Iraq/Al-qaeda links

[yeat182]

I heard an interesting little fact today on a news program...In 1998, when the clinton administration was bringing their idictment against Osama bin Laden, Janet Reno cited aiding Iraq develop WMD's as one of their reasons for the idictment. Funny how the bush administration is somehow "lying" about the supposed link, and they are blamed for making it up...

[UndefinedBoy]

I heard an interesting little fact today on a news program...In 1998, when the clinton administration was bringing their idictment against Osama bin Laden, Janet Reno cited aiding Iraq develop WMD's as one of their reasons for the idictment. Funny how the bush administration is somehow "lying" about the supposed link, and they are blamed for making it up...

Looks like Clinton made up the same lie.

[Bureau2]

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/windows/0,3783,9990:300,00.wvx

Regardless of your politics you can't argue with that...

[cal1082]

Anyone here today that Putin announced that after Sept. 11th and before the war in Iraq began, Russia intelligence had told the Bush administration that they had evidence that Saddam was planning terror attacks on the US? It's a very interested new development.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Russia-Iraq.html?ex=1088222400&en=8338f4092b2890ca&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

[Chevyman803]

yes, I heard it and the democrats are shittin bricks with the bad political day they are having.

[open mind]

yes everyone's shitting bricks because everyone knows intelligence organizations always get things right............

[Jason Tate]

Actually, all of this information was given to the 911 panel and they still found there to be no credible evidence.

[yeat182]

no credible evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11...not that they didn't have contact with each other.

[bossydacow]

yeah, but didn't the commission find that the contacts Iraq had with Al-Qaeda
weren't friendly in general? Like when Bin Laden asked for training space and weapon assistance and was refused?

The associated press wrote, "Rebuffing Bush administration claims, the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday no evidence exists that al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam Hussein."

I know the Bush Administration is saying that they never said that they meant Iraq had a role in 9/11 but were concerned with him attacking us in general in cahoots w/ Bin Laden, but no strong ties, means no strong ties regarding 9/11 or terrorism in general, right? You can have contact with someone but that doesn't mean its friendly and it doesn't make it right to use it as a reason to wage war.

[yeat182]

i posted this in earlier in the thread, but in case you missed it...

I heard an interesting little fact today on a news program...In 1998, when the clinton administration was bringing their idictment against Osama bin Laden, Janet Reno cited aiding Iraq develop WMD's as one of their reasons for the idictment. Funny how the bush administration is somehow "lying" about the supposed link, and they are blamed for making it up...

so if Osama was indicted based on his relationship with saddam, wouldn't that mean there was some sort of "friendly" contact?

[open mind]

i think what the 9/11 commision said after investigating the iraq/al queda relationship shows both the clinton and bush administration didn't have it right.

[cal1082]

Remember Powell's speech to the UN back in February '03? In it he said Iraq was harboring Zarqawi. Now jump forward to the present and look who has caused much trouble for American forces and killed Berg in Iraq......Zarqawi. You can take this as a coincidence if you want, but it's pretty damning evidence as well.

[yeat182]

i think what the 9/11 commision said after investigating the iraq/al queda relationship shows both the clinton and bush administration didn't have it right.

the 9/11 commision looked at the events that led up to 9/11 and how the different administrations handled it, and they also looked at what involvement Iraq had in that attack, i don't believe they looked into the overall connection between al-qaeda and Iraq. i could be wrong though.

[open mind]

Remember Powell's speech to the UN back in February '03? In it he said Iraq was harboring Zarqawi. Now jump forward to the present and look who has caused much trouble for American forces and killed Berg in Iraq......Zarqawi. You can take this as a coincidence if you want, but it's pretty damning evidence as well.
just because powell says something it's not neccasarilly evidence, opinion or assumptions don't equal fact.

[cal1082]

just because powell says something it's not neccasarilly evidence, opinion or assumptions don't equal fact.

that's why i said you could take it as a strange and perfect coincidence, but can't deny it's evidence.

[open mind]

taking it as strange and perfect coincidence would kinda mean i'm not taking it as evidence wouldn't it?

[cal1082]

taking it as strange and perfect coincidence would kinda mean i'm not taking it as evidence wouldn't it?

