Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says

[Burgundy Burner]

wow.... I think the appropriate response is "I can't tell you where you end and he begins."

Eh, somewhere in the middle. Hard to say.

[NavyDave]

Sniveling, anti Bush ranting.... yep another Liberal thread.

[Predicto]

Sniveling, anti Bush ranting.... yep another Liberal thread.

Yep. Gotta hate that sniveling, anti Bush Joint Forces Command and their sniveling, anti Bush report. :laugh:

[NavyDave]

What is so hard to understand is why we had to RUSH IN AND INVADE IRAQ RIGHT AWAY when we were already busy in Afganistan, and why the Administration MISREPRESENTED ITS REASONS FOR THE INVASION so that we look like lying hyper-aggressive fools to the entire world.

Saddam may well have been the worst evil pig to ever walk the earth. So what? The Administration still lied to us, and rushed to invade when they didn't need to, and got us stuck in a swirling votex of :pooh: that continues to this day. And worst of all - THE ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A PLAN FOR CONTROLLING IRAQ ONCE WE CONQUERED THEM!

Rushed In?? So callled Allies that was making profits oil for blood program dragged their feet for almost a year, when they also agreed prior to the resolutions that were violated by Sadam.

If its so what for Saddam then you should never support us going to Haiti since its a French Colony, Somalia, the Sudan or "wasting our money for AIDS in Africa, Tsunamis in Asia after all it has nothing to do with us and the idea of bringing Democracy and free thought, free will to others isn't the liberal way but we should allow as many refugees, like all of the muslims and some Mexican nationals who claim they are gay to come into my country or people who don't want to be forced into having abortions.

Post Germany and Japan wasn't a picnic for us either and the money spent and still being spent (with troops still there) in both places some will argue is well worth it.

[Larry]

Rushed In?? So callled Allies that was making profits oil for blood program dragged their feet for almost a year, when they also agreed prior to the resolutions that were violated by Sadam.

Ah, the old

• We asked the UN to authorize military action.
  
• We bribed several members of the Security Council to vote our way.
  
• When it became obvious to us that not only were there several members likely to veto such a resolution, but that odds were they wouldn't have needed a veto, since we likely wouldn't even have got a majority, even with the bribes, . . .
  
• Then we withdraw our request for military action . . .
  
• And announce that we're going in, anyway, in self defense.
  
• And then, after we've invaded, claim that the UN told us to do it
  
• And it's all the UN's fault, because they didn't do what we told them to do quick enough.
  

line of "reasoning".

[Larry]

NO WE DIDN'T. Repeat this lie as many times as you like AND IT IS STILL A LIE!

There are many reasons to believe them. They knew where the money went. Both men have retired from the CIA; they have no motive to mouth an agency line. And no compelling evidence has emerged that the CIA ever paid bin Laden: no cancelled checks, no invoices, no government reports.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html

Wow.

So the US Government says there was no substantive link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, but you just know that there was, citing reasoning like "Saddam supported terrorists, and Al Qaeda is terrorists", and "Saddam wanted to be in charge of a single, Muslim state, and Osamma wanted to be in charge of a single, Muslim state, therefore they were obviously allies".

(Hint: By that reasoning, Hitler and Stalin were allies, since they both wanted to conquer Europe.)

OTOH, there's no link between the US and Ossamma, because Fox News quotes two people who are pushing a book, and the people pushing the book point out that no one has produced any canceled checks with Ossamma's name on them.

The amount of proof you demand, in order to prove there's a link between (country) and (terrorist) seems, how shall I say it, a little inconsistent.

-----

That said: I'll also recognize that I haven't brought any evidence of a link to the fight. Not even a simple declaration in an article that says there was such a link, without support.

I would love it if it were shown that the US was too smart to lend aid to whackjobs like that. The fact that we've done other "enemy of my enemy" moves, countless times, all over the world, doesn't make me think it's likely that well, we didn't support this Satan. But I suppose even the US Government is right, occasionally.

For now, I'm going to stick with the thousands of times I've read that there was such a link. But I'm not going to say that what you've brought to my attention is completely worthless, either. I haven't changed my mind, but you've lessened my certainty.

Edit:

After further thought, I guess a better way to sum up my opinion as to your assertion is more like:

I'm not going to claim that it's impossible that an unsupported assertion, repeated thousands of times, becomes an accepted fact, without any support.

