NationStates Jolt Archive

:!: UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html) :!:

anyone surprised? :roll:

They thought that not too long, as The US claimed to have Sat. photos Of lorries with WMD's on/in them

Still with the SA-2 crap. Clutching at straws, like I said, some ancient junk turns up in a scrap yard, and suddenly it is a massive conspiracy.

Still with the SA-2 crap. Clutching at straws, like I said, some ancient junk turns up in a scrap yard, and suddenly it is a massive conspiracy.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Don't squeeze the Charmin :!: :lol: :lol: :lol: :P :P :P

Still with the SA-2 crap. Clutching at straws, like I said, some ancient junk turns up in a scrap yard, and suddenly it is a massive conspiracy.Spend a little time reading the article, and we'll see just who is grasping at straws.

I read it earlier today. It contains nothing new, except for the fact that some junk nearly as old as my parents has turned up in some scrap yards. I still have no reason to take the WMD claims seriously. Why should I, when the politicians themselves have already spent months backtracking and playing it down? That argument is dead.

Of course it's dead...after all, it's an argument the Left can't use against Dubya anymore, and the Abu Ghraib story (now moving to Gitmo, of course) is soooo much sexxxxy.

I'm truly surprised Abu Ghraib didn't find its way into the Reagan Funeral stories.

Not that any of this matters if the people think that the Iraq situation wasn't worth going over, as some polls claim currently...

The WMD argument is dead not for lack of liberal attention as you imply, but because of the intensity with which it has been mauled. Quite the reverse. The neo-cons have no cards to play. All they do these days is draw attention to any story on WMD they can find, and none stand up to scrutiny. These days, they prefer to focus on humanitarianism (despite initially maintaining that that is not what the war is about) and saying "forget it, let's move on" every time someone mentions that they got it wrong.

I'll believe it when a credible news source publishes it.

I think that the case for Iraq possessing WMD is forever unprovable.

I'll believe it when a credible news source publishes it.Wow...now we have to play the "credible news source" card.

I don't think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

...they prefer to focus on humanitarianism (despite initially maintaining that that is not what the war is about) and saying "forget it, let's move on" every time someone mentions that they got it wrong.

Apparently you do not remember the speech that president Bush gave on 20 September 2001. And you know something else...no, of course you don't but that's why I'm here, to tell you...it is very curious (dare I say queer) how the Left is conspicuously absent on humanitarian issues when it (the Left) deals with freedom and market based economies for all other countries currently - or not long ago - formerly centrally planned and ruled by despots with iron fists. It's okay to spout humanitarian slogans and to suggest better living conditions for those in desperate need in the world just as long as you pay these things lipservice and never really do anything about it.

The Left has hammered it down our throats that trading goods and services with foriegn countries is only good as long as it is "fair" - whatever that means. I never realized that people trade even when they just know they're being exploited. Also the Left has told us that liberating two countries and over 35 million people is a bad thing - a thing that seems rather fascist to them; again very queer.

I'll believe it when a credible news source publishes it.
Wow...now we have to play the "credible news source" card.
Yes. :D

You know how the neo-cons demand verification from FOX / the military? :wink:

EDIT: And Stableness, making homophobic comments really does nothing for your argument.

I never realized that people trade even when they just know they're being exploited.

well now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

seriously, it ain't rocket science. people will 'choose' to be severely exploited when the alternative is (or even just seems) worse.

Still with the SA-2 crap. Clutching at straws, like I said, some ancient junk turns up in a scrap yard, and suddenly it is a massive conspiracy.Spend a little time reading the article, and we'll see just who is grasping at straws.

I fail to understand how the article is an argument for the issue at all. We have signs of dismantled weapons sites, scrap metal crossing the border that has passed checks for explosive and nuclear materials, and this "double duty" talk...which assumes that ANY concievable material that could possibly be used for making chemical weapons has been used by the former Iraqi regime for just such a purpose.

Yes that's possible. Perhaps even worthy of looking into. However Clinton made that very same mistake on what was supposed to be good intelligence. And what did the cruise missle hit? A normal pharmacutical factory- wiping out most of the antibiotics for the region. Clinton got his intelligence info from the same people that Bush has been getting his from until recently.

That and they're talking about this stuff still passing over the border...and we have proof. If we have proof...Why haven't we stopped it yet?! We own that border now, how freaking hard is it to have an airplane on standby to blow up what our sattilite sees? Not hard at all.

No, I find that this is nothing more than a moderately interesting intelligence report indicating very little of import.