You might take it as a coincidence and that is fine. You can't deny it is evidence to support the governments claim though. Is it enough for you? Obviously not.

[open mind]

are you trying to not make sense?all it really is evidence of is that powell knew the guy was a terrorist, besides that it doesn't really back up shit when you look at the other things that powell has said in the past

[cal1082]

are you trying to not make sense?all it really is evidence of is that powell knew the guy was a terrorist, besides that it doesn't really back up shit when you look at the other things that powell has said in the past

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/

Read this article that is from February before the war. Knowing what we know now about Zarqawi how can you possibly say what's going on now is not evidence of an Iraq connection with Zarqawi.

If you do not think it is evidence at all you have to assume what is going on with Zarqawi right now is one big, fat, convient coincidence. It's to big of coincidence for me to accept.

[turtlefootrx]

if you want the whole story on it read the commissions final report they released last week. at that point they did have evidence that said al qaeda had tried to get in contact with iraq, but that iraq never responded....

but recently i read somewhere about new evidence saying that it might have just happened. but it wasnt that likely still..but knowing our government thats prolly changed yet again...

[jgirv17]

This is more of my opinion that I have derived from research than anything draped in evidence, so I'm sure it will easily be refuted but...

I do not see how there would be a link between people like bin Laden and Saddam. Bin Laden is a religious fundamentalist who uses his faith to dictate his actions, while Saddam is a lax Sunni who uses his politics to dictate whether or not to appear religious on any given day. I do not see how anyone as caught up in their faith as Osama would want to compromise with someone as morally lax as Saddam, despite their "common goal," as some may argue. Furthermore, the main reason for Osama's hatred for the Western World stemmed from the Gulf War, in which the Saudis would not allow Osama to bring his Freedom Fighters into the Kingdom to fight Iraq, instead allowing the US to place its troops on the ground. For someone to consider himself to be such a great enemy of Iraq and Saddam as to offer his help in a war against him, it seems rather unlikely that bin Laden's mind set would shift so drastically in the years to come as to join forces with Saddam. Finally, President Bush, after hearing the findings of the 9-11 commission (which stated: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States"), said: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda." That was it - that was his explanation. Such incriminating evidence he offered!

[cal1082]

This is more of my opinion that I have derived from research than anything draped in evidence, so I'm sure it will easily be refuted but...

I do not see how there would be a link between people like bin Laden and Saddam. Bin Laden is a religious fundamentalist who uses his faith to dictate his actions, while Saddam is a lax Sunni who uses his politics to dictate whether or not to appear religious on any given day. I do not see how anyone as caught up in their faith as Osama would want to compromise with someone as morally lax as Saddam, despite their "common goal," as some may argue.

For the same reason we supported iraq in the iraq/iran war. For the same reason Libya is cooperating with us now eventhough they despise Isreal. For the same reason Pakistan is cooperating with us now. For the same reason we have a working relationship with China eventhough they are communist.

It's doing what has to been to to better your own, or to maintain the current.

[venus/bacchus]

Finally, President Bush, after hearing the findings of the 9-11 commission (which stated: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States"), said: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda." That was it - that was his explanation. Such incriminating evidence he offered!
Actually, the 9/11 Commission said that they did have a relationship, but that Iraq wasn't involved in the 9/11 attacks. And on top of that, the 9/11 Commission admitted that they have less information than the executive branch has. Why this is, I don't know, but it was stated by both parties. Also, the 9/11 Commission said nothing was definitive. The just used the little they had to make a "best guess" that some still argue with. The "meeting" in Prague was officially refuted by cell phone calls from Florida, so he must've been in Florida. There's no possible way he could have given his phone to someone else. Because the paper trail of rental cars and hotel rooms ends for a week in April in which the "meeting" is believed to occur. Cell phone bills are anything but definitive, and the 9/11 Commission is only making very educated guesswork.

[yeat182]

This is more of my opinion that I have derived from research than anything draped in evidence, so I'm sure it will easily be refuted but...