But I find it really tough to believe that this assertion has been refuted, by two people who, as your article points out, really ought to know, for this long, and that none of my reading (which includes a lot of rather fervent right-wing cheerleaders) has mentioned that this assertion was refuted years ago.

Seems to me that, if the question of "did the US provide material aid to Osamma" was so much as disputed, let alone disproven, then I would have heard about it thousands of times by now.

[twa]

Iraq was the least of our worries right then, and we turned it into the biggest of our worries in the last 30 years, and now we are hamstrung in dealing with Iran, the real power in the region.

Failure all around.

I am of the opinion that attacking Iraq was/is addressing Iran,and we are far from hamstrung both politically and militarily in regards to Iran.

Even some of our less than stalwart European allies are seeing the light.

Bang it is hard for Iranians to vote the hardliners out when Seventy per cent of the current government's opponents have been banned from participating in the election.

http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/22144

Don't look for much help there.

[Baculus]

If its so what for Saddam then you should never support us going to Haiti since its a French Colony, Somalia, the Sudan or "wasting our money for AIDS in Africa, Tsunamis in Asia after all it has nothing to do with us and the idea of bringing Democracy and free thought, free will to others isn't the liberal way but we should allow as many refugees, like all of the muslims and some Mexican nationals who claim they are gay to come into my country or people who don't want to be forced into having abortions.

Actually, the two concepts you mentioned, "free thought, free will," are traditional liberal values, which is why the US is a liberal democracy. That isn't of course, to confuse these traditional liberal values, as a philosophy, with current political liberalism, some of which is closer to Social Democracy then traditional Liberalism (which is more market oriented).

Maybe all that is just an aside, but I just wanted to mention it.

And definitely, international activism is very Neo-Liberal, which was a criticism of the US's involvement in the Balkans. I think the problem that some folks have with the Iraqi situation are the reasons, with its many twists and turns, for invading Iraq, as well as the scope and length of the operation. I know many folks who considered themselves liberal who were fine and supportive of the Afghanistan operation, but become disenchanted with the idea of invading Iraq. Also, there are many Americans uncomfortable with our activism in another nation; Americans can be a conservative lot, philosophically that is, and necessarily do not relish the role of an occupying army in the Middle East.

This isn't to say, of course, that most folks are happy that Saddam is gone. (Though I have sometimes wondered if the region is less stable due to his removal, and if the situation has merely strengthened the hand of Shiites and Iran in the south of the nation.)

Post Germany and Japan wasn't a picnic for us either and the money spent and still being spent (with troops still there) in both places some will argue is well worth it.

That is very true, and it may be true of Iraq as well. Only time, and a good regional policy, will tell.

[Mad Mike]

Wow.

So the US Government says there was no substantive link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, but you just know that there was, citing reasoning like "Saddam supported terrorists, and Al Qaeda is terrorists", and "Saddam wanted to be in charge of a single, Muslim state, and Osamma wanted to be in charge of a single, Muslim state, therefore they were obviously allies".

(Hint: By that reasoning, Hitler and Stalin were allies, since they both wanted to conquer Europe.)

OTOH, there's no link between the US and Ossamma, because Fox News quotes two people who are pushing a book, and the people pushing the book point out that no one has produced any canceled checks with Ossamma's name on them.

The amount of proof you demand, in order to prove there's a link between (country) and (terrorist) seems, how shall I say it, a little inconsistent.

-----

That said: I'll also recognize that I haven't brought any evidence of a link to the fight. Not even a simple declaration in an article that says there was such a link, without support.

I would love it if it were shown that the US was too smart to lend aid to whackjobs like that. The fact that we've done other "enemy of my enemy" moves, countless times, all over the world, doesn't make me think it's likely that well, we didn't support this Satan. But I suppose even the US Government is right, occasionally.

For now, I'm going to stick with the thousands of times I've read that there was such a link. But I'm not going to say that what you've brought to my attention is completely worthless, either. I haven't changed my mind, but you've lessened my certainty.

Edit:

After further thought, I guess a better way to sum up my opinion as to your assertion is more like:

I'm not going to claim that it's impossible that an unsupported assertion, repeated thousands of times, becomes an accepted fact, without any support.

But I find it really tough to believe that this assertion has been refuted, by two people who, as your article points out, really ought to know, for this long, and that none of my reading (which includes a lot of rather fervent right-wing cheerleaders) has mentioned that this assertion was refuted years ago.

