President Bush mentioned al-Qaida 27 times in a Wednesday speech about Iraq, in contexts such as: "The same bunch that is causing havoc in Iraq were the ones who came and murdered our citizens." He isn’t wrong, but just last month, notes the Washington Post, the Pentagon’s inspector general reported, as so many others have, that al-Qaida had no ties to Iraq before the war began in March 2003.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- HLP on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- HLP on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
110 Comments
alQuada is in Iraq because Bush opened the door for them.
RhondaYou CANT have it both ways:
You ignore the fact that Bush CRITICS even claimed Saddam and Osama DID have links!
EconI think we all had an inclination that the prez was reaching for straws when he said that. And those that agreed with him were misinformed. I never believed for a second that there was a link between the two. They are from different sects of Islam and do not respect the other. So when the prez claimed they worked in collaboration together is a reach at best.
Bush is calling them al-Qaida” to scare us, when the truth of the matter is that they’re just fighting an invading army {US }.
If we go away, they’ll probably go on fighting themselves until everything is the way they want it to be.
If we settle the Palestinian situation, the Jews won’t like that, but that’ll fix whatever is broken.
No Paul; I don’t think that is accurate. There may have been a few who gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on that but I remember almost everyone saying otherwise.
There WAS an alQuada presence in Kurdistan but not in Baghdad-controlled Iraq.
FYI:Baghdad Weather
Tonight: Mostly clear early then increasing cloudiness after midnight. Low 73F. Winds NE at 5 to 10 mph.
Tomorrow: Partly cloudy. High near 100F. Winds NNW at 5 to 10 mph.
Tomorrow night: Partly cloudy. Low 74F. Winds NNE at 5 to 10 mph.
Saturday: Abundant sunshine. High 102F. Winds NNW at 5 to 10 mph.
2 Videos at Military.com worth taking a peek at?:
U.S. Army Specialist Colby Buzzell’s experience of a battle in Iraq (dramatization)
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do;jsessionid=5B8A824B3F35F7B0E627EA1D8546B5FB?displayContent=134417
Why we Fight:http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=91859
“You ignore the fact that Bush CRITICS even claimed Saddam and Osama DID have links!”
This Bush critic said well before the invasion that there was no reason for there to be a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam.
If you know just a little about the culture, you would have known that al Qaeda was dedicated to overthrowing Hussein. We just did it for them.
Saddam was a secular Muslim. Al Qaeda is a fundamentalist Muslim terror organization. They are mortal enemies. I knew that before the war, why didn’t Bush?
Christ! Everyone should have known that.
Sorry,Tenents name reminds me of “tentative” since her NEVER can be very sure of anything, even a “Slam Dunk”Also, he reminds me of a “lieutenant” someone we have to salute but he isnt really in charge of anything — not even his own memory!Anyway, I can’t spell his name right, but this is what I posted previously, on the Tenent thread:
“Iraq … has also had contacts with al-Qaida. Their ties may be limited by divergent ideologies, but the two sides’ mutual antipathy toward the United States and the Saudi royal family suggests that tactical cooperation between them is possible, even though Saddam is well aware that such activity would carry serious consequences.”
The above is what Tenant told a Senate Committee.Therefore, what difference does it make if he was mis-quoted by Bush or anyone in the Bush White House? (He wasn’t, by the way!)
http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2165269/nav/tap1/
Posted by: Econ101 | May 01, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Qandahar, AfghanistanTonight: Clear to partly cloudy. Low 67F. Winds NE at 10 to 20 mph.
Tomorrow: Mainly sunny. Hot. High 99F. Winds W at 10 to 20 mph.
Tomorrow night: Clear. Low near 65F. Winds E at 10 to 15 mph.
Saturday: Mainly sunny. Very hot. High around 100F. Winds W at 10 to 15 mph.
And Ben, the suspected al Qaeda encampment was in the no-fly zone, protected by US forces.
I think the point is that we KNOW NOW that al Qaeda had no link to Iraq before the war, so we know that if al Qaeda is there now, then we either attracted them to Iraq with Bush’s War, or he is spouting propaganda AGAIN to scare the American people into wanting to stay in Iraq.
EconIf you watched the Tennant interview he was quite specific in the task he was assigned. Help build a case for invading Iraq. Why do we need to build a case? Either there is reason to invade or not. Sounded like they were fishing for any word track that made the hamster run faster on the wheel. They tried line after line until they found one that worked. Sadly, it was the WMD assertion.
How about a little logic libs:
We KNOW Al-Quida is there, in Iraq, NOW!
Are you claiming that if we can PROVE Al-Quida was in Iraq prior to US Forces invading on the ground (Even Clinton was at “war with Iraq) — anyway, your logic is that — if we can prove Al Quida was there BEFORE the ground invasion, we COULD stay, but if they weren’t there, we MUST leave?
Doesn’t the PRESENT situation have more to do with our CURRENT strategy decisions?
Saddam and Al Quida DID have contacts. Tenent says so.
Saddam DID try to by yellow-cake uranium. Joe Wilson said so, to the CIA!
You libs only listen to the stuff that supports your side, even when your FRIENDS disagree with each other!
