Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?

[BlindBoo]

Don't be too suprise when your insults are returned in kind to you.

You have no integrity.

That isn't an insult, it is demonstrable fact.

You base your posts on how they will serve your party, not on whether they are factual or accurate.

This is simply the truth - which both of us and everyone else in this forum is aware of.

Your post is a lie. Saddam gased the Iranians and the Kurds and Raygun refused to sanction him. Women and minorities have it worse in post Saddam Iraq than they died under Saddam.

I think we all know whom it is you serve.

 

[ABikerSailor]

And, don't forget......it was Ronnie Alzheimer's who gave weapons to OBL and Al-Queda in the first place to help them get rid of the Russians.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Before Rayguns involvment with Saddam Iraq was the most secular of all Arab Nations.

More facts you just made up...

In fact, pre-revolutionary Iran was the most Westernized nation in the region, followed by Turkey.

{In southern Iraq the situation has not been very different. Women are educated and participate as professionals, but the brutality of Saddam Hussein’s oppressive regime has affected their progress and they have had no independent organizations to raise their awareness and defend their rights. In October 2000 more than 200 women were accused of being prostitutes and publicly beheaded. This was a political campaign by the regime to intimidate the population generally, but it also provoked and authorized the brutal slaughter of women who were actually victims of the economic sanctions imposed by America and its allies from 1991. The sanctions caused starvation and disease, and the provision of basic human needs such as food and shelter for their families became the prime concern for many. }

http://www.iheu.org/node/1020

Hey, you're lying for the party, so it's not really wrong, right?

Ronnie Raygun was the one most responisble for Saddams access to western technology.

He caused the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, too!

In 1982 he removed Iraq from the nations who sponsor terrorist list and gave them most favored trading status. This allows them to buy duel use technology from not only American companies but from all of our allies as well. France, Germany the UK all got in on the sales action too. We also gave Iraq 4 billion in guarenteed loans (which Iraq defaulted on in 1990).

You realize that the US had never had any sort of conflict with Iraq. You realize that Carter put Iraq on the list for MFN status, Reagan later approving it. You realize that Iraq was in a conflict with a nation who had engaged in an act of war against the USA?

Ah, but you don't care - you have zero integrity. You serve you party and shape facts to meet party goals.

Your hero will alway be Raygun to me.

Well, you're kind of a dumbfuck...

And fitting too. President Bush was still stumping for the Star War Missile defense as the way to protect America from the foreign threats (not those damn terrorist president Clinton warned him about) on 9-11.

Like Clinton was?

Clinton's Missile Defense Plans Under Fire

Like your Messiah® is?

Russia Welcome to Participate in Missile Defense, Clinton Says - Businessweek

LOL, fucking hypocrite.

 

[geauxtohell]

Your opinion
by the way, that bird your shooting, shows the world how serious theses events are to you

I did my time in Afghanistan. I have friends that are gone now because of Iraq.

I am serious as a heart attack. Irony is you finding a middle finger offensive while being a fucking cheerleader for a war we should have never been in.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your post is a lie.

Nope, I'm stating the facts.

You have zero integrity. You will post anything to attack the right or to support the left.

I suspect you never even consider whether what you post is factual or not - as that is irrelevant - you serve the party.

Saddam gased the Iranians and the Kurds and Raygun refused to sanction him.

The Iranians who were sending children in and living mine detectors? I can see why you admire them - they share your ethics.

Women and minorities have it worse in post Saddam Iraq than they died under Saddam.

Bullshit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And, don't forget......it was Ronnie Alzheimer's who gave weapons to OBL and Al-Queda in the first place to help them get rid of the Russians.

More lies.

Carter began the shipments of stinger to the Mujahadeen. No one gave OBL weapons. As a wealthy Saudi, what he brought to the game was cash. He used his own funds to further the aims of the Mujahadeen.

Hey, but don't let facts stand in the way of your blind hatred - the party depends on your stupidity.