Seems to me that, if the question of "did the US provide material aid to Osamma" was so much as disputed, let alone disproven, then I would have heard about it thousands of times by now.

Tell you what. Why don't you show me one single shred of proof to back up your claim. I won't be holding my breath.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I am of the opinion that attacking Iraq was/is addressing Iran,and we are far from hamstrung both politically and militarily in regards to Iran.

Even some of our less than stalwart European allies are seeing the light.

Bang it is hard for Iranians to vote the hardliners out when Seventy per cent of the current government's opponents have been banned from participating in the election.

http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/22144

Don't look for much help there.

I always heard that having Saddam, an enemy of Iran, right next-door to them was a good thing as far as Iran goes. Now that we've taken out their one big rival and replaced him with what is essentially an ally, it has neutralized that buffer that Iraq played and now Iran is free to wreck havoc elsewhere. Thus we hamstrung ourselves.

Maybe I'm wrong about that. Or maybe it's simply an opinion. I don't know. All I know is that other then the History Channel showing footage of the '79 revolution and hostages I didn't hear a thing about Iran in my lifetime until we went into Iraq.

[Larry]

Tell you what. Why don't you show me one single shred of proof to back up your claim. I won't be holding my breath.

1) Hey, love the gracious response after I've said that I've actually paid attention to what you posted, and that, by itself, it's not enough to make me instantly change sides, that I'm glad you posted it, and that you have made an impression. Classy.

2) Want me to find out how many news articles I can find that claim that the US

did

help Osamma? I think we both know that there are millions of them. They may not cite a lot of evidence to back up their claim, but your article doesn't have a lot, either.

But it does look at least like the sources are credible. And obviously there won't be any evidence of a negative. That's why I'm not just ignoring it.

3) And you might try actually reading my post. You know, the part where I say that one reason I'm not going to just completely change sides based on your one claim is because the "We helped Osamma" claim has been made thousands of times, and "the other side" hasn't even mentioned this "evidence", even though it's supposedly years old.

But yeah, I'm (now) willing to say that it's at least possible that this is just another example of an urban legend, so to speak.

[Bang]

I am of the opinion that attacking Iraq was/is addressing Iran,and we are far from hamstrung both politically and militarily in regards to Iran.

Even some of our less than stalwart European allies are seeing the light.

Bang it is hard for Iranians to vote the hardliners out when Seventy per cent of the current government's opponents have been banned from participating in the election.

http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/22144

Don't look for much help there.

That is distressing, and tells me that Ahymadinejad is trying to destroy the democracy that Iran operates under in order to install himself as dictator. President for life it would seem on the surface. With luck, when the elections do happen there will be worldwide outcry if they do indeed rig the election so transparently (banning the opponents due to incompetence..)

In regards to addressing Iran.. I think it's become pretty clear over the last several years that two nations in particular outright support, create, and export terrorism against western targets, and that is Syria and Iran. Iraq being right between the two, it is a position in which we can exert pressure on them, and I've no doubt that went into the thinking to prepare for this.

Iran and Syria's ties to anti-west terrorism are something most everyone has already known. But they exist on the same wavelengths a lot of criminals here do, they hide behind rights, they hide behind demands of concrete proof of their actions before anyone will lift a finger. It's the nature of the world now. These regimes have existed by the grace of a world who have hogtied themselves by desire for peace over desire for justice. (Syria especially.. I think Ahmadinejad is really more of a religious fanatic. He truly believes he is going to bring about the end times based on some things I've read.).

They know it, too. They know that civilized people will not move unless they see the smoking gun. This is why they so flippantly dismiss any language directed towards reprisals or retribution... they KNOW no one will do anything. No one ever does. For decades people have turned a blind eye towards Syria in particular, and they're ****y as a result.

For example, we have mountains of evidence that Iran is creating bombs, training insurgents, and supplying them. We have caught high ranking Iranian military officials WITH the enemy in Iraq. We have intercepted shipments, we've found paper trails.. we know they're doing it.

But has the world done anything? Has there been any support for our accusations, any desire to follow thru on our evidence? Not really. And so Iran does what it always does. It lies, it smiles at the camera and says "America is evil,, they are making it all up", and nothing happens.

As I've felt all along, invading Iraq is a beach-head battle in a war with a larger picture. This is only the beginning.

~Bang

[Mad Mike]

1) Hey, love the gracious response after I've said that I've actually paid attention to what you posted, and that, by itself, it's not enough to make me instantly change sides, that I'm glad you posted it, and that you have made an impression. Classy.

