PDA

View Full Version : About Saddam/ Osama link



nAz
06-18-2004, 07:13 AM
I hear the 9/11 com. found no link between the two, is that true?
If so i guess we err bUsh made a small mistake. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Qtec
06-18-2004, 07:33 AM
Not so nAz. They had a 'relationship'. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Q

pooltchr
06-18-2004, 07:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> I hear the 9/11 com. found no link between the two, is that true?
If so i guess we err bUsh made a small mistake. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Even so, not finding something is not proof of non-existence. I think some of these people find what they want to find, and don't find things they don't want to find. (and some of them couldn't find their butt in a toilet stall!) It's politics, pure and simple.

eg8r
06-18-2004, 07:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I hear the 9/11 com. found no link between the two, is that true?
If so i guess we err bUsh made a small mistake. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, well I was wondering how long it would take before someone posted this. Bush never made the mistake that the media is reporting. In fact the 9/11 commission found exactly the opposite. There are ties between the two, just not in reference to 9/11.

Bush never said there were ties between Saddam and the attack on 9/11. Never, that was the media. What Bush did say was that there are ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam. The press added the bit about 9/11.

If you believe what you posted, then find a quote from Bush where he states Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attack. Now if you are trying to say Saddam and Osama have never sat down for a drink, then you are probably correct, however Bush has never said anything remotely close to that either. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
06-18-2004, 07:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Even so, not finding something is not proof of non-existence <hr /></blockquote>

Thats ridiculous Ptchr.

Take this extreme example.

You stop at a gas station and use the restroom. You drive away and the gas station explodes. Some terrorist with a hand grenade blows himself and the station to pieces.

I say you gave him that grenade. Prove to me that you didnt.

If you cant, does that mean you are quilty?

Q

moblsv
06-18-2004, 08:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>
Even so, not finding something is not proof of non-existence.<hr /></blockquote>

True, but before you use something to justify going to war you should have some strong evidence to support it. I think the burden of proof should be on the person making the accusation.

highsea
06-18-2004, 10:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Not so nAz. They had a 'relationship'. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Q <hr /></blockquote>
Here's the proof.

http://www.jillsjokeline.com/foundthem.jpg

Ross
06-18-2004, 11:45 AM
Steve, you are right that a lack of proof of existence doesn't prove that it doesn't exist. For example we will never be able to prove there are no purple swans on earth unless we are able to search every square foot of the earth. But, in a rational world, we shouldn't assume something exists unless we have evidence.

Regarding the current topic, there are three different scenarios:

1. Saddam and Bin Laden had contacts: no problem - claimed true by both Bush and 9/11 commission.
2. Saddam was involved with 9/11 atttacks: no problem - not claimed to be true by Bush and claimed to be false by 9/11 commission.
3. Saddam was an imminent threat because he provided significant assistence to Bin Laden: problem - claimed to be true or at least strongly implied to be true by Bush, claimed to be false by 9/11 commission.

Bush used scenario 3 as one major part of the justification for the US to go to war with Iraq. However the conclusions of the 9/11 commission state that Saddam was not helping Bin Laden in any real way. Saddam apparently did not even reply to Bin Laden's inquiries. Conversely, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Yemen were all hotbeds of extensive Al-Qaida activity, but were not mentioned by Bush as countries the US should intervene in, nor were they thrown into the "axis of evil" camps despite their governments allowing Al-Qaida to operate.

I think the evidence from before and after the war strongly suggest that the evidence for WMD's and Iraqi support of Al-Qaida were trumped up by Bush/Cheney to help win support for going to war with Iraq. I think the real reason for the invasion was to ensure a Western-friendly government in the mideast. Bush/Cheney felt this was necessary to ensure that the US continued to have access to the oil we depend on. I don't think it was about stealing oil - it was about continuing to be able to purchase it. Remember, Saudi Arabia was clamoring for the US to withdraw its military bases from their land. So invading Iraq and installing a western style democracy would help ensure that the oil dependent US would not be held hostage by an increasingly anti-western mideast.