 

[geauxtohell]

Here stick that middle finger in this pie hole

n a report which might alternately be termed ?stunning? or ?terrifying?, United Nations weapons inspectors confirmed last week not merely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that he smuggled them out of his country, before, during and after the war.

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam's lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war. UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items - with UN inspection tags still on them -- as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.

Notably absent from that list is Iraq's western neighbor Syria, ruled by its own Baath Party just like Saddam's and closed to even the thought of an UNMOVIC inspection. Israeli intelligence has been reporting the large-scale smuggling of Saddam's WMD program across the Syrian border since at least two months before the war. Syria has long been the world's foremost state-sponsor of terrorism.

Perricos highlighted the proliferation danger to the Security Council, as well he should: UNMOVIC has no idea where most of the WMD material is today, just that it exists and it's gone; and anything in Syria is likely to be in Jerusalem or New York tomorrow.

This is the biggest news story of 2004 so far. Yet you haven't heard about it, have you?

Once again, you do realize that it is 2011, don't you? You seem to want to dredge up the hyperbolic conjectures of yesteryear when the idiot right wing pundits were desperate to try and cover their boy George's ass for his major fuck up.

In the end, they didn't have too. Americans were gullible enough to buy into this "spreading democracy" bullshit.

Oh, by the way. Al Sadir is now trying to inflame the shi'ite/sunni culture wars in Bahrain. Iran is laughing to the bank. The Shi'ite Muslims are now going to be a force to be reckoned with. The Sunni's will no longer be able to keep them down.

Tell me again, how fucking wonderful this was?

You probably haven't heard about Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin either -- a socialist and no friend of America. Addressing a group of 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal last month, Martin stated bluntly that terrorists have acquired WMDs from Saddam. ?The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Huseein had, we don't know where they are?. [T]errorists have access to all of them,? the Canadian premier warned.

The tip of this terrorist sword was scarcely deflected on April 26th, when Jordanian intelligence broke up an al Qaeda conspiracy to detonate a large chemical device in the capital city of Amman. Directed by al Qaeda terrorist leader Abu al-Zarqawi -- the same man who personally beheaded American Nicholas Berg in Iraq last month -- the plotters sought to use a massive explosion to spread a ?toxic cloud?, meant to wipe out the U.S. embassy, the Jordanian prime minister's office, the Jordanian intelligence headquarters, and at least 20,000 civilians (by contrast, only 3,000 died on 9/11). Over twenty tons of chemical weapons were seized from the conspirators, who were just days away from carrying out their plot.

One wonders where CNN and USA Today think twenty tons of nerve gas and sarin came from: Chemical Weapons-Mart? Yet their coverage, like most major media outlets, mentioned not a word about Saddam's smuggled WMDs, which -- according to liberal dogma -- ?don't exist.?

Even though the UN says they do exist, now spread around the world.

Again. I'd like to welcome you to 2011. Where did those WMDs go?

It's not just the UN. Bill Clinton says they exist, even after the war: in a July 2003 interview with Larry King, the ex-president uncharacteristically defended George Bush, saying ?it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there [was]?a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for? in Iraq. Every intelligence agency in the world -- French, British, German, Russian, Czech, you name it -- agreed before the war; Jordanian intelligence can certainly confirm their opinion today.

Ah. Excellent point. Here's the difference: Clinton was smart enough not to get into a war over the WMD thing. Bush was not.

So what's the deal? Why the relentless pretence that ?Bush lied? when even the UN and Bill Clinton say he didn't? Why the absolute silence about ?inconvenient? parts of various UN reports, such as the discovery of chemical and biological weapons plans, recipes and equipment; of bio-weapons agents in an Iraqi scientist's house; of a prison lab for testing bio weapons on humans; of complexes for manufacturing fuel for prohibited long-range missiles; of artillery rounds containing enough sarin to kill thousands of people, of similar shells containing mustard gas, two (but far from the only) of which were used in a terrorist attack against U.S. forces just weeks ago?