2) Want me to find out how many news articles I can find that claim that the US

did

help Osamma? I think we both know that there are millions of them. They may not cite a lot of evidence to back up their claim, but your article doesn't have a lot, either.

But it does look at least like the sources are credible. And obviously there won't be any evidence of a negative. That's why I'm not just ignoring it.

3) And you might try actually reading my post. You know, the part where I say that one reason I'm not going to just completely change sides based on your one claim is because the "We helped Osamma" claim has been made thousands of times, and "the other side" hasn't even mentioned this "evidence", even though it's supposedly years old.

But yeah, I'm (now) willing to say that it's at least possible that this is just another example of an urban legend, so to speak.

YES. FIND THEM. I want some actual proof. I want someone who says they saw it. someone who has receipts. Something tangible after I posted a quote from bin Laden himself that says it never happened.

Bin Laden himself has repeatedly denied that he received any American support. “Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,” bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk (search) in 1993. In 1996, Mr. Fisk interviewed bin Laden again. The arch-terrorist was equally adamant: “We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies.”

There were two factions fighting the soviets. The never got along. One was foreign fighters like bin Laden, the other was the local Afghans. The man we supported was the same man the CIA already had contacts with when you hear about Clintons efforts to hunt down bin Laden. (wow, logic what a concept) Ahmad Shah Massoud. You might have heard about how he was assassinated by al Qaeda two days before 9/11.

http://www.afghan-web.com/bios/yest/asmasood.html

http://www.massoudhero.com/

Massoud's Letter To The People Of America

Date: 1998

A Message to the People of the United States of America

I send this message to you today on behalf of the freedom and peace-loving people of Afghanistan, the Mujahedeen freedom fighters who resisted and defeated Soviet communism, the men and women who are still resisting oppression and foreign hegemony and, in the name of more than one and a half million Afghan martyrs who sacrificed their lives to uphold some of the same values and ideals shared by most Americans and Afghans alike. This is a crucial and unique moment in the history of Afghanistan and the world, a time when Afghanistan has crossed yet another threshold and is entering a new stage of struggle and resistance for its survival as a free nation and independent state.

I have spent the past 20 years, most of my youth and adult life, alongside my compatriots, at the service of the Afghan nation, fighting an uphill battle to preserve our freedom, independence, right to self-determination and dignity. Afghans fought for God and country, sometime alone, at other times with the support of the international community. Against all odds, we, meaning the free world and Afghans, halted and checkmated Soviet expansionism a decade ago. But the embattled people of my country did not savor the fruits of victory. Instead they were thrust in a whirlwind of foreign intrigue, deception, great-gamesmanship and internal strife. Our country and our noble people were brutalized, the victims of misplaced greed, hegemonic designs and ignorance. We Afghans erred too. Our shortcomings were as a result of political innocence, inexperience, vulnerability, victimization, bickering and inflated egos. But by no means does this justify what some of our so-called Cold War allies did to undermine this just victory and unleash their diabolical plans to destroy and subjugate Afghanistan.

Today, the world clearly sees and feels the results of such misguided and evil deeds. South-Central Asia is in turmoil, some countries on the brink of war. Illegal drug production, terrorist activities and planning are on the rise. Ethnic and religiously-motivated mass murders and forced displacements are taking place, and the most basic human and women’s rights are shamelessly violated. The country has gradually been occupied by fanatics, extremists, terrorists, mercenaries, drug Mafias and professional murderers. One faction, the Taliban, which by no means rightly represents Islam, Afghanistan or our centuries-old cultural heritage, has with direct foreign assistance exacerbated this explosive situation. They are unyielding and unwilling to talk or reach a compromise with any other Afghan side.

Unfortunately, this dark accomplishment could not have materialized without the direct support and involvement of influential governmental and non-governmental circles in Pakistan. Aside from receiving military logistics, fuel and arms from Pakistan, our intelligence reports indicate that more than 28,000 Pakistani citizens, including paramilitary personnel and military advisers are part of the Taliban occupation forces in various parts of Afghanistan. We currently hold more than 500 Pakistani citizens including military personnel in our POW camps. Three major concerns - namely terrorism, drugs and human rights - originate from Taliban-held areas but areinstigated from Pakistan, thus forming the inter-connecting angles of an evil triangle. For many Afghans, regardless of ethnicity or religion, Afghanistan, for the second time in one decade, is once again an occupied country.