Isn’t it a GOOD thing to fight the terrorists on foreign soil rather than fight them here?
“He who determines the field of battle wins” The Art of War.
Alliances, enemies. alQuada has its roots in Wahabi in Saudi Arabia. They are a very strict sect – no drinking, dancing, having any sort of fun, etc. Saddam was a boozer and womanizer. The absolute opposite of Wahabi.
Iraq and Saudi Arabia have been enemies for a long time. Remember Desert Storm? We fought Iraq largely on bahalf of Saudi Arabia.
Then, under the no-fly zone protection, we fostered groups that were hostile to the non-religious boozer in Baghdad. In other words, we and our Kurd allies fostered alQuada in Iraq (Kurdistan) as it would work against BOTH the secular Saddam AND Shiite Iran (another enemy of alQuada).
MikeSEE? You can spell “George Tentative’s” name either, lol.
He also seems like a “tenant” someone who doesn’t really “own” any ideas of his own, only “rents” them.
Easy to do.
Paul – “We KNOW Al-Quida is there, in Iraq, NOW!”
Yes, that is true. We also KNOW that it is a DIRECT result of “stay the failed course”. That is why we need a NEW course; one that doesn’t further strengthen alQuada in Iraq.
What countries in the region are enemies of alQuada? Syria and Iran. What country bred alQuada? Saudi Arabia. What other countries are threatened by alQuada? Jordan and Lebanon.
So, let us find allies in the region who have as much (or more) reason as we do to fight alQuada. That will need a NEW course; not the same old tired FAILED course.
All we know is which lie they’ve decided to tell us.
“Isn’t it a GOOD thing to fight the terrorists on foreign soil rather than fight them here?”
I’m SO sick of reading/hearing statements like this one – designed to SCARE Americans into agreeing with whatever the war-mongers want to do. Who in their right mind would believe that if we don’t continue to occupy Iraq the front line of the war would automatically move to the US?
“Isn’t it a GOOD thing to fight the terrorists on foreign soil rather than fight them here?”
As I have asked before, why would the terrorists choose to fight us in Iraq where we have a massive troop and armament buildup, when they could just come to America now? Why are they fighting in an area that is relatively well protected when they could just travel to America where we are virtually without defense?
Why are they waiting?
Try this, Type:”Saddam and Terrorism” into your browser. You will never have time to read it all:
http://www.davidstuff.com/incorrect/crespo1.htm
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/saddam1.htm
im – don’t you remember all those VietNamese Reds invading the US after Saigon fell?
Try this, Type:”Saddam and Terrorism” into your browser. You will never have time to read it all:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp
I had some that showed up on my block in Detroit, Ben. I had to take them out with my RPG launcher.
Saddam did fund attacks against the United States.Nobody can deny that.
Al Quida has also attacked the United States.
There is no logical reason to allow Al Quida to have Iraq.
There was no logical reason to allow Saddam to keep Iraq under his control.
“Saddam did fund attacks against the United States.”
Name them.
“Saddam did fund attacks against the United States.Nobody can deny that.” Oh? When?
“Al Quida has also attacked the United States.” Yes, we know. That is why we supported going after them. (By the way, so did Tim McVeigh)
“There is no logical reason to allow Al Quida to have Iraq.” That is why we need to find a way to prevent it. Since “stay the course” has invited them in there is no logical reason to CONTINUE the failed course.
“There was no logical reason to allow Saddam to keep Iraq under his control.” As bad as that ally of ours was he did at least keep alQuada out. (Other than the area we protected from his control)
WSSaddam funded attacks on Israel in which Americans were killed.
Saddam definately tried to assasinate a United States President.
Saddam definately trained thousands of terrorists. (See my links, above.)
Nonsense, Paul, complete nonsense.
Saddam tried to pay bounties to Palestinian suicide bombers to “earn his stripes” with the Arab world. He never was part of the Palestinian Liberation movement.
Saddam had a plot to kill Bush I – there was no actual attempt. This was post Gulf War I.
Saddam was an enemy of fundamentalist Islam – they actively sought to overthrow his government. Why would he train “thousands of terrorists” that were dedicated to his ouster.
Even the Pentagon has reported definitively that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda – why are you arguing that there was?
Paul – so, if there had been any Americans on that Cuban jte brought down by an anti-Castro terrorist then that would have been an attack on the US? Since there are US aid workers in Darfur then Sudan is attacking the United States?
…… the familes of Palestian suicide bombers.
The reason the Palestinians used suicide bombers is because they were too stingy to buy a Tank.
Rumsfeld: ” You don’t fight with the Army you’d like to have, you fight with the one you’ve got.”
WSIn your world view, then, Al Quida was EVERYWHERE except Iraq, prior to the war?However, now Al Quida is in Iraq because of Bush?That is nuts.
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” — Why is that so hard to understand?
North Korea is an Atheist/Communists state. Does anyone here think that North Korea does NOT have ties with fundamentalist Islam?
You are speaking in terms of theory and school yard cliques. You are wrong. Saddam DID have ties to several terrorist organizations. Saddam actually traineed terrorists.
There are splits between Sunii and Shiite Moslems, but you still see them working together, at times.
