707,715,949,1051,1060,1115,1134,1137,1154,1194,1205,1284.

France and Germany would never authorize invasion because they had contracts controlling Iraqi oil and would lose billions. Annans own son was abusing the oil for food program. Why would the UN support the US?

[Popeman38]

That's the thing, they are no longer WMD's because they are inneffective, impotent. You could throw that crap on a neighborhood and nothing would happen.

Reread the statement issued by DoD. SOME of the gas was impotent. Some was still active and would be dangerous..

[chomerics]

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.

Peoples opinions change, and that was way WAY before he became political and vastly religious. He has issued many MANY statements condemning our actions after the iraq war, and keeping our base in Saudia Arabia as the reason for hating us. you should really read some of his writings on the matter, becaue he tells EXACTLY how he feels.

Using your logic, UBL wouldnever attack us, because he likes us.

Ummm, no. You still don't get it do you? WHY does Bin laden hate us, IYO?

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?

I absolutely do not, because ti would go against his teachings, and what he has stated in the past. He is a leader, and he espicially did not want an alliance with the likes of Saddam Hussen. In fact, neither trusted the other, and Saddam actually tried to infultrate Al Qaeda at one point to keep tabs on him from the inside.

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.

Again, have you read what he has stated about Saddam and Iraq in the past? Do you know WHY he hates them? Do you understand that "an enemy of an enemy is NOT a friend" in his world? because in HIS position, all he has is his teachings, and if he goes back on his teachings without explination, then he will LOSE followers. That is how it works.

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.

It is not "a little bit of a stretch" when there is absolutely no evidence linking the two groups together. The only stretch is coming from a side who thinks "an enemy of an enemy is my friend" . . . well, the entire world does not think like that, and in fact many MANY countries and people believe that this is not the case. As for bin Laden, there is absolutely no proof, his writings contradict what you have said, and almost every single world leader came to the conclusion that they were NOT working with each other. The only thing I have ever seen as "evidence" is doctored up papers, supposedly Atta was in Prague, yet there is no record of him leaving the country, not record of him in any airport, and no record of him in Prague. The person who said he saw Atta also changed his story twice. The last "link" was when Saddam tried to infultrate Al Qaeda, which is the mountain pass event. That is the entire "linking" and evidence that there was a collaborative relationship. . . and that is called cherry picking evidence to support a conclusion.

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....

"Thousands of Pages of Evidence" :laugh: :rotflmao: :laugh:

You are not serious, do you actually believe there are "Thousands of pages of evidence" linking Saddam to Al Qaeda? Don't you think it would have behooved the Bushies to release some of this MASSIVE treasure of wealth to the international community to save some credibility? Don't you think keeping these "Thousands of pages" of evidence secret undermines their effort?

"Thousands of Pages" :laugh: Seriously folks, i can't make this stuff up, people actually believe this crap :doh:

[Section106]

...yada, yada, yada.....If we used the standard of the left, our first battle would have meant dropping out of that war. Our involvement in that war was just as pointless to the average joe american as our endeavor in Iraq. I guess Im old school, I can be against getting involved but once we are in it Im gonna do everything in my power to win it on every front and every level till Im forced to surrender. thats what the old school did, Im gonna pull a percentage out of my ass here but I think its near correct. I think it was something like 70% of Americans wanted nothing to do with WWII, after pearl harbor and the Prez speach that turned upside down...yada, yada, yada...

It was the left that prosectuted that war, if you remember? It was the left that won that war. I guess you don't remember that old Republican line condeming "Democrat Wars" do you?

[chomerics]

I'm just disappointed. This thread is proof positive that the sides of politics we cling to are more important than anything else. If I was a leftist, and Fox News had something interesting to say, with supposed FACTS, I'd want to know more, rather than just dismiss it. And, if I was a conservative, and heard the NY Times had some interesting supposed FACTS, I'd want to know more. Instead, we just act like puppets and argue who the source is. Chom, if this turns out to be BS, then you can call a TON of people out on it. If it turns out to be FACT, then now they will call you out on it. I say f' it all, the truth usually has a funny way of making itself known. It's only a matter of time.

I agree, but I am using their past as a reason for not believing them this time around. As bear said earlier in this thread, there is a 72 hour rule he imposes on himself because stories like this have a way of dissappearing after other evidence comes out.

Now, this does not mean that Saddam did not look to have a relationship with the Taliban, hell Pakistan had a relationship with them. This is nothing more then a ruse to get the zealots to believe Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, and you can see the evvect in this thread.

