NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry it didn't come sooner tho (like pre-March '03)
Source (http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1107&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041017%2F1452148510.htm&photoid=20041011LON99)

Sorry it didn't come sooner tho (like pre-March '03)
Source (http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1107&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041017%2F1452148510.htm&photoid=20041011LON99)
Yes...now he does. al-Zarqawi is in Iraq why?

AAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!! :p

*shrugs* Zarqawi's been in Iraq for some time now.

*shrugs* Zarqawi's been in Iraq for some time now.
Yes, but he never before pledged allegiance to A-Q now, did he?

Yes, but he never before pledged allegiance to A-Q now, did he?


He was waiting for all the publicity.....

Terrorism is more intimidating via television.....

Yes, but he never before pledged allegiance to A-Q now, did he?

Not publicly no, but he's been linked to Al Qaeda before the war in Iraq even started.

I thoght it was Becouse SADDAM had links to AQ not Zarqawi

I thoght it was Becouse SADDAM had links to AQ not Zarqawi


If memory serves, the Bush Administration claimed Saddam had ties to AQ, and the public proof they gave was Zarqawi being in Iraq.

edit: and here's the CNN report

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

Do you think there are any AlQueda operatives in Iran, or Syria, or maybe Pakistan?

I'm pretty sure if we invaded those countries we would "find" the connections to AlQueda.

Hell, supposedly Canada even has AlQueda cells.

If memory serves, the Bush Administration claimed Saddam had ties to AQ, and the public proof they gave was Zarqawi being in Iraq.

edit: and here's the CNN report

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

but what connection is there between zarwaqui and hussein?

Sorry it didn't come sooner tho (like pre-March '03)
Source (http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1107&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041017%2F1452148510.htm&photoid=20041011LON99)

It doesn't matter that it came at all, I'm afraid, Bush still lied about it back in March of 2003, just like he lied about WMD in Iraq. :rolleyes:

but what connection is there between zarwaqui and hussein?


I've never seen any article that expressly states that Hussein and Zarqawi actually met. It doesn't really matter since in that article it states that high level Iraqi intel members met with senior AQ members and worked out deals for training camps and such. Zarqawi is just given as proof that it went beyond just talks.

After the war, I remember that when Saddam was captured he had reports from the insurgency detailing things like US troop patrols, but my eyes hurt so you'll have to wait on that link :p.

Do you think there are any AlQueda operatives in Iran, or Syria, or maybe Pakistan?

I'm pretty sure if we invaded those countries we would "find" the connections to AlQueda.

Hell, supposedly Canada even has AlQueda cells.
So, you're saying we have to... invade... Canada!

So, you're saying we have to... invade... Canada!

blame Canada imo :gundge:

This isn't germain to the discussion, but did that article seem a little rushed? The last few paragraphs are almost repeats of previous ones. I think that guy was pushing the deadline a little hard....

Hey hey hey, leave us be, we're socialists and potheads, yes. But terrorists???

Of course there's Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Saddam's not there to stop them from coming in.

I've never seen any article that expressly states that Hussein and Zarqawi actually met. It doesn't really matter since in that article it states that high level Iraqi intel members met with senior AQ members and worked out deals for training camps and such. Zarqawi is just given as proof that it went beyond just talks.

After the war, I remember that when Saddam was captured he had reports from the insurgency detailing things like US troop patrols, but my eyes hurt so you'll have to wait on that link :p.

Wait, are you talking about the Prague meeting? Wasn't that disproven last year or something? Or about Zarqawi getting treatment in an Iraqi hospital?

Wait, are you talking about the Prague meeting? Wasn't that disproven last year or something? Or about Zarqawi getting treatment in an Iraqi hospital?


Nope, the article never mentions the supposed Prague meeting between Atta and Iraqi intel officer, and only mentions in brief the Zarqawi's treatment.

Members of al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence "have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s," Powell said. In 1996, bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Sudan, and later that year had a meeting with the director of Iraq's intelligence service, he said.

Powell also said a senior al Qaeda member has reported that Saddam was more willing to assist al Qaeda after the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and was impressed by the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.

According to Powell, a senior al Qaeda operative, now being detained, said that a terrorist operative was sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and chemical weapons. He was dispatched after bin Laden concluded that al Qaeda labs in Afghanistan were not capable of manufacturing such materials, Powell said.