America cannot afford the answer to this ?why?: that many on the left consider George W. Bush's defeat more urgent than al Qaeda's, his political death more essential than the possible physical death of millions of Americans.

The character of our foreign enemies has never been in doubt. The character of the enemy within -- from Dan Rather to Michael Moore -- has never been clearer. And the stakes are the highest they've ever been.

Too fucking rich. A president who takes us to war on false pretenses is the hero and a newsman and fat-assed activist are the "enemy within"?

Take the red pill.

 

[JRK]

1) remove saddam
done
2) stabilize country
done
3) have a republic born of these events
done

am missing something here?

bfd. THAT was worth all of the American loss of life??? Spare me.

Loss of life?
you will get no argument from me on that matter
If Saddam does the right thing, does any one die?
What everyone misses in these events is that this country was the victim

President Bush stated within a week of 9-11 in no un certain terms Saddam was on notice, get out or else

Saddam does the right thing in 1990 none of these events occur

 

[konradv]

1) remove saddam
done
2) stabilize country
done
3) have a republic born of these events
done

am missing something here?

bfd. THAT was worth all of the American loss of life??? Spare me.

Loss of life?
you will get no argument from me on that matter
If Saddam does the right thing, does any one die?
What everyone misses in these events is that this country was the victim

President Bush stated within a week of 9-11 in no un certain terms Saddam was on notice, get out or else

Saddam does the right thing in 1990 none of these events occur

The ONLY reason for going to war should be compelling national interest. Saddam's antics and what he was doing to his people doesn't count, since he was esentially bottled up in his own country. The only compelling reason I see is OIL. Since we didn't take any, I see the whole episode as pointless.

 

[JRK]

bfd. THAT was worth all of the American loss of life??? Spare me.

Loss of life?
you will get no argument from me on that matter
If Saddam does the right thing, does any one die?
What everyone misses in these events is that this country was the victim

President Bush stated within a week of 9-11 in no un certain terms Saddam was on notice, get out or else

Saddam does the right thing in 1990 none of these events occur

The ONLY reason for going to war should be compelling national interest. Saddam's antics and what he was doing to his people doesn't count, since he was esentially bottled up in his own country. The only compelling reason I see is OIL. Since we didn't take any, I see the whole episode as pointless.

Oil?
increase production means lower prices means less profit
Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

 

[ABikerSailor]

1) remove saddam
done
2) stabilize country
done
3) have a republic born of these events
done

am missing something here?

bfd. THAT was worth all of the American loss of life??? Spare me.

Loss of life?
you will get no argument from me on that matter
If Saddam does the right thing, does any one die?
What everyone misses in these events is that this country was the victim

President Bush stated within a week of 9-11 in no un certain terms Saddam was on notice, get out or else

Saddam does the right thing in 1990 none of these events occur

Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

OBL did, and 2 years after 9/11, Jr. stated he was no longer concerned with him.

No. The Iraq war was a miserable failure under Jr.

And that's coming from someone who was on active duty for the U.S. Navy during BOTH Bush administrations.

 

[Uncensored2008]

OBL did, and 2 years after 9/11, Jr. stated he was no longer concerned with him.

Why hasn't your Messiah® caught bin Laden? Why did your Messiah® claim that he would during the campaign, only the turn around and say bin Laden isn't important?

Why are both you and he such fucking hypocrites?

 

[ABikerSailor]

OBL did, and 2 years after 9/11, Jr. stated he was no longer concerned with him.

Why hasn't your Messiah® caught bin Laden? Why did your Messiah® claim that he would during the campaign, only the turn around and say bin Laden isn't important?

Why are both you and he such fucking hypocrites?

Hey stupid......it was BUSH JR. that said he was no longer concerned with OBL, and that was only 2 years after 9/11.

And......FWIW........Bush Jr. gave Bin Laden a 7 year head start to get hidden.

Wanna talk about how Jr. lost Bin Laden at Tora Bora?

