Muslims

[Gunny]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

9/6/2003, a poll says nearly 70% of Americans believe Saddam had a personal hand in 9/11. The article also states that this is despite the fact no proof exists.

It also states that the Bush administration suggested there may be a link (nothing specific) in the lead-up to invasion.

All of which support my opinion. Thanks for the link.

Oh, and I STILL think the poll just reflects the choice of answers to teh questions asked.

 

[Care4all]

Bush never tried to tie Saddam to 9/11. I recall immediately after 9/11 there was speculation that he could be, but if you look at truthmatters' own links, one is an article from 9/03 where the admin denies ever saying he was responsible, and no evidence has ever been presented that he did.

I also recall that immediately following 9/11, before OBL claimed credit, Saddam's was the most-mentioned name as the most likely suspect, because at that time, he was.

OBL took the credit within a week; which, pretty-much squashed all speculation otherwise.

your memory is failing you....

Iraq-Al Qaeda Link Examined

Pentagon, Nov. 11, 2005

(CBS) Back in 2003, President Bush said, "Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."

CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports that this warning – repeated many times by the president and his top aides – was based on a claim made by a captured al Qaeda operative who has since admitted he was lying.

But even at the time the president made the statement, the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency sent out a notice cautioning "it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers."

The CIA noted he "was not in a position to know if any training had actually taken place."

Yet, administration officials continued to report it as fact.

"I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al Qaeda," Secretary of State Colin Powell said on February 5, 2003.

That speech had been checked for accuracy by the CIA, whose then director George Tenet sat behind Powel as he delivered it. Powell's former chief of staff blames "incompetence" for not weeding out that spurious claim.

On top of what appears to be sloppy work by intelligence experts, there are other instances in which top administration officials seem to have gone beyond what the CIA was telling them.

"You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," Mr. Bush said on Sept. 25, 2002.

But the CIA did distinguish between them. Saddam and bin Laden "were leery of close cooperation." The relationship "appears to more closely resemble that of two independent actors trying to exploit each other."

The CIA warned its intelligence was "at time contradictory and derived from sources with varying degrees of reliability."

The relationship was, to use the CIA's word, "murky." But the president painted it in black and white.

"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high level contacts that go back a decade," Mr. Bush said on Oct. 7, 2002.

The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded "there was little useful intelligence collected that helped…determine the Iraqi regime's possible links to al Qaeda."

But you would never know that from listening to the president and his aides.

there are alot more examples!!!!!!! do a google!

 

[bush lover]

The Moslem religion is as screwy as it gets, along with Mormon, Scientology, Moonie, Christian Scientists, and all of the rest of the cults. They all dictate how you should wipe your behind. The true Christian religion is Roman Catholicism, period. I won't demand holy water at the airport, because my religion is far more tolerant of non-Catholics than the above-mentioned cults. But I will vote for a true practicing Christian, not a hypocrite like Guilani or Gingrich, both serial adulterers.

 

[red states rule]

please prove this?

Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2005 12:15 p.m. EST
New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida

Recently discovered Iraqi documents now being translated by U.S. intelligence analysts indicate that Saddam Hussein's government made extensive plans to hide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 - and had deep ties to al Qaida before the 9/11 attacks.

The explosive evidence was discovered among "millions of pages of documents" unearthed by the Iraq Survey Group weapons search team, reports the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes.

In the magazine's Nov. 21 issue, Hayes reveals that the document cache now being examined contains "a thick stew of reports and findings from a variety of [Iraqi] intelligence agencies and military units."

Though the Pentagon has so far declined to make the bombshell papers public, Hayes managed to obtain a list of titles on the reports.

Topics headlined in the still embargoed Iraqi documents include:

• Chemical Agent Purchase Orders (Dec. 2001)

• Formulas and information about Iraq's Chemical Weapons Agents

• Locations of Weapons/Ammunition Storage (with map)

• Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs

• Ricin research and improvement

• Chemical Gear for Fedayeen Saddam
• Memo from the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)

• Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team

• Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment

• Correspondence from [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to [the Military Industrial Commission] regarding information gathered by foreign intelligence satellites on WMD (Dec. 2002) • Cleaning chemical suits and how to hide chemicals

• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] plan of what to do during UNSCOM inspections (1996)

Still other reports suggest that Iraq's ties to al Qaida were far deeper than previously known, featuring headlines like:

• Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government (Nov. 2000)

• Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity

• Possible al Qaeda Terror Members in Iraq

• Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals

• Iraqi Intel report on Kurdish Activities: Mention of Kurdish Report on al Qaeda - reference to al Qaeda presence in Salman Pak

• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] report on Taliban-Iraq Connections Claims

• Money Transfers from Iraq to Afghanistan

While the document titles sound stunning enough to turn the Iraq war debate on its head, Hayes cautions that it's hard to know for certain until the full text is available.