Also, said Powell, a senior Iraqi defector, one of Saddam's former European intelligence chiefs, said Iraqi agents were sent to Afghanistan in the mid-1990s to train al Qaeda members in document forgery.

Hah ! Try to invade us. You'll get so sick of us apologising for losing to you that you'll turn tail.

As for the actual topic of the discussion, quite interesting. Bush is an idiot no matter what gets proven, though. Daddy's lil boy he is.

New evidence of Bush ties to the KKK. Apparently, there are KKK members in the United States. Bush MUST have ties to them...he hasn't kept them out.

New evidence of Bush ties to Al Qaeda. Apparently, Al Qaeda members were in this country before September 11th. Bush MUST have ties to them...he didn't keep them out/deport them.

:rolleyes:

Wow what a link! Hooray that should validate your claim that the war was right! WRONG!!!!!!!!!

A mistake can not correct another mistake. Lies can't be turned into truths! Bush LIED. Bush will CONTINUE TO LIE to stay in power. America listen and feel the beat of the world. As an immigrant nation you are citizens of the world and you should listent to what they think of your country under the presidency of Bush.

The world without a doubt is against the war in IRAQ and the person who brought you to war there. The world believes that Bush lied not only to you but to the world! Boot him out!!!!!

Do you think there are any AlQueda operatives in Iran, or Syria, or maybe Pakistan?

I'm pretty sure if we invaded those countries we would "find" the connections to AlQueda.

Hell, supposedly Canada even has AlQueda cells.

Hey! There are Al Quaeda operatives in the United States!

INVADE! :D

http://www.bartcop.com/osama-wants-u.jpg

Zarqawi was in Iraq, prior to the war, but he was in the northern no-fly zone administered by the US/Britain coalition. In fact, the US had three chances to take him out before the war and didn't do so because it made their case for invasion stronger. Pretty shitty for the people who have died as a result, huh.

New evidence of Bush ties to the KKK. Apparently, there are KKK members in the United States. Bush MUST have ties to them...he hasn't kept them out.

New evidence of Bush ties to Al Qaeda. Apparently, Al Qaeda members were in this country before September 11th. Bush MUST have ties to them...he didn't keep them out/deport them.

:rolleyes:
Indeed...
Except that they specifically mention American Intel. giving information to the Iraqi government that would have enabled them to seize Zarqawi. If Bush actually knew who all the KKK members were, he could do nothing. Why? because we have freedom of speech here. Something that Iraq, under Saddam, did not possess. Therefore, your argument is moot. Also, Bush had no way of catching /finding al Qaeda operatives in this country before they took action, do to the simple fact that no one came up to him and said, "Hey, guess what? We know who these guys are and what they are going to do. Here is where you can find them on this date. Go get 'em." That would be a closer match. If Bush was in that scenario, and failed to act, then I would personally castrate him ;). However, he wasn't.

Zarqawi was in Iraq, prior to the war, but he was in the northern no-fly zone administered by the US/Britain coalition. In fact, the US had three chances to take him out before the war and didn't do so because it made their case for invasion stronger. Pretty shitty for the people who have died as a result, huh.
*Sigh*
No sources.
And by the way, a no-fly zone doesn't mean that Iraqi forces cannot be there. They just can't *fly* there.

If memory serves, the Bush Administration claimed Saddam had ties to AQ, and the public proof they gave was Zarqawi being in Iraq.

edit: and here's the CNN report

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

They werent supposed to give him asylum though. Al-Zarqawi isnt the only example of this dispute with Saddam.

"The statement said al-Zarqawi had been in contact with Osama bin Laden eight months ago" during the US ocupation.

"It said the links were renewed recently." During the US ocupation...

Saddam had Al Qaeda cells in his country, gave funds to them and protection OH NOES!!11!!!1OMG WTF LOL!!11! idiots... you people dont read the information you give?

Let me guess, you read "AL-QAEDA SADDAM LINK PROOF!11!!!!111!" in a topic in BushLovers-R-Us boards and didn't even bother to read link and form your own opinion, but instead decided to show your stupidity in this board. Hey congratulations, mission accomplished.