Hitler was a racist, but Hitler made an ally out of Asian Japan. In fact, Hitler never bombed the United States but we fought the war in Europe prior to getting serious about Japan.
You are simply wrong. Saddam was more than willing to help radical Islam. In fact, Saddam had great motivation to bribe radical Islam, bargaining for HIS own hold on power by funding the terrorists.
AgainGeorge Tenent says that Saddam and Al Queda were in contact with one another:
“”Iraq … has also had contacts with al-Qaida. Their ties may be limited by divergent ideologies, but the two sides’ mutual antipathy toward the United States and the Saudi royal family suggests that tactical cooperation between them is possible, even though Saddam is well aware that such activity would carry serious consequences.”
You are only hearing what you want to hear.
Hitler did not plan Pearl Harbor or fund the attack on Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor got the US into WW2, which is primarily remembered as Hitler’s war. Your arguments defending Saddam will not carry any historical weight.
Saddam supported world terrorism against the United States.
End of Story.
“Saddam supported world terrorism against the United States.”
The Pentagon says differently – who should I believe – a partisan hack like Paul Rossell or the US Military?
And no, I do not believe that al Qaeda is/was around every corner or under every rock.
I refuse to be terrorized.
And for the last time, Germany declared war on the US immediately after Pearl Harbor.
Christ – jam that into your memory bank.
Paul – I have had contact with you. That doesn’t mean we are working together. Saddam had much closer ties with Donald Rumsfield than with alQuada. They actually worked together!
Good Lord, Paul, even George W Bush admits that there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11, Iraq and al Qaeda.
The only one pushing that there is a connection is you and Dick Cheney, and we all know that Cheney is crazy.
Quit beating a dead horse – it’s getting embarrassing.
Paul – as you are well aware, Hitler declared war against the United States. Saddam did not. As you are also aware, we DID have active war against Japan well before D-Day.
The whole “Al Qaeda in Iraq” argument reminds me of the “Nazis were socialists” meme that shows up all the time. I mean, Saddam Hussein’s most trusted defenders were “The *REPUBLICAN* Guard,” so we must automatically assume they took their orders from Karl Rove, right?
Al Qaeda is a brand name. It’s like kids in Great Bend claiming they’re “Crips” or “Bloods” when they’re merely wannabes.
For one thing, after three or four years of George WMD Bush’s people announcing they’ve “captured al Qaeda’s #2 operative,” just who remains to be really “affiliated with the people who committed 9/11?”
There was absolutely no presence of power in Iraq, prior to 9/11, that had anything to do with al Qaeda.
If there is any al Qaeda in Iraq today, it’s because George WMD Bush made it possible. Or, more likely, a bunch of radicals have glommed onto the the brand-name.
We have now killed al Qaeda’s Number Two man in Iraq sixty-three times.
That poor son-of-a-bitch is really, really, really dead.
The reason bush wouldn’t let the cia take out al zaqari when he was in northern Iraq, protected from Saddam by our no fly zone; was because he didn’t want to eliminate the weak Iraq/alquida connection, he gave bush.
WSYou have made a patently FALSE claim.
“The Pentagon says differently – who should I believe – a partisan hack like Paul Rossell or the US Military?”
Show me where the US Military EVER said that Saddam was NOT involved with terrorism? You over-reach by miles and miles!There IS debate about the gravity or seriousness of Saddam/Osama cooperation.There is NO debate that Saddam was a State Sponsor of Terrorism, none at all.I can quote countless Democrats on that score. I can also quote both members of Billary!
WSSo, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.However, we went into a shooting war FIRST with Hitler, not Japan, because Hitler “declared war” on the US?Didnt Japan ALSO declare war on the US?
More to the point, didn’t Saddam declare war on the United States SEVERAL times?
“You have made a patently FALSE claim.”
Show me where I am wrong, Paul. The unsolicited bounties paid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers doesn’t count. Saddam was not accepted as part of the Palestinian Liberation movement.
“There IS debate about the gravity or seriousness of Saddam/Osama cooperation.”
Osama bin Laden vowed to displace the Iraqi government ans well as the Saudi Royal Family.
The Pentagon Inspector General’s report said that there was no connection between 9/11, al Qaeda or bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
There is NO logical reason to believe otherwise.
So give me some reasonable proof.
Tell me why the Pentagon was wrong and you are right.
“More to the point, didn’t Saddam declare war on the United States SEVERAL times?”
When?
“And no, I do not believe that al Qaeda is/was around every corner or under every rock.”
Dear Seditionist (and all your buddies): Believe what you wish. The threat is real. Saying it isn’t does not make it so.
And we did not engage Japan directly when the war first began because…. drumroll….. the Japanese had destroyed a good portion of our Pacific Fleet.
Duh.
WSHitler nad nothing to do with Pearl Harbor but HILTER WAS STILL A THREAT!
Saddam DID support terrorism. That YOU do not admit that fact is rather irrelevant to the historical facts.
What threat? I refuse to be terroized. You can cower under your bed, I will not run and hide.
“Saddam DID support terrorism.”
Reposted……
There is NO logical reason to believe otherwise.
So give me some reasonable proof.
Tell me why the Pentagon was wrong and you are right.