It's possible, he writes, "that the 'Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity' was critical of one or another Taliban policies. But it's equally possible, given Uday's known role as a go-between for the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda, that something more nefarious was afoot."

"What was discussed at the 'Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government' in November 2000? It could be something innocuous. Maybe not. But it would be nice to know more."

Hayes also notes that an additional treasure trove of evidence on Saddam Hussein's support for al Qaida may be lost forever.

"When David Kay ran the Iraq Survey Group searching for weapons of mass destruction, he instructed his team to ignore anything not directly related to the regime's WMD efforts," he reports.

"As a consequence, documents describing the regime's training and financing of terrorists were labeled 'No Intelligence Value' and often discarded, according to two sources."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/16/122915.shtml

 

[red states rule]

He wont respond.

If he ever does, it will be a HUGE article from some right wing Lib bashing site that has irrefutable evidence of Saddams WMD's and Al Qaeda ties.

And the only thing that makes it irrefutable is the fact that it is opiniated outright lies.

He is offline now charging in the Borg cube he calls home.

* Iraqi defectors had been saying for years that Saddam's regime trained "non-Iraqi Arab terrorists" at a camp in Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. U.N. inspectors had confirmed the camp's existence, including the presence of a Boeing 707. Defectors say the plane was used to train hijackers; the Iraqi regime said it was used in counterterrorism training. Sabah Khodada, a captain in the Iraqi Army, worked at Salman Pak. In October 2001, he told PBS's "Frontline" about what went on there. "Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism. . . . All this training is directly toward attacking American targets, and American interests."

* On February 13, 2003, the government of the Philippines asked Hisham al Hussein, the second secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, to leave the country. According to telephone records obtained by Philippine intelligence, Hussein had been in frequent contact with two leaders of Abu Sayyaf, an al Qaeda affiliate in South Asia, immediately before and immediately after they detonated a bomb in Zamboanga City. That attack killed two Filipinos and an American Special Forces soldier and injured several others. Hussein left the Philippines for Iraq after he was "PNG'd"--declared persona non grata--by the Philippine government and has not been heard from since.

According to a report in the Christian Science Monitor, an Abu Sayyaf leader who planned the attack bragged on television a month after the bombing that Iraq had contacted him about conducting joint operations. Philippine intelligence officials were initially skeptical of his boasting, but after finding the telephone records they believed him.

* No fewer than five high-ranking Czech officials have publicly confirmed that Mohammed Atta, the lead September 11 hijacker, met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer working at the Iraqi embassy, in Prague five months before the hijacking. Media leaks here and in the Czech Republic have called into question whether Atta was in Prague on the key dates--between April 4 and April 11, 2001. And several high-ranking administration officials are "agnostic" as to whether the meeting took place. Still, the public position of the Czech government to this day is that it did.

That assertion should be seen in the context of Atta's curious stop-off in Prague the previous spring, as he traveled to the United States. Atta flew to Prague from Germany on May 30, 2000, but did not have a valid visa and was denied entry. He returned to Germany, obtained the proper paperwork, and took a bus back to Prague. One day later, he left for the United States.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp?pg=2

 

[Truthmatters]

"Both the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] and CIA published reports that disavowed any 'mature, symbiotic' cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida," the inspector general's report found. "The intelligence community was united in its assessment that the intelligence on the alleged meeting between Mohammed Atta and al-Ani was at least contradictory, but by no means a 'known contact.' "

The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaida was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.

"This is al-Qaida operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about al-Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq."



Are you sugesting the DIA and the CIA are left wing liars?

 

[Truthmatters]

Didn't you already try this emotional appeal? I'm going to say right here and now that ANYONE dumb enough to believe Saddam and 9/11 were tied together doesn't deserve to vote, and probably shouldn't be allowed to drive. And I don't care what numbers you try to pull out of your ass from some opinion poll.

NOTHING supports such a notion.

Gunny this was an appeal for you to be fair minded, If you see accepting well documented facts as an emotional ploy then there is really not much sense in trying to discuss anything of substance with you.

That is a shame because I had been told that you were a respectable debating opponent.

There are child like minds on here who do little more than spout biased sites and ignore anything of substance which is said.
They are on both sides.

Then there are those who can actually think and process information, I was truely hoping you were one of the ones with thought processes well in gear.