*Sigh*
No sources.
And by the way, a no-fly zone doesn't mean that Iraqi forces cannot be there. They just can't *fly* there.Google is your friend, fucknut. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/16/1097784103533.html?oneclick=true)
But being in Herat put Zarqawi closer to the north-east corner of Iraq. This was an area protected from the regime of Saddam Hussein by the US-imposed no-fly zone. It was here that a small group of the so-called Afghan Arabs worked with local Kurdish fundamentalists to set up a Taliban-style fiefdom in the name of Ansar Al-Islam. Washington argued that this was in fact a fallback set up by al-Qaeda in the knowledge that after the 9/11 attacks it would not be able to work from Afghanistan.

Ahem... Trying to keep my cool but I must say that OSAMA BIN LADEN CONSIDERS SADDAM HUSSEIN TO BE A FUCKING INFIDEL!!! Now with that being said I must also say that Saddam Hussein committed the sin of allowing more than one type of muslim mosk in his country and also included (SHOCK! HORROR!) a synagogue. Plus Saddam helped piss of the US and started the Cold War which brought US forces back to the Middle East. Osama was also pretty pissed off with that.

This is where he got his information (http://www.rumorsontheinternets.com/)

This is where he got his information (http://www.rumorsontheinternets.com/)Nice.

Incertonia:

No offense, but I read that entire article and I didn't see where it said that the US had 3 chances to kill him but didn't. Maybe you linked the wrong article? I'd be very interested in seeing it.

Incertonia:

No offense, but I read that entire article and I didn't see where it said that the US had 3 chances to kill him but didn't. Maybe you linked the wrong article? I'd be very interested in seeing it.
The first article was to show that al Zarqawi was based in the no-fly sone. This one (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14742238&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=ken-bigley--his-last-moments--3-escapes-for-al-zarqawi-name_page.html) deals with the chances the US had to take him out.

Funny how the article makes no mention of Saddam Hussein. So an Al-Qaeda operative was in Iraq? So what. Where's the proof that Saddam helped them? The only basis for a link of Osama bin Laden and Saddam is a document that says that Iraq will not stop bin Laden if he plans on attacking the U.S., because both Saddam and bin Laden both hated the U.S. It doesn't say that Saddam actually gave them funds, resources or any assistance of any kind. Besides, if the U.S. wants to get rid of EVERYONE who traied Al-Qaeda, they might as well get rid of the CIA, which to my knowledge ALSO traied Al-Qaeda.

This is what you call a self-fulfilling prophecy. By taking out Saddam and not having a workable plan to fill the void, Dubya actuallly created an environment that Al-queda could work and thrive in. Nice job George!

Funny how the article makes no mention of Saddam Hussein. So an Al-Qaeda operative was in Iraq? So what. Where's the proof that Saddam helped them? The only basis for a link of Osama bin Laden and Saddam is a document that says that Iraq will not stop bin Laden if he plans on attacking the U.S., because both Saddam and bin Laden both hated the U.S. It doesn't say that Saddam actually gave them funds, resources or any assistance of any kind. Besides, if the U.S. wants to get rid of EVERYONE who traied Al-Qaeda, they might as well get rid of the CIA, which to my knowledge ALSO traied Al-Qaeda.

Actually in the link I provided Powell claimed (some of it based on intel from captured high level members of Al Qaeda) that Iraqi intel officers met with senior members of Al Qaeda on several occasions and Iraqi intel members were sent to Afghanistan to train Al Qaeda members in forgery. There's also a New Yorker story (link is in another thread) that Iraq would allow Al Qaeda members into Iraq if Afghanistan was attacked, allowed for training bases and Iraq provided training in poison attacks.

As for the CIA comment the US trained and funded the muhadeen (sp) of Afghanistan against the Soviets, and OBL was one of the Arabs from other countries that joined in the fight. Al Qaeda wouldnt be formed (I don't think formed is the correct word since the associations can be tenous and fluid) for many years after that.


Incertonia:

While I definitely believe that the chem lab should have been bombed, even that article doesn't go so far as to say it was known that Zarqawi was inside the lab at any given time. I think the authors are being disingenuous by giving that article it's title.

Actually in the link I provided Powell claimed (some of it based on intel from captured high level members of Al Qaeda) that Iraqi intel officers met with senior members of Al Qaeda on several occasions and Iraqi intel members were sent to Afghanistan to train Al Qaeda members in forgery. There's also a New Yorker story (link is in another thread) that Iraq would allow Al Qaeda members into Iraq if Afghanistan was attacked, allowed for training bases and Iraq provided training in poison attacks.