Why don't Bush and all the others just face the facts, Iraq had no WMD.

First off,
Why is this the only report we've heard about it?
If this were true..Fox News would be all over it, and hailing a bush triumph.

Secondly...Why are there no reliable satellite photos of this?
If this were the case,,then the Bush Admin would have KNOWN about it, and still invaded, knowing full well that there was nothing to find.

I think its bull.

It's bullshit that America is in Iraq. There is no WMD and Bush knows it. I did't want to go to Iraq when the war started I knew there was nothing to find but I still had to kill, now thats bullshit.

The whole thing is a moot point....


So what if Iraq was chemical weapons? People in Texas have chemical weapons!

What difference does it make to us?

The whole thing is a moot point....


So what if Iraq was chemical weapons? People in Texas have chemical weapons!

What difference does it make to us?


LOL

Whats the U.S. going to do when we invade ourselves for having WMD.

Whats the U.S. going to do when we invade ourselves for having WMD.
That's the beauty of hypocrasy. :D The West doesn't have to, because our methods of social organisation are superior.

Anyone that has been fighting in the Iraq War and has returned and thinks the whole war is a waste of lives raise your hand.



*Puts hand in air*


And pray for my brother who was killed in Iraq when his Helicopter was shot down over Tikrit.

What have you got to say for this (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3198864#3198864) [I apologize for linking to it but it would be too time consuming to bring it over.]? Did the president lie about what the objectice was back then? Were we really misled about what this war was truly about?

From the article:

UNMOVIC acting executive chairman Demetrius Perricos told the council on June 9 that "the only controls at the borders are for the weight of the scrap metal, and to check whether there are any explosive or radioactive materials within the scrap," Middle East Newsline reported.

So Saddam had some new kind of weapon that didn't involve anything explosive? *hides in terror at metal bar of mass distruction*

Hey Safalra, you forgot some article quotes:

<<<The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.>>>

Not important. Missiles are no big deal. Especially when they were forbidden due to a cease fire agreement established back in 1991.

<<<The Baghdad missile site contained a range of WMD and dual-use components, UN officials said. They included missile components, reactor vessel and fermenters – the latter required for the production of chemical and biological warheads.>>>

I know, I know, Saddam was doing good things with these components. He was making antibiodics for his cherished constituency. They loved him for it too...he even had a democratic election where he received 99% of the vote of his people. It amazing that we had the audacity to take out such a popular leader of his own country. The world should be mad at us. It was all about oil and HalliCheney dontcha know?

<<<In April, International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Mohammed El Baradei said material from Iraqi nuclear facilities were being smuggled out of the country.>>>

I'm sure that it's not stuff you need to worry about. Yeah, it's probably just bulbs, switches, protective clothing, and mostly momentos that nostalgic former workers wanted to remember their old jobs by.

Now Safalra, could you check out the speech that president Bush gave on 20 September 2001 and pick it apart for me as well. I linked to it above (on this very same page of this thread I might add). Check it out and then get back with me please.

One question remains though, if he had them... why not use them? Is not an invasion of your country the key opportunity?

That has always been a good question. It was always far-fetched, trying to envisage Saddam Hussein using 1960s artillery tech to strike at a country on another continent. But when it turns up in force at his front door, that would be the moment, surely? Some might argue that the US could have destroyed his command and control systems just in time, but how much command and control does a massive chemical mine in a sewer require, if you are trying to accomplish it in the very country you rule? The fact that he did not use the WMD he was supposed to have, on the one, unmissable opportunity he had, suggests he never had them.

One question remains though, if he had them... why not use them? Is not an invasion of your country the key opportunity?

It is entirely possible that the chemical and biological weapons (I don't believe that he had nuclear capability...yet) were already smuggled out or were hidden.

Or, his officers belayed the orders for their usage.

Or, that the entire world intelligence community was wrong about the weapons that Saddam had...and that they were wrong about it for over two decades.

One question remains though, if he had them... why not use them? Is not an invasion of your country the key opportunity?

It is entirely possible that the chemical and biological weapons (I don't believe that he had nuclear capability...yet) were already smuggled out or were hidden.

Or, his officers belayed the orders for their usage.

Or, that the entire world intelligence community was wrong about the weapons that Saddam had...and that they were wrong about it for over two decades.So you are saying at the tiome of the US invasion Suddam had gotten rid of his WMDs?

Seriously though, Suddam is not a stupid man. He knows and has seen how effective chemical weapons are in warfares, it's arguabley his standard practice. If he had them, he would have used them. Infact, chances are he's sitting in Guatanimo Bay (sp?) kicking myself for every dismantling them.