WSCompare your own words and see where you made your mistakes:
Most recent:
“The Pentagon Inspector General’s report said that there was no connection between 9/11, al Qaeda or bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.”
Previous exchange:
“WSSaddam funded attacks on Israel in which Americans were killed.
Saddam definately tried to assasinate a United States President.
Saddam definately trained thousands of terrorists. (See my links, above.)
Posted by: Econ101 | May 03, 2007 at 02:37 PM
Nonsense, Paul, complete nonsense.
Saddam tried to pay bounties to Palestinian suicide bombers to “earn his stripes” with the Arab world. He never was part of the Palestinian Liberation movement.
Saddam had a plot to kill Bush I – there was no actual attempt. This was post Gulf War I.
Saddam was an enemy of fundamentalist Islam – they actively sought to overthrow his government. Why would he train “thousands of terrorists” that were dedicated to his ouster.
Even the Pentagon has reported definitively that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda – why are you arguing that there was?
Posted by: WSClark | May 03, 2007 at 02:44 PM
———My claim is that Saddam was a state sponsor of Terrorism.Bill Clinton said the same thing.So did Hillary.You are avoiding that point and errecting a “straw dog”Saddam was allied with people who wanted to destroy us.
“but HILTER WAS STILL A THREAT!”
Yeah….. he declared war on us, I guess that would make him a threat. When did Saddam Hussein declare war on the United States?
“My claim is that Saddam was a state sponsor of Terrorism.”
Proof, Paul. Quoting Bill or Hillary Clinton does not constitute proof.
The Palestinian suicide bombers want to destroy Israel. We are not Israel.
The fundamentalist Muslim terrorists want to destroy the United States and all the infidels. They considered Saddam Hussein to be an infidel.
They wanted to destroy the United States AND Saddam Hussein.
Try to have an understanding of Islam before you make foolish remarks.
Not all Arabs are the same.
Type Saddam Terrorims into your browser.
Thousands of hits, take your pick.
Then type in “Hillary and Saddam”
Quite a few (thousand) hits.
Then type in Bill Clinton and Saddam.
Saddam trained terrorists. That can not be denied.
Your own leaders have said so!
You are using an irrelevant quote to make a subordinate point that does not matter to the current war effort.
Saddam rejoiced at 9-11. Saddam was the only world leader to do so.
Saddam celebrated.
So did the Palestinian Streets, on 9-11!
Sigh.
It makes zero sense for Saddam to invite al Qaeda into Iraq. ZERO. If the Wahabi financiers of the loony fundie Taliban, al Qaeda, were in Iraq while Saddam Hussein was in power, you can bet your bottom dollar they weren’t there to help Saddam’s secular Baath party. Anybody who threatened Hussein’s hold on power was gassed, shot, or hung. Hell, it would seem that a bunch of innocent Iraqis who merely THREATENED Saddam’s hold on power were murdered. Don’t you guys read anything?
However, it appears al Qaeda is indeed now in Iraq.
Saddam didn’t let ‘em in, Bush did.
Did you people never read Humpty Dumpty? You can’t put the shell of lies about Iraq back together once it’s been shattered by subsequent events.
But by all means, continue with your efforts to rewrite history every time somebody points out that Bush just might be somewhat sub-ideal as a war-time American president.
Jesus Christ, use your head.
WSYou remind me of the Witch on Wizard of OZSorry to throw water on you.You lost this one.You cant claim victory simply by discounting my sources, and my sources, to support the argument that Saddam supported terrorism, are OVERWHELMING!
Saddam tried to kill a former US President: Act of war.
Saddam shot at US airplanes flying over a UN sanctioned “NO FLY ZONE” in order to enforce that order against Saddam: ACT of WAR.
Saddam trained terrorists to kill Americans: ACT OF WAR!
I believe the question at hand is this.
Was al Qaeda in Iraq at Hussein’s blessing?
Saddam trained terrorists to kill Americans: ACT OF WAR!Posted by: Econ101 | May 03, 2007 at 06:50 PM
This is pathetic, and it’s exactly why we’re in the mess we’re in now in Iraq.
All knee jerk, no brain jerk.
“Saddam trained terrorists to kill Americans: ACT OF WAR!”
When? I have asked you several times for proof, considering that your claim is illogical and I have stated my reasons why your point is illogical.
You are the one that has chosen to ignore the fact that Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists are/were mortal enemies.
You also stated that Saddam had declared war on the US – I asked when – you did not answer. An aggressive act is not a declaration of war.
So provide proof that Saddam declared war on the US.
Just because you say it is true does not make it a fact, despite your previous declarations to that effect.
Provide some PROOF to back up your debate points or concede that you do not have any evidence.
A great many of these attacks were done by Islamic radicals.
A great many of them were State Sponsored.
Oh, yes, and one of those State Sponsors of Terrorism, Libya, decided to change its ways AFTER Bush took out Saddam:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm
WSDid you NOT write posts, with the other Libs on this Blog, supporting the lies of George Tenent?Tenent claimed that Saddam/Osama cooperation was NOT impossible.And— Tenent was a Clinton hold-over!
And Tenent was an idiot! Did I support Tenent? Show me where?
By the way, if you are going to use Tenent as your proof, then you have to support this also…..