I do not see how there would be a link between people like bin Laden and Saddam. Bin Laden is a religious fundamentalist who uses his faith to dictate his actions, while Saddam is a lax Sunni who uses his politics to dictate whether or not to appear religious on any given day. I do not see how anyone as caught up in their faith as Osama would want to compromise with someone as morally lax as Saddam, despite their "common goal," as some may argue. Furthermore, the main reason for Osama's hatred for the Western World stemmed from the Gulf War, in which the Saudis would not allow Osama to bring his Freedom Fighters into the Kingdom to fight Iraq, instead allowing the US to place its troops on the ground. For someone to consider himself to be such a great enemy of Iraq and Saddam as to offer his help in a war against him, it seems rather unlikely that bin Laden's mind set would shift so drastically in the years to come as to join forces with Saddam. Finally, President Bush, after hearing the findings of the 9-11 commission (which stated: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States"), said: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda." That was it - that was his explanation. Such incriminating evidence he offered!


i think the term, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies here. there was little, if any, similarities between stalin and FDR, but we allied to fight a common enemy, i think the same can be said here.

[jgirv17]

i think the term, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies here. there was little, if any, similarities between stalin and FDR, but we allied to fight a common enemy, i think the same can be said here.

I understand that, which I why I prefaced everything by saying I could easily be refuted with facts since it was basically just my opinion. The difference I see between Stalin and FDR's alliance and the supposed one between Iraq and al-Qaeda is their ideologies. Stalin and FDR wanted Hitler out of power since he was a threat to the world stage. It can be argued that both Saddam and bin Laden wanted to diminish the United States' power, I won't argue with that. The difference is, though, that bin Laden is a religious fundamentalist (religion: something FDR and, especially, Stalin did not allow to affect their actions) and, I believe, his intense (although twisted) faith would sway him from wanting to deal with a man who used his so-called "faith" when it was convenient, and never more. Bin Laden could find other alliances other than Saddam Hussein, albeit less powerfull, who shared the same mindset against the Western World without compromising his intense beliefs.

Again, this is opinion, so I am not trying to pass it off as the truth. It is my own personal theory.

[turtlefootrx]

even at 15,000 strong bin laden still needs alliances. without alliances, you have nothing. its like having your best friend back you up in a fight, if it were just you against 5 other guys, youd be fucked. so why wouldnt bin laden try and get as many friends as possable, even if they dont see eye to eye on everything?

[open mind]

the 9/11 commision said they could find no evidence of iraq and al queda collaborating (i would say that means they could find no evidence they worked together) if they didn't work together they weren't aiding eachother were they?
http://www.fair.org/activism/fox-commission.html

[yeat182]

the 9/11 commision said they could find no evidence of iraq and al queda collaborating (i would say that means they could find no evidence they worked together) if they didn't work together they weren't aiding eachother were they?
http://www.fair.org/activism/fox-commission.html

the 9/11 commision was investigating 9/11, not all of the connections between al-qaeda and Iraq. also, there is the indictment of bin Laden that cites his aiding Iraq as one of the reasons he was wanted.

[open mind]

the 9/11 commission said they could find no evidence of iraq and al queda working together period, they didn't say they could find no evidence of iraq and al queda working together on the 9/11 attacks.
an indictment is not proof it just makes an allegation official, plent of people are indicted then found innocent of what they were indicted for.

[cal1082]

the 9/11 commision said they could find no evidence of iraq and al queda collaborating (i would say that means they could find no evidence they worked together) if they didn't work together they weren't aiding eachother were they?
http://www.fair.org/activism/fox-commission.html

You're dead wrong. The commission did not say that there was no collaboration at all. The said there was no collaborating on attacks against the US. This does not mean they did not have a relationship.

The entire quote is, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

You can make the argument that the Taliban didnt cooperate on attacks against the US. You can make the argument Sudan didnt cooperate on attacks against the US. You can make the argument Saudi Arabi didnt cooperate on attacks against the US. You can make the argument Iran didnt cooperate on attacks against the US.

The question is did these countries knowingly assist Al Qaeda with safe refugee, or places to train.

[open mind]

well if that's the question then iraq didn't aid al queda since so far investigations have found that iraq did not respond to al queda when al queda asked if they could set up training camps and shit in iraq.