As for the CIA comment the US trained and funded the muhadeen (sp) of Afghanistan against the Soviets, and OBL was one of the Arabs from other countries that joined in the fight. Al Qaeda wouldnt be formed (I don't think formed is the correct word since the associations can be tenous and fluid) for many years after that.


Incertonia:

While I definitely believe that the chem lab should have been bombed, even that article doesn't go so far as to say it was known that Zarqawi was inside the lab at any given time. I think the authors are being disingenuous by giving that article it's title.

Anything stated by Powell or any member of the goverment about this issue without independent check ups cant be use as evidence or stated as fact in an argument. Because, sadly... they (or their intel) cant be trusted, after being embarrisingly disproved with their WMD story.

So if you have any independent confirmation of this story, I suggest you to bring it foward, because you seriusly cant expect people to buy a "Powell/Cheney/Bush/Wolfowitz/Aschcroft said..." evidence anymore.

Actually in the link I provided Powell claimed (some of it based on intel from captured high level members of Al Qaeda) that Iraqi intel officers met with senior members of Al Qaeda on several occasions and Iraqi intel members were sent to Afghanistan to train Al Qaeda members in forgery. There's also a New Yorker story (link is in another thread) that Iraq would allow Al Qaeda members into Iraq if Afghanistan was attacked, allowed for training bases and Iraq provided training in poison attacks.

As for the CIA comment the US trained and funded the muhadeen (sp) of Afghanistan against the Soviets, and OBL was one of the Arabs from other countries that joined in the fight. Al Qaeda wouldnt be formed (I don't think formed is the correct word since the associations can be tenous and fluid) for many years after that.

First off, Colin Powell claimed it was true. That doesn't mean that it was. As for The New Yorker article, if you mean this one (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact) then it states also that at Salman Park there was no evidence of it being used for terrorist training.

As for Osama bin Laden: I erred in the Al-Qaeda part, but the CIA still trained him.

LOL that has got to be the stupidest accusation ever. Saddam Hussein has been accused of committing attrocieties against Shiite Muslims in the south AND of supporting a Jordanian born Shiite terrorist? Saddam has been the only factor keeping terrorism in check in Iraq, he spent years brutally stamping out people like al-Zarqawi.

Yes...now he does. al-Zarqawi is in Iraq why?
He's always been in Iraq. Hello. He's been there since the US attacked afghan.

It was a claim based on interrogation of senior members of Al Qaeda. This is the New Yorker article I was talking about:

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030210fa_fact

In October of 2002, when Bob Graham was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Tenet wrote to him, explaining the C.I.A.'s understanding of the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. It is a curious letter, which begins with a statement that "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW"—chemical and biological weapons—"against the United States." At the same time, Tenet said, Iraq has "provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." Tenet added, "Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression," and he suggested that, even without an American attack on Iraq, "Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase."


According to several intelligence officials I spoke to, the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam's regime was brokered in the early nineteen-nineties by the then de-facto leader of Sudan, the pan-Islamist radical Hassan al-Tourabi. Tourabi, sources say, persuaded the ostensibly secular Saddam to add to the Iraqi flag the words "Allahu Akbar," as a concession to Muslim radicals.

In interviews with senior officials, the following picture emerged: American intelligence believes that Al Qaeda and Saddam reached a non-aggression agreement in 1993, and that the relationship deepened further in the mid-nineteen-nineties, when an Al Qaeda operative—a native-born Iraqi who goes by the name Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi—was dispatched by bin Laden to ask the Iraqis for help in poison-gas training. Al-Iraqi's mission was successful, and an unknown number of trainers from an Iraqi secret-police organization called Unit 999 were dispatched to camps in Afghanistan to instruct Al Qaeda terrorists. (Training in hijacking techniques was also provided to foreign Islamist radicals inside Iraq, according to two Iraqi defectors quoted in a report in the Times in November of 2001.) Another Al Qaeda operative, the Iraqi-born Mamdouh Salim, who goes by the name Abu Hajer al-Iraqi, also served as a liaison in the mid-nineteen-nineties to Iraqi intelligence. Salim, according to a recent book, "The Age of Sacred Terror," by the former N.S.C. officials Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, was bin Laden's chief procurer of weapons of mass destruction, and was involved in the early nineties in chemical-weapons development in Sudan. Salim was arrested in Germany in 1998 and was extradited to the United States. He is awaiting trial in New York on charges related to the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings; he was convicted last April of stabbing a Manhattan prison guard in the eye with a sharpened comb.