“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about theimminence of the Iraqi threat, nor was there ever a significant discussion about thepossibility of containing Iraq without an invasion..”
So, are you in agreement that Bush invaded Iraq without consideration of the consequences?
WSYes, Free Republic is biased.So are you.So is everyone.However, you are free to argue against this post all you want, the source for this is a DOD website, which says that Saddam was training terrorists just 3 weeks before the invasion of US Ground Forces:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600367/posts
I suggest that YOU argue with the Defense Department translators:
“Pentagon/FMSO website I found document ISGP-2003-00028868 where on pages 20, 21, and 22″
And now the DOD says that Saddam had no operational connection with al Qaeda.
What’s your point?
WSYOU cant follow a simple argument, you cant even engage in simple conversation.
I did not, ever, say that Saddam planned or organized or funded 9-11.
I do say that Saddam celebrated 9-11 and that Saddam was a State-sponsor of terrorism.
I have proven my point, beyond even a shadow of a doubt.
Apparently, you think that the United States should never take ANY action against a supporter of terrorism unless and until a link to 9-11 can be established?
Come on now, Paul. The only people that still believe that Saddam was in cahoots with al Qaeda are you, Dick Cheney and ten guys in West Texas.
It just ain’t true. Give it up.
“and that Saddam was a State-sponsor of terrorism.”
Where did you prove that? You have given no evidence and your argument goes against logic.
So why do you say that I can’t follow a simple argument?
Your point is illogical.
As for those that celebrated 9/11? If we were going to attack based on that, we would have to attack the home countries of nearly 1.3 billion Muslims.
That logic is way off the mark.
Saudis celebrated. Iranians celebrated. Pakis celebrated. Jordanians celebrated.
What’s your point?
WSAgain, Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism.Saddam, from documents captured from by the US Military, has been proven to have trained suicide bombers.Why would Saddam need suicide bombers in Iraq?They were being trained to kill outside of Iraq.The terrorists being trained were foreign, Arab, (Non-Iraqi) Terrorists:
“Document: Saddam Regime Training and Using Foreign Arab Terrorists As Suicide Bombers. (Translation)Pentagon/FMSO website for PreWar Iraq Documents ^ | March 21 2006 | jveritas
Posted on 03/21/2006 8:50:49 AM PST by jveritas
“In the Prewar Iraq documents posted on the Pentagon/FMSO website I found document ISGP-2003-00028868 where on pages 20, 21, and 22 of the pdf document there is a top secret memo on how to train and use the Arab Feedaeyeens as Suicide Bombers or as the memo call them “Estishehadeyeen” which means in Arabic “Suicide Martyrs”. The Arab Feedaeyeens are definitely foreigners non Iraqi Arabs who came to Iraq from all over the Middle East and North Africa and they were greatly welcomed by Saddam regime and trained by his military and intelligence apparatus to become Suicide Bombers. The Iraqi Feedaeyeens are known as “Feedaeyeen Saddam” so not to confuse between the two groups. This document proves that not only there were non Iraqi Arab terrorists in Iraq before the war but they were also trained by Saddam regime on how to become suicide bombers by using their own bodies, or suicide bombers using cars and motorcycles full of explosive, or even become suicide bombers using Camels carrying explosives.
These are the non Iraqi Arab terrorists that later on brought death and destruction upon the Iraqi people through many suicide bombings. “
From the WaPo link:Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier noted: “This morning the president said that al-Qaeda seems to be a bigger problem than sectarian violence. That seems to fly in the face of what we’ve heard in recent weeks and months on the ground in Iraq.”
“Well,” the game press secretary replied, “you’ve got a shifting series of circumstances.”
LOL
Yeah, something’s shifting all right.
These Bush guys, sheesh.
And the DOD now says that Saddam was not a sponsor of terrorism.
And you are copying from another blog again, Paul. That does not count as proof.
We have been through this before.
You probably want to have “jveritas” take it up with the Pentagon inspector general. That’s the same Pentagon who’d probably DIE to find a real live operational link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
I’m sure a freeper named jveritas is a far, far more credible source than the Pentagon. Or not.
Sheesh.
WSTheives often kill each other.Ever hear “no honor among theives”
The Soviets were allied with the West against Hitler and Japan. That alliance wasnt “logical” after the Axis powers fell, but it made sense at the time.
“There are no permenent allies or permenent foes, only permenent interests”
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”
You are treating this like a religion, not a rational argument.
You can’t understand WHY it might happen, therefore, to you, it did NOT happen — even in the face of mountains of evidence!
Saddam funded terrorism.Saddam supported terrorism.Saddam trained terrorists.
and I am permanently winning this argument!
Proof, Paul, not speculation, proof.
The Pentagon says no connection so why should we believe you and not them?
Easy question, right?
“The Soviets were allied with the West against Hitler”
Stalin had a non-aggression pact with Hitler before Hitler invaded the USSR. It was only then that Stalin turned on Germany and the Nazis.
Your argument sucks.
“and I am permanently winning this argument!”
Somehow Paul, I don’t think you are getting it – you haven’t provided any proof to back up your argument other than copying from another blog.
