JMS Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 I know this isn't news for many of us... Hopefully most of us.. But unfortunately it is news for some of us... This is the findings of the first and only military investigation into this pre war widely reported myth. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/ Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says <LI class=cnnhiliteheader>Story Highlights Joint Forces Command report: No link between Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda Interviews with former Iraqi leaders, 600,000 Iraqi documents were reviewed President Bush cited a link in the runup to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq Report says evidence was found of Iraqi government-backed terrorism WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon. The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said. The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were two primary elements in the Bush administration's arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq. The Pentagon's report also contradicts then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said in September 2002 that the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are, in fact, al Qaeda in Iraq." Although other groups, like the September 11 commission, have concluded that there was no link between Hussein and al Qaeda, the Pentagon was able to analyze much more information. The documents cited in the report do reveal that Hussein supported a number of terrorists and terrorist activities inside and outside Iraq. "The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist operations prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq," according to the report. Most of the terrorism was aimed at keeping Hussein and his Baath party in power, according to Pentagon officials. "State sponsorship of terrorism became such a routine tool of state power that Iraq developed elaborate bureaucratic processes to monitor progress and accountability in the recruiting, training and resourcing of terrorists," according to the report. The report cited such examples as training for car bombs and suicide bombings in 1999 and 2000, both of which U.S. and Iraqi forces have struggled to contain since the rise of the insurgency in summer 2003. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 I want to hear MadMike's take on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
909997 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 iam pretty sure everyone knew this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 iam pretty sure everyone knew this. Obviously. Now excuse me, I'm off to post a "Bill Clinton DID have sexual relations with that woman," story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 2002 called and it wants its news story back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 14, 2008 Author Share Posted March 14, 2008 iam pretty sure everyone knew this. Not two weeks ago I heard somebody claiming Iraq and Saddam had ties with Al Quada...... This will be news to some folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Not two weeks ago I heard somebody claiming Iraq and Saddam had ties with Al Quada...... This will be news to some folks. honestly bro, you are posting a political thread. and anyone who reads it will follow politics. this is really old. this is why there are protestors. if they thought there was al qaeda in Iraq they wouldnt be so against the war. it all ties in with the WMD supposed lie.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Not two weeks ago I heard somebody claiming Iraq and Saddam had ties with Al Quada...... This will be news to some folks. Like I said. I want to see what MadMike has to say about this. He is one of the few who still seems to see Saddam/Al Qaeda connections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 In other breaking news... The Warren Commission: Oswald Acted Alone OJ's Murder Trial Jury: Not Guilty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 It is downright comical when the Bush apologists try to downplay this... 4000+ troops dead, over 50K wounded, thousands of Iraqis dead and 2+ trillions dollars later this is a very big deal. Gee...I wonder why Ron Paul and Barack Obama are getting more military campaign contributions than John McSame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 It is downright comical when the Bush apologists try to downplay this...4000+ troops dead, over 50K wounded, thousands of Iraqis dead and 2+ trillions dollars later this is a very big deal. Gee...I wonder why Ron Paul and Barack Obama are getting more military campaign contributions than John McSame? What's comical is that everyone who disagrees with you in a political thread is a 'Bush apologist,' or calling Obama a terrorist. This...is...old...news. Pointing out that fact does not make one a Bush apologist. It makes one honest. *edit* I can just imagine the river you'd cry if I posted an "Obama's drug use" thread. Ya know, just to make sure everyone was aware of it. But I know. Intellectual honesty is out of your grasp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 What's comical is that everyone who disagrees with you in a political thread is a 'Bush apologist,' or calling Obama a terrorist.This...is...old...news. Pointing out that fact does not make one a Bush apologist. It makes one honest. *edit* I can just imagine the river you'd cry if I posted an "Obama's drug use" thread. Ya know, just to make sure everyone was aware of it. But I know. Intellectual honesty is out of your grasp. Funny you should speak about honesty when you claim not to be a Bush apologist but in every thread your comments are always defending him while attacking liberals. Good thing no one sees the pattern ...:doh: The bottom line is Bush's attempt to connect Iraq to 9-11 was a major gaffe that the American people will be paying for long after Bush is back clearing brush on his ranch. It is downright stupid of anyone to try and blow this off no matter how old the story is. I'm sure the families of those 4000 troops are not blowing it off... EDIT: That was a really smart move move comparing Clinton's Blow Job to Bush's war. Because Clinton's blow job cost 4000 lives, 50K wounded and 2 trillion dollars and counting... Good thing you are not biased like you claim:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Funny you should speak about honesty when you claim not to be a Bush apologist but in every thread your comments are always defending him while attacking liberals.The bottom line is Bush's attempt to connect Iraq to 9-11 was a major gaffe that the American people will be paying for long after Bush is back clearing brush on his ranch. It is downright stupid of anyone to try and blow this off no matter how old the story is. I'm sure the families of those 4000 troops are not blowing it off... Show me, specifically, what I said in this thread, or any other recent thread in defense of Bush. Please, just once. Sack up and back up your claim. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Show me, specifically, what I said in this thread, or any other recent thread in defense of Bush.Please, just once. Sack up and back up your claim. Please. Your claim that this story is old is your defense of Bush. This story is not old because in case you missed it the war Bush got us into is still going on and Americans are still dying. This story is not old despite your attempts to brush it under the rug. Now why don't you SACK UP and admit you are wrong for once in your life. Ooops make that twice.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Your claim that this story is old is your defense of Bush. This story is not old because in case you missed it the war Bush got us into is still going on and Americans are still dying. This story is not old despite your attempts to brush it under the rug. Now why don't you SACK UP and admit you are wrong for once in your life. Ooops make that twice.... So I'm a Bush apologist for pointing out the fact that anyone who's informed AT ALL already knew this? Brilliant logic. How bout my calls for impeachment? How about my calls for criminal investigations into NSA? How about MY statement that GWB is our worst president ever. I know, I know. None of that matters because I pointed out the FACT that this is an old story. What the **** ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 So I'm a Bush apologist for pointing out the fact that anyone who's informed AT ALL already knew this? Brilliant logic. How bout my calls for impeachment? How about my calls for criminal investigations into NSA? How about MY statement that GWB is our worst president ever. I know, I know. None of that matters because I pointed out the FACT that this is an old story. What the **** ever. Everyone has called for his impeachment...big whoop! would you like a treat for finally seeing the light?:doh: You may as well drop the act because whenever someone posts anything resembling anti-GOP/Bush you say something like this... Now excuse me, I'm off to post a "Bill Clinton DID have sexual relations with that woman," story. Despite your claims to the contrary you are a Bush apologist and you are as partisan as anyone else here. Your posts betray your claims Mr. Sack up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 I support the war and didn't even vote for Bush. I'm not apologizing, I just happen to notice that the war encompasses more than Iraq, and that if you're going to fight said war in the Middle east, Saddam's forces have to be accounted for. To me, ties to Al Qaida are not necessary. It's unfortunate that they felt they had to conjure up these ties to gain support for the war, but they did and when all is said and done they'll be held accountable for it. That is unfortunate, and should be dealt with, but doesn't remove the necessity of the war. No one can doubt or disagree that after 9/11 some sort of response was required. We've hashed over a thousand times if we should have invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, even Saudi. 9/11 insisted we retaliate, and we have. People want to tie all these political reasons together for why we went into Iraq, and they ignore the military reality of it. The Iraqi army was the largest fighting force in the region. It was commanded by a decided unfriendly. If we're coming into the Middle east to smoke out Al Qaida, the forces who may oppose us must be accounted for. And so they were. All the other stuff, installing new government, protecting them while they get on their feet, the insurgency, etc, is a natural result of having done that. Folks determined to get to the bottom of why we went into Iraq should realize the military aspects of it, rather than focusing on the American politics aspect of it. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 1. Saddam's forces were accounted for prior to 9-11 and after 9-11. 2. Saddam was surrounded by enemies he created by being an @ss 3. Oh yeah....Saddam had no WMDs This was the war Bush wanted to fight....and now he/his supporters must live with the legacy (good, bad and ugly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Everyone has called for his impeachment...big whoop! would you like a treat for finally seeing the light?:doh: You may as well drop the act because whenever someone posts anything resembling anti-GOP/Bush you say something like this... Despite your claims to the contrary you are a Bush apologist and you are as partisan as anyone else here. Your posts betray your claims Mr. Sack up. I haven't called for his impeachment. I'm glad we went in, and still am. I was mad at the SecDef for doing the "peace" all wrong, the war kicked ass. Please focus when your pointing the finger at people, your arguing with the wrong person. And you look up NOTHING. We got Al Capone for tax evasion, you take what you can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 I haven't called for his impeachment.I'm glad we went in, and still am. I was mad at the SecDef for doing the "peace" all wrong, the war kicked ass. Please focus when your pointing the finger at people, your arguing with the wrong person. And you look up NOTHING. We got Al Capone for tax evasion, you take what you can get. 1. I'll give you points for have the balls to stand by your POTUS unlike some here who are tap dancing like Sammy Davis. 2. If you are mad at the SECDEF for the "peace" or occupation screw ups then your anger is misplaced. That anger belongs squarely at the foot of the occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. He was ultimately calling all the wrong shots. 