Let me correct a few fallacies that are propagated by Taliban backers and their lobbies around the world. This situation over the short and long-run, even in case of total control by the Taliban, will not be to anyone’s interest. It will not result in stability, peace and prosperity in the region. The people of Afghanistan will not accept such a repressive regime. Regional countries will never feel secure and safe. Resistance will not end in Afghanistan, but will take on a new national dimension, encompassing all Afghan ethnic and social strata.

The goal is clear. Afghans want to regain their right to self-determination through a democratic or traditional mechanism acceptable to our people. No one group, faction or individual has the right to dictate or impose its will by force or proxy on others. But first, the obstacles have to be overcome, the war has to end, just peace established and a transitional administration set up to move us toward a representative government.

We are willing to move toward this noble goal. We consider this as part of our duty to defend humanity against the scourge of intolerance, violence and fanaticism. But the international community and the democracies of the world should not waste any valuable time, and instead play their critical role to assist in any way possible the valiant people of Afghanistan overcome the obstacles that exist on the path to freedom, peace, stability and prosperity.

Effective pressure should be exerted on those countries who stand against the aspirations of the people of Afghanistan. I urge you to engage in constructive and substantive discussions with our representatives and all Afghans who can and want to be part of a broad consensus for peace and freedom for Afghanistan.

With all due respect and my best wishes for the government and people of the United States,

Ahmad Shah Massoud.

[Larry]

YES. FIND THEM. I want some actual proof. I want someone who says they saw it. someone who has receipts. Something tangible after I posted a quote from bin Laden himself that says it never happened.

Tell ya what.

I'll find a canceled check from the US Government made payable to Al Qaeda. After you find me one from Saddam.

(Remember Saddam? This is a thread about Saddam. And Al Qaeda.)

Since, after all, you've just declared that nothing less than a canceled check is good enough proof for you.

And you've just spent about 5 pages claiming that despite what the US government says, that yes, there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, there was, there was, you just know there was.

Therefore, obviously, you've seen proof. Proof that meets even your exacting standards of irrefutability.

Right?

[speardog1]

Uh. It's so sad to watch Mad Mike get owned like this. Someone should just draw him a picture.

[Mad Mike]

Tell ya what.

I'll find a canceled check from the US Government made payable to Al Qaeda. After you find me one from Saddam.

(Remember Saddam? This is a thread about Saddam. And Al Qaeda.)

Since, after all, you've just declared that nothing less than a canceled check is good enough proof for you.

And you've just spent about 5 pages claiming that despite what the US government says, that yes, there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, there was, there was, you just know there was.

Therefore, obviously, you've seen proof. Proof that meets even your exacting standards of irrefutability.

Right?

Nice cop out. I've put hundreds of links up this thread is full of them.

From the report that started this thread:

Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda-as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long term vision.

Now back to your claim the one for which I have already posted proof that you were wrong... one shred of evidence. Come on... let's see it.

[Mad Mike]

Uh. It's so sad to watch Mad Mike get owned like this. Someone should just draw him a picture.

Yeah, I'm owned.

Tell you what smart guy. You are now in on it. Find me one shred of evidence that shows the US supported bin Laden. Come on, gather your friends and everyone who believes this crap and show me what youv'e got. Show me something better than bin Laden himself saying you are full of crap.

[Mad Mike]

Bergen: Bin Laden, CIA links hogwash

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html

CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen says the notion that Osama bin Laden once worked for the CIA is "simply a folk myth" and that there's no shred of evidence to support such theories.

BERGEN: This is one of those things where you cannot put it out of its misery.

The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html

CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen notes that the "Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding." He notes:

"While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA.

Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. Freelance cameraman Peter Jouvenal recalls: "There was no love lost between the Afghans and the Arabs. One Afghan told me, ‘Whenever we had a problem with one of them we just shot them. They thought they were kings.'"

... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. ... the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]

[Mad Mike]

1) Hey, love the gracious response after I've said that I've actually paid attention to what you posted, and that, by itself, it's not enough to make me instantly change sides, that I'm glad you posted it, and that you have made an impression. Classy.

2) Want me to find out how many news articles I can find that claim that the US

did

help Osamma? I think we both know that there are millions of them. They may not cite a lot of evidence to back up their claim, but your article doesn't have a lot, either.

But it does look at least like the sources are credible. And obviously there won't be any evidence of a negative. That's why I'm not just ignoring it.