I provide the proof that the Pentagon disagrees with you and you have declined to address that point.
You lose.
Type in yo mamma and saddam into google and get a thousand hits.
So just what is your point, republicant? That you know how to use google; or that you rely on google for all your info; or that you try to baffle us with bull s**t?
Hell, type in antichrist and bush and see what you get. We suppose to believe that s**t as well? Get a life.
WSI beleive you refer to the “Molotove Ribentrop treaty”
That treaty actually PROVES my point: alliances change!
Communist Russia and Hitler actually agreed to split Poland in half. That treaty actually strengthened Hitler. Therefore, it can be honestly said that the Communists were partly to blame for the start of World War II!
When Hitler then took ALL of Poland, instead of just the half they agreed to, the Communists decided they better change their alliances!
“Yo mama so dirty that Saddam Hussain tried to import her bath water to use as chemical weapons.”
Now that is funny, J M!!!
Paul, listen for a minute…..
Fundamentalist Islamic radicals hate secular Muslims. They consider them to be worst infidels than Americans.
Now, you wouldn’t expect Osama bin Laden to sign a treaty with George W Bush, so why would you expect them to cooperate with Saddam Hussein?
Repeat after me – bin Laden hated Saddam even more than they hated America.
Now, how does that jive with your argument?
WSYou are a liar, I dont use the term often, but that is what you are.You are not telling the truth.
The Pentagon has NEVER said that Saddam was not a state sponsor of terrorism.
The United States Department of State, under Bush 1, Clinton and George W. Bush ALL listed Iraq as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.
I never claimed that Saddam funded or planed 9-11. So what? Saddam DID train terrorists.Saddam did celibrate 9-11.Saddam did finance terrorism.
You are not being the least bit honest.
You are grabbing an irrelevant quote, pumping it full of authority it does not contain, and using it to prove a point that is not in contention.
Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism. The Department of Defense says so. The captured documents from Iraq prove it.
The world is a safer place, now that Saddam is gone.
“Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism. The Department of Defense says so.”
For the last time, Paul, provide some proof that is not copied from another blog.
I have asked at least a half dozen times – provide some proof.
Christ!
WSI am offering facts.
You are offering religious bias.
You are wrong.
Radical Moslems work with each other, at times. Sunii and Shiite Moslems do, at times, work together.
Radical Moslems work with Communists.
I don’t see where radical Moslems would have any trouble working with secular Moslems.
That doesnt mean that they wouldnt kill them off, eventually, but why would the radicals reject help and support from Saddam?
It is your arguments that dont make sense. Besides, it has already been proven that Saddam supported terrorism.
You, WS, are a higher authority than the State Department under 3 different administrations?
“You are offering religious bias.”
Huh? I am not a religious man.
“You, WS, are a higher authority than the State Department under 3 different administrations?”
The CURRENT administrations says that Saddam was not involved with al Qaeda or any other fundamentalist Islamic organization. Why can’t you deal with that?
I could care less what happen ten years ago. Face the facts – the Pentagon has said that – for the last time – that Saddam did not have those connections – what makes you think that you know better?
WSThis article says that Saddam’s Iraq was on the DOS listof “state sponsors of terrorism” for 14 years.Iraq was removed from that list in 2004.That would mean that Bill Clinton thought Iraq was a State Sponsor of Terrorism.It is a Department of Defense Website.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=25006
For that last goddamned time!!!! I do not care if Bill Clinton sent his intern over to Baghdad to Monica Saddam Hussein, it does not matter!!!
The Bush Pentagon has said that there was no connection – why can’t you admit that?
Christ!
WSYou are lying again.
The Department of Defense NEVER said that Saddam was NOT a state sponsor of terrorism.
Also, you have a bias AGAINST religious people. Yes, I think radical Islam is nuts, but I don’t believe they are stupid.
Your bias, WS, comes from your obvious insistence that Radical Islam would refuse to do what is best for Radical Islam!
Radical Islam is our enemy. That is realistic to think of them that way. Thinking radical Islam is stupid? That is your bias taking over.
Radical Moslems work with each other, at times. Sunii and Shiite Moslems do, at times, work together.
Radical Moslems work with Communists.
I don’t see where radical Moslems would have any trouble working with secular Moslems.Posted by: Econ101 | May 03, 2007 at 08:21 PM
Hilarious.
Yeah, just like Saddam worked together with the Kurds. You know, he supplied the gas and the Kurds the lungs.
When it came to hoarding and exercising exclusive political power, I don’t think Saddam had many peers in the “Moslem” world.
Work together, lol. What was it, a knitting circle?
“The Department of Defense NEVER said that Saddam was NOT a state sponsor of terrorism.”
They also NEVER said that Saddam Hussein did NOT have sex with barnyard animals.
That did not mean that he did.
You have yet to refute the points that I have made other than to call me a liar.
So when are you going to debate in a fair and reasonable manner and use facts to support your position?
Careful Paul, WSClark will pull the I’m a Black-Jew-Native American card on you.
WSYou are incoherent!
Saddam was a State Sponsor of Terrorism.
The Defense Department NEVER said what you claim. Post something, would you?
Bush never said that Saddam was NOT a State Sponsor of Terrorism.