3. The war was indeed kick-ass...too bad it was wrong/fake reasons. (no WMDS, no AQ ties and Saddam was not making any aggressive moves towards his neighbors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 QFT, with a few ammendments, for myself. I support the war and didn't even vote for Bush.Me too. And I did vote him, twice. If the law allowed, I would take him over the current three candidates as well. I'm not apologizing, I just happen to notice that the war encompasses more than Iraq, and that if you're going to fight said war in the Middle east, Saddam's forces have to be accounted for. To me, ties to Al Qaida are not necessary. Me neither. The report does however confirm Saddam's support of terrorism. Who cares which groups? It's unfortunate that they felt they had to conjure up these ties to gain support for the war, but they did and when all is said and done they'll be held accountable for it. That is unfortunate, and should be dealt with, but doesn't remove the necessity of the war. I don't agree with, "conjure up." There was enough circumstantial evidence to warrant not ignoring the steep price to be paid, if true. No one can doubt or disagree that after 9/11 some sort of response was required. We've hashed over a thousand times if we should have invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, even Saudi. 9/11 insisted we retaliate, and we have. People want to tie all these political reasons together for why we went into Iraq, and they ignore the military reality of it. The Iraqi army was the largest fighting force in the region. It was commanded by a decided unfriendly. If we're coming into the Middle east to smoke out Al Qaida, the forces who may oppose us must be accounted for. And so they were. All the other stuff, installing new government, protecting them while they get on their feet, the insurgency, etc, is a natural result of having done that. Folks determined to get to the bottom of why we went into Iraq should realize the military aspects of it, rather than focusing on the American politics aspect of it. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 1. I'll give you points for have the balls to stand by your POTUS unlike some here who are tap dancing like Sammy Davis.2. If you are mad at the SECDEF for the "peace" or occupation screw ups then your anger is misplaced. That anger belongs squarely at the foot of the occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. He was ultimately calling all the wrong shots. 3. The war was indeed kick-ass...too bad it was wrong/fake reasons. (no WMDS, no AQ ties and Saddam was not making any aggressive moves towards his neighbors. I'd dissagree that Saddam was not making any aggressive moves towards his neighbors. I stood by Clinton for Bosnia against the United Nations also and to me it pushed him way up the charts.. They are ALL my POTUS. I am an American citizen that disagrees with 100% of the people in power right now 80% of the time. I do not then take said dissagreemnt and belittle all those that are 5% off of what i think. I try and post links and put the big picture thought out there. I've stated repeatedly that the humanitarian reasons, the Son's deaths were well worth it. I've also states that Wilson's trip on Feb 26th and the report being published on Mar 1st was a JOKE... less than 3 days and not being able to talk to anyone currently in power for an "investigation"? o.k. ramble off... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 I'd dissagree that Saddam was not making any aggressive moves towards his neighbors. He had coalition forces to his north and angry neighbors around him. What was he going to do? I stood by Clinton for Bosnia against the United Nations also and to me it pushed him way up the charts.. Good for you They are ALL my POTUS. I am an American citizen that disagrees with 100% of the people in power right now 80% of the time. Welcome to the club...poker nights are Tuesdays:laugh: I do not then take said dissagreemnt and belittle all those that are 5% off of what i think. I try and post links and put the big picture thought out there. Neither do I. I also do not think it is right to simply gloss over one of the biggest post 9-11 mistakes this administration made. I've stated repeatedly that the humanitarian reasons, the Son's deaths were well worth it. I've also states that Wilson's trip on Feb 26th and the report being published on Mar 1st was a JOKE... less than 3 days and not being able to talk to anyone currently in power for an "investigation"?o.k. ramble off... Humanitarian reasons? - Surely you are kidding. The Iraqis had power and clean water under Saddam. We are the ones that blew all of that to hell. The Iraq I saw when I was patrolling was nothing like the pre-invasion Iraq. The only humanitarian positives I can think of is killing Saddam/Sons. The only positive that came from this invasion/occupation was the capture/deaths of the saddam regime. The fact that no WMDs were found after all of that posturing in front of the American people and the UN was the nail in the credibility coffin for this administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Humanitarian reasons? - Surely you are kidding. The Iraqis had power and clean water under Saddam. We are the ones that blew all of that to hell. The Iraq I saw when I was patrolling was nothing like the pre-invasion Iraq. The only humanitarian positives I can think of is killing Saddam/Sons. I have in the past and can now prove that state OHHH SOO wrong! Would you care to start proving this statement and being Owned or let it drop? http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/watsan.html http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/electricity.html http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/health.html http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/education.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 I have in the past and can now prove that state OHHH SOO wrong!Would you care to start proving this statement and being Owned or let it drop? I for one would love to see your proof over what I witnessed with my own eyes and boots on the ground. By all means sir....Prove away:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.