..It was always far-fetched, trying to envisage Saddam Hussein using 1960s artillery tech to strike at a country on another continent...

Though it is close to the outskirts I was always under the impression that Isreal was in Asia as well. I might be wrong on this one though. No matter, Kuwait & Qutar were never safe as long as that monster [or shall I say "poster child of sympathy" for the Left] was presiding over Iraq.

Seriously though, Suddam is not a stupid man. He knows and has seen how effective chemical weapons are in warfares, it's arguabley his standard practice. If he had them, he would have used them. Infact, chances are he's sitting in Guatanimo Bay (sp?) kicking myself for every dismantling them.

I recall (because I was there as a Lance Corporal in the United States Marine Corps) that several weeks prior to the air campaign of the first Gulf War, which started in mid January of 1991, that Saddam had taken his entire fleet of MIGs and had them transported to Iran.

I don't think that he ever got them back either. Was that rational? Well, considering what we would have done to them in arial combat...

Hey, was it rational to dump his political enemies into mechanical shredders and chippers? Hmmm...I guess it would lead to less vocal opposition now wouldn't it.

Do you see why I bring this up? The guy wasn't right and you people are trying to use logic - key word: trying - to figure out what happened.

So you are saying at the tiome of the US invasion Suddam had gotten rid of his WMDs?

Nice trick and back at you. The president said that if he just gave up his weapons programs that he could avoid war. So are you trying to say that since he "gave them up" that we should have avoided war?

There was a prescribed manner in which Saddam was supposed to do this and it was by reporting all "discoveries" or documented cases of weapon's destruction to the United Nations. Surely your all for the UN involvement in the matter, are you not?

So you are saying at the tiome of the US invasion Suddam had gotten rid of his WMDs?

Nice trick and back at you. The president said that if he just gave up his weapons programs that he could avoid war. So are you trying to say that since he "gave them up" that we should have avoided war?

There was a prescribed manner in which Saddam was supposed to do this and it was by reporting all "discoveries" or documented cases of weapon's destruction to the United Nations. Surely your all for the UN involvement in the matter, are you not?
Could you include the rest of my post please? Namely the seriously though part.

Now Safalra, could you check out the speech that president Bush gave on 20 September 2001 and pick it apart for me as well. I linked to it above (on this very same page of this thread I might add). Check it out and then get back with me please.

Why should I care whether Bush went to war for humanitarian reasons? Blair went to war because of weapons of mass distruction and he's the one I'm worried about, as he's got a chance of being re-elected.

Could you include the rest of my post please? Namely the seriously though part.

Ok! I officially endorse the reading of my post written Sun Jun 13, 2004 9:03 am to be read first and then the one written Sun Jun 13, 2004 8:57 am to be read second as though they were part of the same post. Thank you for your cooperation!

Could you include the rest of my post please? Namely the seriously though part.

Ok! I officially endorse the reading of my post written Sun Jun 13, 2004 9:03 am to be read first and then the one written Sun Jun 13, 2004 8:57 am to be read second as though they were part of the same post. Thank you for your cooperation!What are you going on about? You cut my post in two, so a joke sounded as if it was serious and then start spouting jibberish? You aren't worth my time.

Why should I care whether Bush went to war for humanitarian reasons? Blair went to war because of weapons of mass distruction and he's the one I'm worried about, as he's got a chance of being re-elected.

You should worry about Bush. He's one hell of a slick salesman. If he could con the intellectually superior Blair then what makes you think that anyone else would have a chance against the Bush charisma? Or was it really Bush...it could have been that evil HalliCheney corporation that's pulling the string on all of the coalition's leaders. BwuuuHahahahah!

Could you include the rest of my post please? Namely the seriously though part.

Ok! I officially endorse the reading of my post written Sun Jun 13, 2004 9:03 am to be read first and then the one written Sun Jun 13, 2004 8:57 am to be read second as though they were part of the same post. Thank you for your cooperation!What are you going on about? You cut my post in two, so a joke sounded as if it was serious and then start spouting jibberish? You aren't worth my time.

But I was for this "just one last time" post for old-times sake?

It is so nice coming to a predominately Left leaning board. You people don't get to read many good arguments from the other side and when someone like me comes along (and there are others here to be sure) you people become all befuddled. *sigh*

I'll believe it when a credible news source publishes it.