Before you dismiss my arguments as the rantings of a left wing communist, I should point out that I think there is some hard-nose validity to Bush's seeing possible future threats to US access to mideastern oil. And I think Bush could not have gotten away with being completely honest about the reasons for invading Iraq. How could he have stood up in front of the world and say "We want a Western-friendly democracy in the mideast to protect our access to oil. So we've decided to invade Iraq, since Saddam is unpopular in the mideast anyway." If he was going to invade, he had to cloak his real reason with justifications that were seen as defensible (sort of) in world opinion.

But I also understand why the US government's credibility, and this administration in particular, has taken a major hit in public opinion around the world. As I've said before, it will likely be 5-10 years before we know how the invasion of Iraq worked out.

BTW, I also think Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld totally misplanned the post-invasion governance and restoration of Iraq, at a significant cost of US and Iraqi lives and US reputation.

pooltchr
06-18-2004, 12:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Regarding the current topic, there are three different scenarios:

1. Saddam and Bin Laden had contacts: no problem - claimed true by both Bush and 9/11 commission.
2. Saddam was involved with 9/11 atttacks: no problem - not claimed to be true by Bush and claimed to be false by 9/11 commission.
3. Saddam was an imminent threat because he provided significant assistence to Bin Laden: problem - claimed to be true or at least strongly implied to be true by Bush, claimed to be false by 9/11 commission.

Bush used scenario 3 as one major part of the justification for the US to go to war with Iraq. <font color="red"> I think there were multiple reasons for the invasion, not the least of which is the fact that Sadam had shown the world that he had WMD and was willing to use them on his own people. The fact that he stonewalled the UN inspections even during the Clinton administration to me is enough of a reason to consider him a threat to anyone including the US. The administration could have done a much better job of giving us the straight story from the start, and would have not only gotten public support, but probably would have been able to hold on to it longer had they done so.</font color>

BTW, I also think Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld totally misplanned the post-invasion governance and restoration of Iraq, at a significant cost of US and Iraqi lives and US reputation. <font color="red"> I totally agree...a well thought out war plan, but absolutely no idea what to do after the mission was completed. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

I am not a strong supporter of Bush nor the war. I just think he is being attacked from every direction in an often unfair and entirely political way. He is by no means perfect, but I still think it's better than any alternatives we have been offered.
sj

highsea
06-18-2004, 12:06 PM
Russia warned U.S. of potential Iraqi attacks

Putin: Saddam's regime was planning terror attacks before Iraq war

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5238640/

-CM

Wally_in_Cincy
06-18-2004, 12:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>
.....BTW, I also think Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld totally misplanned the post-invasion governance and restoration of Iraq, at a significant cost of US and Iraqi lives and US reputation.
<hr /></blockquote>

I think they had a plan. Unfortunately they forgot that war never ever goes as planned.

bluewolf
06-18-2004, 08:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>
.....BTW, I also think Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld totally misplanned the post-invasion governance and restoration of Iraq, at a significant cost of US and Iraqi lives and US reputation.
<hr /></blockquote>

I think they had a plan. Unfortunately they forgot that war never ever goes as planned. <hr /></blockquote>

You are right on that one wally. Also not knowing how strong the resistance has going to be, nor what challenges would make it difficult to have the new iraq govt started.

I am not a Bush fan but I think he did pursue some diplomatic things with the un. Some were pressuring, according to what I hear to invade Iraq, but he did hold off until he could see if the un was going to act.

It appears that there were alqaeda connections a number of years back. There was also a band in northern Iraq. They were not able to get 'iron clad proof' of current connections between the two,however.

Some in cia saw this evidence as having holes in it and being a weak case for connecting the two. But, according to what I have read, some in the cia thought there were enough suspicions to go to war.


I see a Bush who did want to go to war and squash sadaam but did wait and I do think that much of the intelligence was sketchy, but it was all they had.

I believe the wrong decision was made,but I guess history will be the judge and I have heard that even Clinton in his new book is not critical of the decision that Bush made.

mred477
06-20-2004, 10:51 AM
Perhaps most will see this as irrelevant, but didn't the Gulf War I cease fire agreement say that Saddam had to prove that he had destroyed his WMDs? Didn't UN Resolution 1441 say the same thing? If Saddam violated a cease fire agreement, does that not mean that recourse should be taken? I'm all for diplomacy in many cases, but anyone who thinks that giving Saddam a timeout and making him think about what he'd done would work is deluding themself.