If we cannot agree on certain well documented facts then were does that leave us?

Its really NOT an emotional plea its a plea of sanity and civility.

I know your better judgement will prevail.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You ignoring the "WELL established" fact that Bush nor Cheney ever said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 while demanding others ACCEPT your hand picked misquotes is rich. Talk about fair....

 

[Truthmatters]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_Cheney_continues_claims_of_SaddamQaeda_0406.html

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek/

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030208.html

 

[Truthmatters]

Shall I go on or do you want to now admitt you were very wrong about that one?

 

[Truthmatters]

I suspect you will now not answer me

 

[Truthmatters]

I thought so

 

[Annie]

I looked through 3 of your links, no where did I see either Bush or Cheney tie Saddam to 9/11. The only mention I saw to 9/11 was the Commission. Now they spoke of Saddam as dangerous, at the White House link Bush says they work 'in concert', however in context it's in the sense that their end games were similar and complementary-NOT they the 'work together,' certainly no tie to 9/11.

 

[Truthmatters]

Video: Cheney continues claims of Saddam-Qaeda connection RAW STORY
Published: Friday April 6, 2007

Print This Email This



Vice President Dick Cheney has continued to claim a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein during an interview with radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, as RAW STORY reported earlier.

"[Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi] went to Baghdad, he took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene," Cheney told Limbaugh. "This is Al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."

But according to MSNBC News guest Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, the American intelligence community has long concluded that no such link existed.

"The bottom line, and this is something that goes back to the 9/11 commission report and even before the invasion of Iraq, was that the consensus opinion inside the intelligence community was that there was no linkage between, no meaningful linkage between, Iraq and Al Qaeda," said Preble.

 

[Truthmatters]

Oct. 6 - With virtually all of the administration’s original case for war in Iraq in tatters, Vice President Dick Cheney provided shifting and sometimes misleading arguments in last night’s debate with John Edwards about Saddam Hussein’s ties to terrorists and his access to weapons of mass destruction.



Cheney, responding to moderator Gwen Ifill’s first question, said that “concern” about Iraq before the war had “specifically focused” on the fact that Saddam’s regime had been listed for years by the U.S. government as a “state sponsor of terror,” that Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal operated out of Baghdad, that Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and that he had an “established relationship” with Al Qaeda.

But except for the allegation about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda—a claim that is now more in question than ever—the other examples cited by Cheney in Tuesday night’s debate never have been previously emphasized by Bush administration officials, and for good reasons.

When Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the administration’s case last year before the United Nations Security Council, for example, he said nothing about Iraq being cited by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. The claim would have been especially unimpressive to a fellow member of the Security Council, the ambassador from Syria, whose country has been on the same list for years, as well as five other General Assembly members that are also on the list.

 

[Truthmatters]

Q Mr. President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United States than al Qaeda?

PRESIDENT BUSH: That's a -- that is an interesting question. I'm trying to think of something humorous to say. (Laughter.) But I can't when I think about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.

Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.

 

[Truthmatters]

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 8, 2003

President's Radio Address


Audio
En Español




THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Powell briefed the United Nations Security Council on Iraq's illegal weapons program, its attempts to hide those weapons, and its links to terrorist groups.

The Iraqi regime's violations of Security Council Resolutions are evident, they are dangerous to America and the world, and they continue to this hour.

The regime has never accounted for a vast arsenal of deadly, biological and chemical weapons. To the contrary, the regime is pursuing an elaborate campaign to conceal its weapons materials and to hide or intimidate key experts and scientists. This effort of deception is directed from the highest levels of the Iraqi regime, including Saddam Hussein, his son, Iraq's vice president and the very official responsible for cooperating with inspectors.

The Iraqi regime has actively and secretly attempted to obtain equipment needed to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Firsthand witnesses have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents -- equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery.

The Iraqi regime has acquired and tested the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction. It has never accounted for thousands of bombs and shells capable of delivering chemical weapons. It is actively pursuing components for prohibited ballistic missiles. And we have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad.

This is the situation as we find it -- 12 years after Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm and more than 90 days after the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote. Saddam Hussein was required to make a full declaration of his weapons programs. He has not done so. Saddam Hussein was required to fully cooperate in the disarmament of his regime. He has not done so. Saddam Hussein was given a final chance. He is throwing away that chance.

Having made its demands, the Security Council must not back down when those demands are defied and mocked by a dictator. The United States would welcome and support a new resolution making clear that the Security Council stands behinds its previous demands. Yet, resolutions mean little without resolve. And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, will take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime.

Thank you for listening.