LOL that has got to be the stupidest accusation ever. Saddam Hussein has been accused of committing attrocieties against Shiite Muslims in the south AND of supporting a Jordanian born Shiite terrorist? Saddam has been the only factor keeping terrorism in check in Iraq, he spent years brutally stamping out people like al-Zarqawi.

Actually Al Qaeda and Zarqawi are closer to Sunni than Shiite. If you follow the link that Incertonia provided you'll see what Zarqawi thinks of shiites :sniper:

Anything stated by Powell or any member of the goverment about this issue without independent check ups cant be use as evidence or stated as fact in an argument. Because, sadly... they (or their intel) cant be trusted, after being embarrisingly disproved with their WMD story.

So if you have any independent confirmation of this story, I suggest you to bring it foward, because you seriusly cant expect people to buy a "Powell/Cheney/Bush/Wolfowitz/Aschcroft said..." evidence anymore.

okey dokey

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=TCH0SLGNKZ4ABQFIQMFCM5OAVCBQYJVC?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=37663

Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.



Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.

The papers will be seized on by Washington as the first proof of what the United States has long alleged - that, despite denials by both sides, Saddam's regime had a close relationship with al-Qa'eda.

The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia and lettering of the Mukhabarat.

They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan, where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.

Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents.

One paper is marked "Top Secret and Urgent". It is signed "MDA", a codename believed to be the director of one of the intelligence sections within the Mukhabarat, and dated February 19, 1998. It refers to the planned trip from Sudan by bin Laden's unnamed envoy and refers to the arrangements for his visit.

A letter with this document says the envoy is a trusted confidant of bin Laden. It adds: "According to the above, we suggest permission to call the Khartoum station [Iraq's intelligence office in Sudan] to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. And that our body carry all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden."

The letter refers to al-Qa'eda's leader as an opponent of the Saudi Arabian regime and says that the message to convey to him through the envoy "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him."

According to handwritten notes at the bottom of the page, the letter was passed on through another director in the Mukhabarat and on to the deputy director general of the intelligence service.

It recommends that "the deputy director general bring the envoy to Iraq because we may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden". The deputy director general has signed the document. All of the signatories use codenames.

The other documents then confirm that the envoy travelled from Khartoum to Baghdad in March 1998, staying at al-Mansour Melia, a first-class hotel. It mentions that his visit was extended by a week. In the notes in a margin, a name "Mohammed F. Mohammed Ahmed" is mentioned, but it is not clear whether this is the the envoy or an agent.

Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted. However, the documents do not mention if any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials.

The file contradicts the claims of Baghdad, bin Laden and many critics of the coalition that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda. One Western intelligence official contacted last night described the file as "sensational", adding: "Baghdad clearly sought out the meeting. The regime would have wanted it to happen in the capital as it's only there they would feel safe from surveillance by Western intelligence."

Over the past three weeks, The Telegraph has discovered various other intelligence files in the wrecked Mukhabarat building, including documents revealing how Russia passed on to Iraq details of private conversations between Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, and how Germany held clandestine meetings with the regime.

A Downing Street spokesman said last night: "Since Saddam's fall a series of documents have come to light which will have to be fully assessed by the proper authorities over a period of time. We will certainly want to study these documents as part of that process to see if they shed new light on the relationship between Saddam's regime and al-Qa'eda.

I'm sorry Cosgrach, and I really dont want to seem rude or like I'm trying to force a stalemate here, but the article quotes intel in the same timeframe and in the same vein as the one provided by US officials to backup their WMD claim, so I hope you to understand when I refuse to accept it into this argument.

If you bring an article post-Iraq war, with current intel about the same subject, then I'd look further into it, but so far I have no reason to believe this is not as bogus as the WMD evidence.

Fraud corrupts everything...

As I recall, Cosgrach, those documents were later discredited. Sorry, I don't remember the details, but they're certainly not mentioned today when the Bush administration tries to make the case for the Iraq war.