3) And you might try actually reading my post. You know, the part where I say that one reason I'm not going to just completely change sides based on your one claim is because the "We helped Osamma" claim has been made thousands of times, and "the other side" hasn't even mentioned this "evidence", even though it's supposedly years old.

But yeah, I'm (now) willing to say that it's at least possible that this is just another example of an urban legend, so to speak.

Ya know what, I'm going to take a break from this thread because I'm just too pissed off that a 90+ page report that details how Saddam recruited, trained, funded and supported terrorists INCLUDING groups affiliated with al Qaeda (as Iraqi documents show according to the report) got turned into a future urban myth by CNN.

I'm sorry for my tone.

Re-reading I can see that you are at least trying to be fair in questioning the CIA bin Laden myth. But at least try to recognize that it is you who is using different standards for examining evidence. My evidence may come in bits and pieces but it does exist and when you put all of the pieces together it is pretty suggestive. Look how quickly you were willing to accept a myth with zero evidence to back it. Just food for thought.

[Thiebear]

Its like the 92 page report 90% of the Congress didnt read.. they got the abbreviated version for aids as they were just toooo busy to read that much..

How can you have so many snipits in a report and then come up with the title..

[Mister Happy]

These documents PROVE that Iraq attacked us first. They PROVE that Iraq recruited, funded and trained international terrorists who attacked us. What about this is so f'ng difficult to understand?

The problem is that wasn't the reason they gave for the war.

The reason was that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction", and then later that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda.

Neither of those have any real evidence to prove them. It's not about whether the evidence exists. It's whether we have the evidence. If we have the evidence, now is the time to bring it out.

You get the evidence BEFORE you go to war. You don't attack and then look for evidence. What if you end up being wrong?

If you wanted to go to war with Saddam because he was our enemy and he plans to attack us someday, then use that as the reason. If you wanted to go to war with Saddam to liberate the Iraqi people, then use that as the reason. If you, even, wanted to go to war to get their oil, then use that. People may disagree, but, at least, you're honest.

War is a serious thing. You don't go to war under false pretenses. The ends don't justify the means. If your ends are justifiable, you shouldn't have to lie about them.

It's not about whether we should be there. It's about whether they had the evidence to send us there for the reasons they stated at the beginning.

Do you have any proof that they had or even have that evidence?

If not, they went to war under false pretenses.

[twa]

Just what is a link? (operational vs cooperation)

Is it direct control or cooperation or simply funding?

Just what is Al Queda,and how has it been determined who is a member?

A interesting fact:

the report confirms that Egyptian Islamic Jihad was supported by Saddam’s regime at a time when 2/3 of the al-Qaida network’s leadership (2/3 of the leadership prior to 2003 was comprised of members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The report is also packed with examples of Saddam’s regime recognizing, supporting, and working with Egyptian Islamic Jihad; i.e. with 2/3 of al-Qaida leadership.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/03/15/pentagon-rpt-confirms-saddams-regime-supported-al-qaida/#more-4197

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=11445

In 2002, the year before the war began, the Iraqi regime hosted in Iraq a series of 13 conferences for non-Iraqi jihadist groups.

That same year, a branch of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) issued hundreds of Iraqi passports for known terrorists.

There is much, much more. Documents reveal that the regime stockpiled bombmaking materials in Iraqi embassies around the world and targeted Western journalists for assassination. In July 2001, an Iraqi Intelligence agent described an al Qaeda affiliate in Bahrain, the Army of Muhammad, as “under the wings of bin Laden.” Although the organization “is an offshoot of bin Laden,” the fact that it has a different name “can be a way of camouflaging the organization.” The agent is told to deal with the al Qaeda group according to “priorities previously established.”

[speardog1]

Just CNN? Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336730,00.html

:thumbsup:

[@DCGoldPants]

If there was a connection between Saddam and Al-Queda. Why would the Pentagon say otherwise? Why now? Why lie?

[Mister Happy]

the report confirms that Egyptian Islamic Jihad was supported by Saddam’s regime at a time when 2/3 of the al-Qaida network’s leadership (2/3 of the leadership prior to 2003 was comprised of members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad

That's interesting, but it's not the same as giving money to Al Qaeda. I suppose you might have a case if you prove that those members took the money from Egyptian Islamic Jihad and used it to fund Al Qaeda.

It's not a particularly "bullet-proof" case for war.

Is this the evidence they used to justify going to war?