My point is that an Al Qaida connection shouldn't have been needed to go to war. You set rules and laws and expect people to follow them. If they don't, you have to enforce the rules or else the next time they'll push farther. It's really sad how liberals jump on Bush for taking "preemptive" (which I would argue it was not) action in Iraq when at the same time they jump on him for not doing anything to stop 9/11. This only serves to embolden Iran, which is now the main threat in the middle east. If we spend 12 years trying to use diplomacy in Iran, we may as well kiss a couple major US cities goodbye. The nukes are coming, and it's time people realize that appeasement will not work with an enemy that doesn't want anything but to see the US in ruins. Besides, appeasement worked really well with Hitler, didn't it?

Will

bluewolf
06-20-2004, 05:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mred477:</font><hr>
My point is that an Al Qaida connection shouldn't have been needed to go to war. It's really sad how liberals jump on Bush for taking "preemptive" (which I would argue it was not) action in Iraq when at the same time they jump on him for not doing anything to stop 9/11. The nukes are coming, and it's time people realize that appeasement will not work with an enemy that doesn't want anything but to see the US in ruins. Besides, appeasement worked really well with Hitler, didn't it?

Will <hr /></blockquote>

I think if people were told 'we are going to war to squash saddam because he is a future threat. He never complied with un investigations' and so on, things would be different.

I think part of the problem is that congress was told that sadaam did have WMD , was attempting to acquire uranium from Africa, there were bin laden connections.

Then there are no connections with bin laden found. Now with this investigation, this reflects badly on president bush.

I do not think toppling sadaam is the problem but things the current regime said, which could not hold up under rather rigorous scrutiny. And is does reflect back on the president. IMO.

Laura

Ross
06-20-2004, 06:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mred477:</font><hr> If we spend 12 years trying to use diplomacy in Iran, we may as well kiss a couple major US cities goodbye.
Will <hr /></blockquote>

I'm just curious - how is Iran going to get the nukes to the US?

highsea
06-20-2004, 07:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>I'm just curious - how is Iran going to get the nukes to the US? <hr /></blockquote>
Well, it would be pretty simple to put them in a container and place it on a ship. That's one way. Also, it would not be hard to modify a commercial jetliner to carry a bomb on the underside of the fuselage. That's another way.

Iran's missile program is not that developed, but it exists. They have medium range ballistic missiles right now that are capable of carrying a nuclear payload to Turkey or Israel. They have received a lot of help from North Korea and China, as well as Russia on designs of both long range and intercontinental missiles, but are probably 10 years or so away from fielding an ICBM that could hit the US.

-CM

eg8r
06-20-2004, 08:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm just curious - how is Iran going to get the nukes to the US? <hr /></blockquote> I really don't think you are curious at all, sarcastic maybe but that would just be guessing on my part. At the least I would hope you are not serious.

Even, if there was 0% chance of Iran ever being part of a nuclear explosion in the US is that reason enough to sit by and see what happens?

eg8r

mred477
06-20-2004, 10:39 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

This is what the President said in 2002. He doesn't say Saddam is connected with Al Qaida, only that they have the same goals.

Bush justified the war by saying we were going after the WMDs. Even Jaques Chirac and Gerhard Schroder said he had them, so to fault Bush for believing the World's intelligence doesn't make sense. The issue was how to deal with Hussein. That was where Bush and the UN disagreed. Now that we have yet to find massive stockpiles of WMDs (the scary part is where they might be now), liberals want to say Bush lied. If that's the case, then Teddy Kennedy lied, John Kerry lied, and every other congressman in the entire Federal Government lied. They relied on intelligence from the CIA and FBI. These agencies were well established before Bush came into office, and their failings are somehow his fault? I fail to see how when you consider that Bill Clinton is on record as saying Hussein had WMDs while he was president. So maybe the chant should be that Clinton lied?