Hell, Popeman thinks there are "Thousands of pages of evidence" linking the two. people grab hold of their beliefs and cling to them no matter what the outcome. I will not do that, and I have changed my opinion many MANY times when more corroberating evidence comes out. Otheres here do not, unfortunatelty, and to even add to their dillutions of grandeur, if there wasn't a relationship, there will be no evidence, and they will be stating the same thing 20 years forom now.

Lucky was right earlier in this thread, it shows how desperate the cons are when they have to use three year old articles which have already been debunked fore their claims of the war was correct. if I am wrong, and it is proven that there was a working relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda, then I will admit I was wrong. I feel pretty confident from where I am standing now, as I have been saying it for over three years, and nothing has been shown to prove them right, or to prove me wrong.

[Popeman38]

It is not "a little bit of a stretch" when there is absolutely no evidence linking the two groups together. The only stretch is coming from a side who thinks "an enemy of an enemy is my friend" . . . well, the entire world does not think like that, and in fact many MANY countries and people believe that this is not the case. As for bin Laden, there is absolutely no proof, his writings contradict what you have said, and almost every single world leader came to the conclusion that they were NOT working with each other. The only thing I have ever seen as "evidence" is doctored up papers, supposedly Atta was in Prague, yet there is no record of him leaving the country, not record of him in any airport, and no record of him in Prague. The person who said he saw Atta also changed his story twice. The last "link" was when Saddam tried to infultrate Al Qaeda, which is the mountain pass event. That is the entire "linking" and evidence that there was a collaborative relationship. . . and that is called cherry picking evidence to support a conclusion.

"Thousands of Pages of Evidence" :laugh: :rotflmao: :laugh:

You are not serious, do you actually believe there are "Thousands of pages of evidence" linking Saddam to Al Qaeda? Don't you think it would have behooved the Bushies to release some of this MASSIVE treasure of wealth to the international community to save some credibility? Don't you think keeping these "Thousands of pages" of evidence secret undermines their effort?

"Thousands of Pages" :laugh: Seriously folks, i can't make this stuff up, people actually believe this crap :doh:

And you wonder why people get a little riled up when you start a thread about something? You call what Bush and Co did prior to the war Cherry Picking, yet when you do it you are thoroughly researching information. People do believe that the war was justified. And you know what, their position is not "crap" anymore than your position is.

Your opinion is that Bush started an unjust war. The only way you will ever acknowledge it as being just is if we uncover thousands of active WMDs in the desert. You are a self proclaimed hater of Bush (the Pres at least:laugh: ) and will be sooooo happy in 2008 when the next pres is inaugurated.

UBLs teachings violate the Pillars of Islam too. That does not prevent him from saying it is the wishes of the Prophet and Allah for Muslims to blow themselves up. If he is willing to diregard the teachings of Islam, the holiest of all teachings, you do not think that he would align himself with a dictator who wants to annihilate Israel, his ultimate goal? That is naive. (think back to your views on Christians using the teachings of Christ to persecute the Jews in your other thread and be very careful how you answer lest you perjur yourself)

As for people traveling places without any documentation. That has never happenned before, has it? Maybe more than 7 million times in our own country? Just a thought about that. Have you ever traveled abroad? Freedom of movement is easy. You can drive accross borders without stopping. I went from Bosnia to Croatia to Hungary without having a passport or being stopped. So no one has nay record of me crossing the border. Unbelievable...

And in reference to your last paragraph. I could provide links that justify the war, but you would dismiss them as propoganda that can be disproven. I could do the same for your links and say: "Seriously folks, i can't make this stuff up, people actually believe this crap :doh:". That really proves my point doesn't it. Makes everyone aware that I am right and you are wrong. Let us try to stay civil and respect the other POV. Otherwise people will refuse to debate the points and instead attack. And neither of us want that.

[Section106]

This just in - The president has already stated that Saddam had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. The mastermind of that tragedy was OBL and he is still free. Why are you knuckleheads crowing about a fake news story on Faux News instead of demanding that the men who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 be brought to justice?

How can you claim to have a war on terror and let the world's most dangerous terrorist go free? If Saddam's purported connection to AQ is enough to go to war then why not destroy AQ and OBL first?

Why is it okay to waste blood and treasure on a diversonary war in which the conquered never attacked us? We will spend over 1.27 TRILLION dollars to attack a country that had no ties to 9/11 and never attacked us. It is insanity.