 

[JRK]

OBL did, and 2 years after 9/11, Jr. stated he was no longer concerned with him.

Why hasn't your Messiah® caught bin Laden? Why did your Messiah® claim that he would during the campaign, only the turn around and say bin Laden isn't important?

Why are both you and he such fucking hypocrites?

Hey stupid......it was BUSH JR. that said he was no longer concerned with OBL, and that was only 2 years after 9/11.

And......FWIW........Bush Jr. gave Bin Laden a 7 year head start to get hidden.

Wanna talk about how Jr. lost Bin Laden at Tora Bora?

What are you babbling about?
GWB gave Bin Ladin a what?
You mean Clinton?
CLINTON BLEW 3 CHANCES TO SEIZE BIN LADEN

And as far as 9-11 and Saddam goes
i dare you to read this

Clinton-Era Reports Cited Saddam-bin Laden Ties
ust weeks after Clinton bombed the daylights out of suspected hideaways for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, he used his January 1999 State of the Union Address to warn America about both bin Laden and Saddam, mentioning the two terror kingpins almost in the same breath. "We will defend our security wherever we are threatened - as we did this summer when we struck at Osama bin Laden's network of terror," Clinton told Congress and the nation. "The bombing our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania reminds us again of the risks faced every day by those who represent America to the world." Moments later Clinton segued into the threat posed by Saddam:

"For nearly a decade, Iraq has defied its obligations to destroy its weapons of terror and the missiles to deliver them. America will continue to contain Saddam, and we will work for the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people." But rather than launch an all out assault on what reporters now call the "dubious" assertion that Saddam and bin Laden had made common cause, the press took Clinton's ball and ran with it.

In fact, as researched and documented this week by FrontPageMagazine.com, in 1999 the national news media was replete with reports linking the Butcher of Baghdad and the man who masterminded the killing of 3,000 Americans almost two years ago.

Here are a few highlights gathered by FrontPage from the press' Saddam-bin Laden file – stories that have since conveniently disappeared down the media's memory hole:

Associated Press Worldstream

Feb. 14, 1999 Taliban leader says whereabouts of bin Laden unknown

... Analysts say bin Laden's options for asylum are limited.

Iraq was considered a possible destination because bin Laden had received an invitation from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein last month. And Somalia was a third possible destination because of its anarchy and violent anti-U.S. history .... San Jose Mercury News

SUNDAY MORNING FINAL EDITION

Feb. 14, 1999 U.S. WORRIED ABOUT IRAQI, BIN LADEN TIES TERRORIST COULD GAIN EVEN DEADLIER WEAPONS U.S. intelligence officials are worried that a burgeoning alliance between terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could make the fugitive Saudi's loose-knit organization much more dangerous ... In addition, the officials said, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal is now in Iraq, as is a renowned Palestinian bomb designer, and both could make their expertise available to bin Laden. "It's clear the Iraqis would like to have bin Laden in Iraq," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of counterterrorism operations at the Central Intelligence Agency ... Saddam has even offered asylum to bin Laden, who has expressed support for Iraq.

... [in] late December, when bin Laden met a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan, there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world. Bin Laden, who strikes in the name of Islam, and Saddam, one of the most secular rulers in the Arab world, have little in common except their hatred of the United States ...

More worrisome, the American officials said, are indications that there may be contacts between bin Laden's organization and Iraq's Special Security Organization (SSO), run by Saddam's son Qusay. Both the SSO and the Mukhabarat were involved in a failed 1993 plot to assassinate former President George Bush ...

"The idea that the same people who are hiding Saddam's biological weapons may be meeting with Osama bin Laden is not a happy one," said one American official.... Beacon Journal wire services

Oct. 31, 1999 BIN LADEN SPOTTED AFTER OFFER TO LEAVE DATELINE: JALALABAD, AFGHANISTAN: ... The Taliban has since made it known through official channels that the likely destination is Iraq. A Clinton administration official said bin Laden's request "falls far short" of the UN resolution that the Taliban deliver him for trial. ...