Three Presidents have said that Saddam WAS a State Sponsor of Terrorism.
That Saddam was not, directly, involved with 9-11 was not, ever, the issue.
You are being extemely dishonest in your posts.
Where have I ever claimed that Saddam financed or planned 9-11? I have not, yet you are angry with me for proving that Saddam WAS allied with other enemies of the United States and that Saddam DID train terrorists.
You have no facts, no quotes, nothing.
You seem to think Saddam was completely harmless and that we should have left him in power.
That, or you think Saddam would have helped kill off enough Jews in Israel to justify leaving him in power. (Or was that Ed’s argument?)
If a Saddam trained, financed, and supported terrorist HAD attacked the United States, you would be the first person to gripe about the Bush leaving Saddam in power!
“Black-Jew-Native American card on you.”
And what does my ethnicity have to do with Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?
I guess that is just another cheap shot from the right wing side of the aisle.
Expected, of course.
Careful Paul, WSClark will pull the I’m a Black-Jew-Native American card on you.Posted by: Republican | May 03, 2007 at 08:38 PM
Translation: I hate it when WSClark calmly picks Econ101’s “arguments” apart like that.
Must. Bait. WSClark.
LOL
WS(and others)
Please SCROLL upwards, you will see countless references, from WS, about the Defense Department “agreeing” with WS.
You will see no quotes. You will see no dates. You will see no links. You will see no context to any quote.
On the other hand, I have proven that Iraq was listed by 3 Presidents as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.
WS asked me to prove THAT point. I think I did.
WS now says that doesnt matter.
What does matter?
As soon as I prove one point, he claims:
That wasnt the argument.My source sucks.A higher, (unnamed) authority, still agrees with him!
— and so it goes.
“yet you are angry with me”
I am laughing at you, Paul. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
“You seem to think Saddam was completely harmless”
Not even close, but removing him was not worth $677 billion and 3,353 American lives.
“That, or you think Saddam would have helped kill off enough Jews in Israel to justify leaving him in power.”
I am a quarter Jewish and I study the Jewish faith – why would I advocate the killing of Jews?
I am still waiting for your proof – not your speculation – your proof.
Get with it.
…yet you are angry with me for proving that …Posted by: Econ101 | May 03, 2007 at 08:40 PM
LOL
Hell, this is a blog not a seminar on Cantor sets.
Nobody “proves” anything on political blogs.
Proving stuff, hehehe.
Here you go, Paul…….
June 2004, 911 Commission
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
March 2004
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0303-01.htm
Bin Laden’s anti-Saddam plans
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp
Report: Saddam and Al Qaeda Enemies, Not Collaborators
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/10/phase-ii-report-conclusion/
“Radical Moslems work with Communists.”
Ya, right. Tell that to the Afghanistan fighters who kicked Russia out of their country. Radical Muslims? You bet. Think Taliban. Communists? You bet again. Think Mother Russia. Boy, did they get along swell. Hahahahahaha!
WS, don’t bother wasting your time on paul, econ10none, republicant, et al; he can’t even stay with one name for more than a month.
Well, J M, it was less frustrating than watching the Republicans squirm at the debate, but he is a funny guy. He has to be doing a Stephen Colbert act because no one could claim the Saddam – terrorist connection despite the DOD report without being a comedian.
Oh, well.
It has been amusing watching Paul try to spin all this. First, of course, was the patentl absurd claim of a Saddam-alQuada link. When it is repeatedly pointed out that Saddam and alQuada were mortal enemies he claims that Saddam attacked the USA. That claim is incredibly weak – it relies on the possibility that US citizens traveling overseas might be there when someone we claim Saddam supports attacks another country. Then we come to the generic claim that saddam supported terrorism in general.
He did attempt to do so but was really rather ineffectual. He was generally hated throughout the region; particularly by US enemies Iran and Syria. His worst atrocities were those carried out as a US proxy in our war against Iran. Remember Rumsfield visiting him and Reagan ordering a US “tilt” toward Iraq?
Saddam did use WMDs in that proxy war; the US vetoed UN Security Council resolutions against him. How he got those weapons while a US ally is an interesting question … that picture of Saddam with Rumsfield looms large.
In the immediate aftermath of Gulf War 1 the only WMDs found were old out-dated relics of the campaigns against US enemies. These sort of weapons tend to be unstable and have a limited ’shelf life.’
In the period before the unilateral invasion UN inspectors searched thoroughly and found nothing that had not already beeen under seal. Saddam’s old ally Rumsfield claimed that he knew exactly where his old friend had WMDs hidden – remember his pointing to a map and saying “here here and here … “?
So, now the justification for staying the same failed course is that, since we invited alQuada INTO Iraq we now must stay to try to deal with them. Somehow continuing to do that which enabled alQuada to flourish in Iraq is now supposed to do the opposite. There is a definition of insanity “Continuing to do the same things and expecting differnt results … ”
Just as fundamentalist Saudi Wahabi alQuada was an enemy to secular Saddam so it is also an enemy to secular Syria and Shiia Iran. alQuada is also enemy to many of the nationalist Sunni groups in Iraq. They do not share the extreme fundamentalist Wahabi sect beliefs of Saudi Wahabi alQuada. Their ‘alliance’ is weak; the only commonality they have is their opposition to the presence of the US occupation forces in Iraq. There have already been clashes between Sunni nationalist forces and alQuada; removal of US occupation forces will remove any pretense of an alliance.