Did you read the whole site? It's like the right's version of moveon.org.. :lol:

It is so nice coming to a predominately Left leaning board. You people don't get to read many good arguments from the other side and when someone like me comes along (and there are others here to be sure) you people become all befuddled. *sigh*

Your tone is a bit too strident for my liking...Perhaps I can attribute it to the fact that you've just been in an argument. However place aside your ego for a moment and consider.

Dual-use products are just that; Dual-use. We DO NOT know that he used them, and in the case of invasion and international intelligence operations, "Saddam's an asshole, why wouldn't he use them?" isn't good enough. You need PROOF that he DID. Tell me, where is it? I've read the article; more assertions.

Can you explain to me how the article shows a clear and defineable linkage between scrap metal and fermenting machines and the documentable or tracable WMD capability that was pointed to in the run up to the war?

Try not to be egotistical Stableness, I somehow doubt you're have a genius level IQ. I get the feeling you should keep your boasting to a minimum, as you're in the presence of people who debate for a living, and some of whom have just as much experience in the military as you do.

Iraq certainly possesed weapons of mass destruction programs. Iraq DID NOT account for subsrances and weapons it posessed in the 90s. It FAILED to explain what happened to them. They may be hidden or destroyed or brought out of the country or all of that may be partly true.
But by doing so Iraq VIOLATED RESOLUTION 1441 which demanded FULL, IMMEDIATE AND UNCONDITIONAL COMPLIANCE WITH ALL PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND A FULL AND COMPLETE ACCOUNT OF THE WEAPONS AND SUBSTANCES. Iraq FAILED TO DO SO.
Iraq also EVIDENTLY possed weapons it was prohibited by the UN-resolution 687 and other. Iraq was only allowed to posses missiles up to the range of 150 km (in order to prevent Iraqi attacks against Israel). As a matter of fact Iraq developed the Al-Samoud missile ranging about 180 km. Iraq was CLEARLY IN BREACH OF ITS OBLIGATIONS. We consider the action of the USA LED COALITION justified. It was legally more justified than the Kosovo war.


P.S. We are happy that we personally don´t have to decide about taking military action. It is a tough choice political leaders have to make and either way they can become guilty and are blamed: for taking action or for not taking action (allowing a dictatorship to stay and probably become more dangerous to the world and the stability of the region)

This article is such a load of crap!

Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.

Let us review our timelines shall we?

April 2003: The US forces reach Baghdad.
May 2 2003: GW stands on the deck of the aircraft carrier and declares combat over.
May 2003: They photograph this KNOWN missile site.
Today: Where the hell did the site go?

How is it Saddam's problem that the US did not secure a known site and let it be looted? How is it likely that this is in any way nefarious given that the items were dragged off and sold for scrap? Sounds like somebody just cashing in on scrap metal to make a buck.

Oh yes: And note the bit where it talks about the engines sold for scrap that had already been inspected and tagged by the UN. Shall we ask as well for word as to whether this site was also investigated by the US teams looking for WMD right after Iraq fell? Interesting how that question isn't addressed regarding a known missile site....


So what do we have here? Just another case of the complete incompetence of the US forces at maintaining security in Iraq. They let an entire missile site be looted under their noses, and now they are going to try and use that to point to some illegal activity by Saddam before the war?

Like I said - a load of crap!

-Z-

An op/ed from the "Paper of Record"

The Zelikow Report
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Published: June 21, 2004 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/opinion/21SAFI.html?ex=1088395200&en=6def8ee2f0b48d06&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1)


WASHINGTON — "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie" went the Times headline. "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed" front-paged The Washington Post. The A.P. led with the thrilling words "Bluntly contradicting the Bush Administration, the commission. . . ." This understandably caused my editorial-page colleagues to draw the conclusion that "there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. . . ."

All wrong. The basis for the hoo-ha was not a judgment of the panel of commissioners appointed to investigate the 9/11 attacks. As reporters noted below the headlines, it was an interim report of the commission's runaway staff, headed by the ex-N.S.C. aide Philip Zelikow. After Vice President Dick Cheney's outraged objection, the staff's sweeping conclusion was soon disavowed by both commission chairman Tom Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton.

"Were there contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq?" Kean asked himself. "Yes . . . no question." Hamilton joined in: "The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections . . . we don't disagree with that" — just "no credible evidence" of Iraqi cooperation in the 9/11 attack.

The Zelikow report was seized upon by John Kerry because it fuzzed up the distinction between evidence of decade-long dealings between agents of Saddam and bin Laden (which panel members know to be true) and evidence of Iraqi cooperation in the 9/11 attacks (which, as Hamilton said yesterday, modifying his earlier "no credible evidence" judgment, was "not proven one way or the other.")