The truth is that those weapons are somewhere. Hussein would have just turned over the necessary paperwork if he didn't have anything to hide. Those weapons are in Syria or Iran or some other place we don't want to think of.

Will

mred477
06-20-2004, 10:42 PM
How were 18 Arabs going to hijack 4 planes and kill 3000 Americans? Anyone who's ever worked for the government knows there's always a loophole. Scary part is that now all airport security is government supplied.

Will

bluewolf
06-21-2004, 08:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mred477:</font><hr> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

This is what the President said in 2002. He doesn't say Saddam is connected with Al Qaida, only that they have the same goals.

<font color="blue"> yes, it was said that there were connections with alquada, even in the report you site which mentions many things, known past connections with al quada are mentioned as well as sadaam harboring terroists. It was very hard to get intelligence on this however, regarding current connections. Confuse this further with the facts that there were at one time some connections, according to intelligance reports. And confuse this further with the fact that there was an alquada band in northern Iraq and how hard it would be to determine if sadaam had anything to do with this band or not.</font color>

Bush justified the war by saying we were going after the WMDs. Even Jaques Chirac and Gerhard Schroder said he had them, so to fault Bush for believing the World's intelligence doesn't make sense. The issue was how to deal with Hussein. That was where Bush and the UN disagreed. Now that we have yet to find massive stockpiles of WMDs (the scary part is where they might be now), liberals want to say Bush lied. If that's the case, then Teddy Kennedy lied, John Kerry lied, and every other congressman in the entire Federal Government lied. They relied on intelligence from the CIA and FBI. These agencies were well established before Bush came into office, and their failings are somehow his fault?

<font color="blue"> I cannot fault him when the intelligence people are telling him it is iron clad proof of WMD and he depends on them to give him accurate info. if someone else had been pres and they were given inaccurate info, then it would be the same problem. I think it is silly to blame Bush for everything. There were and always are other 'players' in any regime with often their own agendas which may or may not match the goals of the pres, and people are not always honest about what their true agendas are</font color>

I fail to see how when you consider that Bill Clinton is on record as saying Hussein had WMDs while he was president. So maybe the chant should be that Clinton lied?

<font color="blue"> They all lie</font color>

The truth is that those weapons are somewhere. Hussein would have just turned over the necessary paperwork if he didn't have anything to hide. Those weapons are in Syria or Iran or some other place we don't want to think of.

<font color="blue"> I have heard that lots of stuff was being moved over the border. Anything is possible. The unknown is whether these things moved are WMD and if so, whether it is stuff that could be used or just old broken down stuff</font color>

Will <hr /></blockquote>

Some things I do not like about Bush, but it has more to do with other things, other issues than the war, including the iraq pow stuff. And, in some of the liberal books coming out, some of them focus on the war and do not mention much if anything about his stance on healthcare, education, medicare, his plans to build up the military or so many other things.

That is one thing I am concerned about with the upcoming election. people including pres candidates tend to focus on what is 'hot', which right now is the war.

The idea that Bush had anything to do with 9/11 or had adequate intelligence that would predict that, imo, is ludicrous. The worst anything anybody could say, that I have heard, was that intelligence was saying it looks like the terrorists were planning something bad, but they did not know what. This was not foreseen by anyone.

No matter what the intelligence is, noone can predict what al quada will do next. They had huge protection at the olympics in atlanta in 1996, but nothing of significance happened. Attacking the ny eve party in 2000 and many other times when large numbers of people could be killed and nothing of significance, or at all happened. Here in dc, they will get intelligence of suspected terrorist potential, raise the alert status but nothing has happened at those times.Once they raised it so much, they told people to put duck tape on their large windows. The duct tape was bought out of the stores. Nothing happened.

Homeland security seems imo, to be the best plan. I surely hope that in the coming years, that whoever is president will work on getting funding to increase security. I also believe that beefing up the military in these troubled times is much needed.

So am I a democrat? Am a replublican? the answer obviously is neither.Just a concerned citizen who tries to learn what I can, however imperfect that might be. And considering that the pres and the cia do not know everything, how can any of us know everything?

Laura