Bush’s course has FAILED. It is time to try something new.
Somehow continuing to do that which enabled alQuada to flourish in Iraq is now supposed to do the opposite. There is a definition of insanity “Continuing to do the same things and expecting differnt results … ”
Bush’s course has FAILED. It is time to try something new.Posted by: Ben | May 03, 2007 at 09:40 PM
Great post but that’s a GREAT sentence: “Somehow continuing to do that which enabled alQuada to flourish in Iraq is now supposed to do the opposite.”
As if ~23K US troops is going to somehow make up for the 200K-350K ADDITIONAL troops we should have sent in March 2003 (or more; see Niall Ferguson) instead of the 165K we sent.
Not only has Bush failed, but as you point out his strategy is patently incoherent — and we’re all supposed to fall in behind him like lemmings.
Not gonna happen, frankly (the lemming part).
“Isn’t it a GOOD thing to fight the terrorists on foreign soil rather than fight them here?”He who determines the field of battle wins” The Art of War.Posted by: Econ101”
I think that is the point that everyone is trying to make, there were in Afghanistan (and they are moving back in) and now are next door in Pakistan. We were fighting them on foreign soil already! There was no need to violate our long held principals and go against what this country has always stood for just to fight them on foreign soil.
If we are to follow the logic of The Art of War, then it would have made more sense to invade Mexico and invite Al-Qaeda there. Foreign soil, lots of innocent collateral damage and the cost of moving our troops would have been a lot more cost effective.
All this fog. The neocons are now moving on to talking about China becoming a major military threat to America within the next twenty years.
The Ba’athists were not allied with al-Qaeda. In Saddam’s Iraq, women didn’t wear burkhas. They drove cars. They went to universities. Some were even doctors, lawyers and professors. Each man had one wife.
Ba’athist Iraq prior to 1990 was a modern 20th century state. Baghdad had 6 million people with full plumbing, sewer treatment, electricity, phone service, television and radio stations… It was as large as Houston or Chicago.
The Wahabists adhere to 7th century gender strictures. They’re still doing polygamy. In Afghanistan, girls couldn’t even attend elementary school in the Taliban era.
(BTW Econ 101’s freerepublic.com link had no link to the Pentagon website to verify the “terrorist-support report”. This means freerepublic.com is not an authoritative source on this matter.)
Baghdad also had a multiple-airline-service international airport with direct flights to several major European cities. You could buy European, American and Japanese cars, appliances and clothing.
Compared to Baghdad in 1990, Wichita was an unsophisticated little hicktown.
These people are descendants of one of the world’s first civilizations, whose denizens lived in cities when Europeans were living in huts. They took daily baths when Europeans didn’t know what a bath was.
They can figure out how to rebuild their own country. They deserve financial aid, but don’t need our armed forces.
Bush is starting to even look like Maxwell Smart, so expect we’ll soon be fighting “Chaos”
{ Bush and Cheney can make plans under the “dome of silence” }.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
This is a statement made by Hillary Clinton in 2002 before the Iraq invasion. She obviously believe Al Quaeda was already in Iraq and in some ways was being funded by Iraq.
She stated in a speech I heard her give that she didn’t put her faith in a White House issued report. She got her intelligence from Madeline Albright who still had contacts in high circles.
We can run this ribbon around the flag pole as often as we like but the facts will not change. Many allegations have been made and many statements have been mistated but I don’t remember an admission directly from any one in the Bush White House that said ‘we lied’. Intelligence was faulty and then we had the Joe Wilson debacle where he made a trip on America’s dime and then instead of taking this information to the people he should wrote his findings in a column for the New York Times. It’s easy to call people liars but this shouldn’t happen without substantiation.
My position is now and always has been that we went in for valid reasons. We are close to reaching that goal. I wish you would talk to some of the military men who have came back from there. The stories they tell sound like they came from a different planet from the stuff we get from the main stream media. Monday morning quarterbacking is fine for football but very dangerous when we apply this principle to war.
Did you just copy and paste this from Karl Rove’s website? It is filled with so many inaccuracies and distortions that I would not even know where to begin refuting your post.
Let’s take just one – Joe Wilson’s report – he did write a report and it was given to the CIA. It was only afterwards that he wrote his op-ed piece. By the way, Ambassador Wilson made his trip to Niger unpaid.
As I posted numerous times to Paul Rossell, the Pentagon says that Saddam had no connection with al Qaeda – what makes you think you know better?
Hilary seemed to think Al Qaeda was in Iraq:
He Has Also Given Aid, Comfort, And Sanctuary To Terrorists, Including Al Qaeda Members.” (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02 p. S10288) (FOX’s “Special Report,” 11/2/05)
I guess she is a liar too?
What difference does it make that Hillary thinks anything? She does not speak for all Democrats or all liberals. Contrary to popular opinion, the Left is able to form opinions without talking points.
Quoting Hillary does not make speculation fact.
Besides, my candidate is Barack Obama.