But the staff had twisted the two strands together to cast doubt on both the Qaeda-Iraq ties and the specific attacks of 9/11: "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." Zelikow & Co. dismissed the reports, citing the denials of Qaeda agents and what they decided was "no credible evidence" of cooperation on 9/11.

That paragraph — extending doubt on 9/11 to all previous contacts — put the story on front pages. Here was a release on the official commission's letterhead not merely failing to find Saddam's hand in 9/11, which Bush does not claim. The news was in the apparent contradiction of what the president repeatedly asserted as a powerful reason for war: that Iraq had long been dangerously in cahoots with terrorists.

Cheney's ire was misdirected. Don't blame the media for jumping on the politically charged Zelikow report. Blame the commission's leaders for ducking responsibility for its interim findings. Kean and Hamilton have allowed themselves to be jerked around by a manipulative staff.

Yesterday, Governor Kean passed along this stunner about "no collaborative relationship" to ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "Members do not get involved in staff reports."

Not involved? Another commission member tells me he did not see the Zelikow bombshell until the night before its release. Moreover, the White House, vetting the report for secrets, failed to raise an objection to a Democratic bonanza in the tricky paragraph leading to the misleading "no Qaeda-Iraq tie."

What can the commission do now to regain its nonpartisan credibility?

1. Require every member to sign off on every word that the commission releases, or write and sign a minority report. No more "staff conclusions" without presenting supporting evidence, pro and con.

2. Set the record straight, in evidentiary detail, on every contact known between Iraq and terrorist groups, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's operations in Iraq. Include the basis for the Clinton-era "cooperating in weapons development" statement.

3. Despite the prejudgment announced yesterday by Kean and Democratic partisan Richard Ben-Veniste dismissing Mohammed Atta's reported meeting in Prague with an Iraqi spymaster, fairly spell out all the evidence that led to George Tenet's "not proven or disproven" testimony. (Start with www.edwardjayepstein.com.)

4. Show how the failure to retaliate after the attack on the U.S.S. Cole affected 9/11, how removing the director of central intelligence from running the C.I.A. would work, and how Congress's intelligence oversight failed abysmally.

5. Stop wasting time posturing on television and get involved writing a defensible commission report.

Can you connect the dots?

President Bush in his speech to the nation on September 20, 2001 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html) (just nine days after the attacks - his approval rating remained at nearly 90% for several weeks afterward)

"...The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.)

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (Applause.)

...Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other...

Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

I know, I know, Bush misled us, war for oil, Halliburton, Blah, blah, blah.

Uh, perhaps you missed that there were also contacts between the U.S. and Iraq before 9/11. Contact is a very vague word and by no stretch means "co-operation". Playing word games isn't gonna change facts.

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm)


The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.

The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden.

Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration's defense by saying there had been such contacts.

In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.

To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.

Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission.

He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."

He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, " 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?"

Iraq's winning the war :lol:

Iraq's winning the war :lol:

Winning the war for FREEDOM!!!

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm)


The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.


Ah, the true sign of right-wing desperation - when all else fails, "Clinton did it too!"

It is a sign of how poorly things have worked out from this administration that they started in a place of doing the opposite of whatever Clinton had done to trying to hide behind him.

Did you know that Ronald Reagan had a series of contacts with the Soviet Union during the 1980s? Clearly there was an unholy alliance!

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm)


The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.


Ah, the true sign of right-wing desperation - when all else fails, "Clinton did it too!"

It is a sign of how poorly things have worked out from this administration that they started in a place of doing the opposite of whatever Clinton had done to trying to hide behind him.

Did you know that Ronald Reagan had a series of contacts with the Soviet Union during the 1980s? Clearly there was an unholy alliance!

He didn't say that Clinton Did it too! If you bothered to read the whole thing hun, you would see that! Stop taking part of a story and denounce the whole article.

Oh wait you can't because the Washington Times got it right!

He didn't say that Clinton Did it too! If you bothered to read the whole thing hun, you would see that! Stop taking part of a story and denounce the whole article.

Oh wait you can't because the Washington Times got it right!

Nothing in that article indicated there was an existant relationship between Saddam and Bin Laden. That is the crux of the matter. There is no evidence of a collaboration. Even the recent commission study said that attempts at contact had been made, but there was no credible evidence to support the theory that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had a working relationship or were even intending to pursue one in the future. Again, this is smoke and mirrors.

He didn't say that Clinton Did it too! If you bothered to read the whole thing hun, you would see that! Stop taking part of a story and denounce the whole article.