Indeed...
Except that they specifically mention American Intel. giving information to the Iraqi government that would have enabled them to seize Zarqawi. If Bush actually knew who all the KKK members were, he could do nothing. Why? because we have freedom of speech here. Something that Iraq, under Saddam, did not possess. Therefore, your argument is moot. Also, Bush had no way of catching /finding al Qaeda operatives in this country before they took action, do to the simple fact that no one came up to him and said, "Hey, guess what? We know who these guys are and what they are going to do. Here is where you can find them on this date. Go get 'em." That would be a closer match. If Bush was in that scenario, and failed to act, then I would personally castrate him ;). However, he wasn't.

Hey guess what? Bush was given that chance... he was given a report about these guys who were trying to learn how to fly a plane, but not how to take off or land. Yet somehow it seems he failed to follow up on that one...

Oh, and what about when he had members of the Taliban IN TEXAS?

So, if you feel a castration comming on - be my guest

Wow what a link! Hooray that should validate your claim that the war was right! WRONG!!!!!!!!!

A mistake can not correct another mistake. Lies can't be turned into truths! Bush LIED. Bush will CONTINUE TO LIE to stay in power. America listen and feel the beat of the world. As an immigrant nation you are citizens of the world and you should listent to what they think of your country under the presidency of Bush.

The world without a doubt is against the war in IRAQ and the person who brought you to war there. The world believes that Bush lied not only to you but to the world! Boot him out!!!!!

Egads. I would sooner vote for Mickey Mouse than Bush. However, the day you start paying my taxes will be the day you get to cast my vote. Sheesh...and people say Americans are arrogant. ::boggle::

I've been against the war in Iraq from the get-go, but it has little to do with the "beat of the world." It has everything to do with the fact that Saddam Hussein /= Osama Bin Laden. But who knows, maybe Bush just snapped from the many decades of the USA being the "world's" whipping boy, unless of course the "world" needs something. Its such a wonderful pleasure to know my tax dollars are being sent all over the world to buy griping. I can get gripes for free from my children. :P

Saddam supported terrorists for years....Abu Nidal operated out of Baghdad for many years as did other groups. Now this moron wants to join up with Al Qaeda. His time will come and he too will become a martyr. Eventually the entire middle east will be full of "martyrs." The sooner the better.

OK, if Saddam and friends are bane of all evil and support all the known terrorists on Earth, he deserves to lose Iraq. Those who support terrorists are themselves terrrorists right?

Did not the US once support Iraq and Osama, as well it some less than nice regimes in South America? We do have selective memories for these things. The US creates Frankstein terrorists groups or helps then, then has to kill it's own creations.

OK, if Saddam and friends are bane of all evil and support all the known terrorists on Earth, he deserves to lose Iraq. Those who support terrorists are themselves terrrorists right?

Did not the US once support Iraq and Osama, as well it some less than nice regimes in South America? We do have selective memories for these things. The US creates Frankstein terrorists groups or helps then, then has to kill it's own creations.
We even have a term for it--blowback.

Sorry it didn't come sooner tho (like pre-March '03)
Source (http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1107&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041017%2F1452148510.htm&photoid=20041011LON99)

AFTER the fact!

Hey hey hey, leave us be, we're socialists and potheads, yes. But terrorists???

Lol. I love you guys.

the UK had it's own inquiry about the intelligence, and their report substantiates:

1. Zarqawi was a known Al Qaeda operative (before the war)

2. Iraqi Intelligence contacts with senior Al Qaeda members.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125789,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125827,00.html

Then there are the rather bizarre statements coming from Putin and an unnamed Russian intelligence official.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123051,00.html

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.

http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/0.html?id_issue=9711979

MOSCOW. June 17 (Interfax) - A Russian intelligence source expressed skepticism on Thursday about conclusions drawn by the U.S. commission investigating the September 11 attacks. The source argued that the point that there is "no credible evidence" of any link between the Saddam Hussein regime and al-Qaeda attacks and other conclusions made by the commission failed to draw a comprehensive picture of what Iraq was like two years ago. "Separated from other elements of the Iraqi problem, the conclusions and generalizations that have been made cannot be recognized as objective," the source told Interfax.

Supposedly Australian intelligence review also supported the Iraq- Al-Qaeda link, but I can't find any direct sources, only this editorial:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125886,00.html

So, you're saying we have to... invade... Canada!
*looks to the left* uh-huh...

*looks to the right* uh...ok...

*ahem* I don't see any terrorists here! Why don't you try south of the boarder? Oh, and for the WMD, also check there as well. ;)