Oh wait you can't because the Washington Times got it right!

Nothing in that article indicated there was an existant relationship between Saddam and Bin Laden. That is the crux of the matter. There is no evidence of a collaboration. Even the recent commission study said that attempts at contact had been made, but there was no credible evidence to support the theory that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had a working relationship or were even intending to pursue one in the future. Again, this is smoke and mirrors.

Bullcrap! Even the commission backed away from that line! They say No collaberation on 9/11 but that they had a relationship before then. As such, there is a link between Al Qaeda and Hussein! There is too much evidence pointing THAT WAY!!!

Bullcrap! Even the commission backed away from that line! They say No collaberation on 9/11 but that they had a relationship before then. As such, there is a link between Al Qaeda and Hussein! There is too much evidence pointing THAT WAY!!!

No, they did not. Their ultimate finding was that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Hussein and Al-Qaeda, period. The only people backing away were the White House, saying that they never said Iraq was involved with Al-Qaeda on the 9/11 attacks, simply that there was a connection. There were "connections" between the two in that Al-Qaeda may have had operations in Iraq and may have in the past approached Hussein for possible ties, but there is no reason to think Hussein invited them in and sheltered them any more than the US did when it provided flight training to the 9/11 hijackers. In point of fact, Iraq never responded to Al-Qaeda's overtures. There is a substantial difference between having terrorists working in your country and having ties to them. There must be, otherwise the US is just as guilty as Hussein was of "harboring and supporting" terrorists as well as every other country in the world. Until you can prove a direct link that shows Al-Qaeda and Hussein were working together on common goals with governmental backing and support, then you've got nothing, which is exactly what the commission concluded.

You mention evidence. Where is it? Don't say there's "too much evidence" and offer nothing. Cite a source. Right now, the only credible evidence has both groups distancing themselves from one another prior to the Iraq invasion.

Also, don't swear. It makes you sound uneducated and uninformed and it calls into question the rationality of your arguments.

Bullcrap! Even the commission backed away from that line! They say No collaberation on 9/11 but that they had a relationship before then. As such, there is a link between Al Qaeda and Hussein! There is too much evidence pointing THAT WAY!!!

No, they did not. Their ultimate finding was that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Hussein and Al-Qaeda, period. The only people backing away were the White House, saying that they never said Iraq was involved with Al-Qaeda on the 9/11 attacks, simply that there was a connection. There were "connections" between the two in that Al-Qaeda may have had operations in Iraq and may have in the past approached Hussein for possible ties, but there is no reason to think Hussein invited them in and sheltered them any more than the US did when it provided flight training to the 9/11 hijackers. In point of fact, Iraq never responded to Al-Qaeda's overtures. There is a substantial difference between having terrorists working in your country and having ties to them. There must be, otherwise the US is just as guilty as Hussein was of "harboring and supporting" terrorists as well as every other country in the world. Until you can prove a direct link that shows Al-Qaeda and Hussein were working together on common goals with governmental backing and support, then you've got nothing, which is exactly what the commission concluded.

You mention evidence. Where is it? Don't say there's "too much evidence" and offer nothing. Cite a source. Right now, the only credible evidence has both groups distancing themselves from one another prior to the Iraq invasion.

Also, don't swear. It makes you sound uneducated and uninformed and it calls into question the rationality of your arguments.

Go on and believe what you wish but I have seen evidence pointing to a relationship between the two people! Just because you choose to deny it doesn't mean that they didn't have a relationship! They did!

I imagine that if Kerry wins the November election the principal characters of the Democratic Party along with their tools in the Left leaning media, the entertainment industry, and some various book authors will end up taking a luxury cruise together shortly afterward. On their ship they'll undoubtedly unveil a banner that would read: "Mission Accomplished!" Though that would be one photo that we'd never see.


Let's think about it; how does a president go from a near 90% approval rating for several weeks following his speech on September 20, 2001 to where those numbers are today. The answer is that the media is that influential in selling its propoganda/agenda and many people are that easy to persuade. Anyone who supports our foreign policy should take the time to read the text of that September 20, 2001 speech (I've posted it in this thread or the Cincinnati speech in Oct. 2002 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)) if they want to rebut those calls that the president misled us. They'll soon discover - if they haven't already - just who is misleading whom.

Can you connect the dots?

President Bush in his speech to the nation on September 20, 2001 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html) (just nine days after the attacks - his approval rating remained at nearly 90% for several weeks afterward)

"...The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.)

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (Applause.)

...Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other...

Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

I know, I know, Bush misled us, war for oil, Halliburton, Blah, blah, blah.
I find it ironic that you bring this article forward. Bush mistook the world outpouring of sympathy for America, and he thought it gave him a blank cheque.

Well that cheque has come back NSF (No Support Found).

Bush took that goodwill and flushed it down the toilet, and now his approval rating is in the 40's?

Bush turned his back on traditional allies that wanted to give every chance for the UN inspectors to find those WMD (which they weren't BTW).

Iraq a "threat" to the US? Yeah right. No air force, communications in shambles, army decimated, no long range missles, no money, and no desire to upset the US. Saddam was living in fear of the US and the Gulf War proved that. He ordered his generals NOT to use WMD against Coalition forces, for he was smart enough to know what the reply would be.

Game, set, and match? Hardly.

Did you support the war with Afghanistan?

He didn't say that Clinton Did it too! If you bothered to read the whole thing hun, you would see that! Stop taking part of a story and denounce the whole article.

Although I'm pleased that you wish to compare my posting style to Atilla the Hun, I don't believe that's accurate. Also, you should capitalize "Hun".

The article doesn't prove a collaborative relationship; all it states is that members of the Clinton administration alleged one too. Strange how it doesn't mention what the right-wing take on that was at the time, does it?

Oh wait you can't because the Washington Times got it right!

The scary thing is that the Washington Times sometimes does get stories right that the New York Times spins in the Bush administration's favor.

To repeat another point: the question is not whether there was a "link' or a 'relationship' between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. There were numerous links and relationships between Reagan and Gorbachev. George V, King of England during WWI, was the cousin of Kaiser Wilhelm.

The question is whether or not Saddam actually supported or collaborated with Al-Qaeda, and there's no evidence there. The desperation (and dishonesty) of the administration officials who support this argument is shown by their embrace of a fictional contact in Czcechlovakia, combined with a Clintonesque discussion of "connections" - without any thought as to what that relationship was.

Although I'm pleased that you wish to compare my posting style to Atilla the Hun, I don't believe that's accurate. Also, you should capitalize "Hun".

LOL!!! Wasn't refering you to Attila the Hun! Obviously u thought I did but if you look closely, I didn't!

Although I'm pleased that you wish to compare my posting style to Atilla the Hun, I don't believe that's accurate. Also, you should capitalize "Hun".

LOL!!! Wasn't refering you to Attila the Hun! Obviously u thought I did but if you look closely, I didn't!

It's called sarcasm, look it up...

Although I'm pleased that you wish to compare my posting style to Atilla the Hun, I don't believe that's accurate. Also, you should capitalize "Hun".

LOL!!! Wasn't refering you to Attila the Hun! Obviously u thought I did but if you look closely, I didn't!

It's called sarcasm, look it up...

I knew it was sarcasm but I couldn't help but say it.

Its a JOKE! Look it up!

I knew it was sarcasm but I couldn't help but say it.

Its a JOKE! Look it up!

My mistake, snookums, I can't tell the difference between your pretend stupid and real stupid.

It is so nice coming to a predominately Left leaning board. You people don't get to read many good arguments from the other side and when someone like me comes along (and there are others here to be sure) you people become all befuddled. *sigh*

Of course they're befuddled - the running in circles you're doing to present an argument whenever someone points out that your previous argument is weak is enough to make anyone dizzy.

I love neocon crusaders like you and Panny; but then, I love to be entertained, and I've always found desperation entertaining.

Really, does anyone have a good argument which could save this thread? Remember, the toppic is "Old weapons junk ensures Bush victory!"

Go on and believe what you wish but I have seen evidence pointing to a relationship between the two people! Just because you choose to deny it doesn't mean that they didn't have a relationship! They did!

Again, where is this evidence? Have you offered it? No, you just claim to have seen it. If it's such conclusive evidence that they had a "collaborative" relationship then you should be eager to show it off and help me change my mind. Show me the evidence that says Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had a collaborative, working relationship and I'll be more than happy to admit that I was wrong. Evidence, mind you. Not opinion, not rhetoric, but cold, clear, hard facts.

Go on and believe what you wish but I have seen evidence pointing to a relationship between the two people! Just because you choose to deny it doesn't mean that they didn't have a relationship! They did!

Again, where is this evidence? Have you offered it? No, you just claim to have seen it. If it's such conclusive evidence that they had a "collaborative" relationship then you should be eager to show it off and help me change my mind. Show me the evidence that says Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had a collaborative, working relationship and I'll be more than happy to admit that I was wrong. Evidence, mind you. Not opinion, not rhetoric, but cold, clear, hard facts.

THEY HARBORED ZARQAWI!!!! AN AL QAEDA OPERATIVE!!!!!

Go on and believe what you wish but I have seen evidence pointing to a relationship between the two people! Just because you choose to deny it doesn't mean that they didn't have a relationship! They did!

Again, where is this evidence? Have you offered it? No, you just claim to have seen it. If it's such conclusive evidence that they had a "collaborative" relationship then you should be eager to show it off and help me change my mind. Show me the evidence that says Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had a collaborative, working relationship and I'll be more than happy to admit that I was wrong. Evidence, mind you. Not opinion, not rhetoric, but cold, clear, hard facts.

THEY HARBORED ZARQAWI!!!! AN AL QAEDA OPERATIVE!!!!!

Proof?

Thought not.

Go on and believe what you wish but I have seen evidence pointing to a relationship between the two people! Just because you choose to deny it doesn't mean that they didn't have a relationship! They did!

Again, where is this evidence? Have you offered it? No, you just claim to have seen it. If it's such conclusive evidence that they had a "collaborative" relationship then you should be eager to show it off and help me change my mind. Show me the evidence that says Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had a collaborative, working relationship and I'll be more than happy to admit that I was wrong. Evidence, mind you. Not opinion, not rhetoric, but cold, clear, hard facts.

THEY HARBORED ZARQAWI!!!! AN AL QAEDA OPERATIVE!!!!!

Proof?

Thought not.

He's been there for awhile! Fled there after Afghanistan Fell! Now he's trying to destablize the new government. Not happenin' cause the new government won't let it happen!

He's been there for awhile! Fled there after Afghanistan Fell! Now he's trying to destablize the new government. Not happenin' cause the new government won't let it happen!

Again, Formal Dances, this is not proof. This is supposition. I'm asking you to show me concrete evidence that Saddam Hussein knowingly harbored al-Zarqawi or other concrete evidence that Hussein had a collaborative relationship with Al-Qaeda. I'm more than willing to change my mind, but so far you have not offered a shred of evidence for these allegations.

He's been there for awhile! Fled there after Afghanistan Fell! Now he's trying to destablize the new government. Not happenin' cause the new government won't let it happen!

Again, Formal Dances, this is not proof. This is supposition. I'm asking you to show me concrete evidence that Saddam Hussein knowingly harbored al-Zarqawi or other concrete evidence that Hussein had a collaborative relationship with Al-Qaeda. I'm more than willing to change my mind, but so far you have not offered a shred of evidence for these allegations.

Believe what you want Berkylvania! Saddam knew, Al Qaeda knew, the CIA knew. Yep he was there and still is!

Believe what you want Berkylvania! Saddam knew, Al Qaeda knew, the CIA knew. Yep he was there and still is!

I want to "believe" the truth, FD. Right now, the only credible evidence out there says that there was no collaborative relationship and no proof that Hussein actively harbored Al-Zarqawi. I'm asking you to provide me the proof that has so deeply convinced you on the chance that, as a rational person, I can evaluate it for myself and perhaps change my mind. You haven't done that yet. Until you do, don't expect me to grant you some sort of faith fiat and accept everything that you say is true. You haven't even offered me any reason to think you're particularly better informed than I am. I'm just asking for the bare minimum it takes to convict any criminal in a court of law, some sort of evidence that the allegations against them are correct. This has not been provided and, in fact, evidence has indeed been provided that it was not the case.

Believe what you want Berkylvania! Saddam knew, Al Qaeda knew, the CIA knew. Yep he was there and still is!

I want to "believe" the truth, FD. Right now, the only credible evidence out there says that there was no collaborative relationship and no proof that Hussein actively harbored Al-Zarqawi. I'm asking you to provide me the proof that has so deeply convinced you on the chance that, as a rational person, I can evaluate it for myself and perhaps change my mind. You haven't done that yet. Until you do, don't expect me to grant you some sort of faith fiat and accept everything that you say is true. You haven't even offered me any reason to think you're particularly better informed than I am. I'm just asking for the bare minimum it takes to convict any criminal in a court of law, some sort of evidence that the allegations against them are correct. This has not been provided and, in fact, evidence has indeed been provided that it was not the case.

And school goes into session again...Remember kids; debates on foreign and domestic policy are sometimes based off of evidence beyond "I say so" or "my mommy says so" ...Berkylvania, way to keep a level head! I would probably have lost patience with FD long ago.