The Kansas City Star March 2, 1999 International terrorism, a conflict without boundaries By Rich Hood ... He [bin Laden] has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States and any country friendly to the United States. ...

United Press International Nov. 3, 1999, Wednesday, BC cycle. WASHINGTON – The U.S. government has tried to prevent accused terror suspect Osama bin Laden from fleeing Afghanistan to either Iraq or Chechnya, Michael Sheehan, head of counter-terrorism at the State Department, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee. ...

U.S. Newswire Dec. 23, 1999 Terrorism Expert Reveals Why Osama bin Laden has Declared War On America; Available for Comment in Light of Predicted Attacks. ... Aauthor Yossef] Bodansky also reveals the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and how the U.S. bombing of Iraq is "strengthening the hands of militant Islamists eager to translate their rage into violence and terrorism."

National Public Radio MORNING EDITION (10:00 a.m.ET) Feb. 18, 1999 THOUGH AFGHANISTAN HAS PROVIDED OSAMA BIN LADEN WITH SANCTUARY, IT IS UNCLEAR WHERE HE IS NOW. ANCHORS: BOB EDWARDS REPORTERS: MIKE SHUSTER ... There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi(ph), sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq.

Mr. VINCENT CANNISTRARO (Former Chief of CIA Counterterrorism Operations): Farouk Hijazi, who was the Iraqi ambassador in Turkey ... known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama's entourage let it be known that the meeting had taken place.

SHUSTER: Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. There is a wide gap between bin Laden's fundamentalism and Saddam Hussein's secular dictatorship. But some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony. ... Foreign news services also carried news of the now-supressed Saddam-bin Laden connection:

Agence France-Presse Feb. 17, 1999 Saddam plans to use bin Laden against Kuwait, Saudi: opposition Iraq's President Saddam Hussein plans to use alleged terrorist Osama bin Laden's network to carry out his threats against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, an Iraqi opposition figure charged on Wednesday. "If the ... Jaber, a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), said Iraq had "offered to shelter bin Laden under the precondition that he carry out strikes on targets in neighbouring countries."

Deutsche Presse-Agentur Feb. 17, 1999, Wednesday, BC Cycle Opposition group says bin Laden in Iraq

DATELINE: Kuwait City An Iraqi opposition group claimed in a published report Wednesday that Islamic militant Osama bin Laden is in Iraq from where he plans to launch a campaign of terrorism against Baghdad's Gulf neighbours. The claim was made by Bayan Jabor, spokesman for the Teheran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Bin Laden "recently settled in Iraq at the invitation of Saddam Hussein in exchange for directing strikes against targets in neighbouring countries," Jabor told the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai al- Aam ... Taleban leaders in Afghanistan, where he had been living, said they lost track of him. Media reports have speculated he sought refuge in Chechnya, Somalia, Iraq, or with a non-Taliban group in Afghanistan.

Jabor, who was interviewed in Damascus, Syria, said Iraq began extending invitations to bin Laden six months ago, shortly after the United States bombed his suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan after linking him with the August 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and in Dar-es-Salam, Tanzania.

The United States indicted Bin Laden for the embassy bombings and has offered a five million dollar reward for information leading to his capture. Bin Laden's disappearance has coincided with stepped up threats by Iraq against neighbours Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey for allowing the United States and Britain to use their air bases to carry out air patrols over two "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq.

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/16/123325

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey JeRK........OBL didn't take down the WTC on Clinton's watch.

He did it on Jr.'s.

Oh yeah.......wanna talk about Reagan giving RPG's to Al-Queda?

 

[JRK]

Hey JeRK........OBL didn't take down the WTC on Clinton's watch.

He did it on Jr.'s.

Oh yeah.......wanna talk about Reagan giving RPG's to Al-Queda?

Whats that got to do with the Intel that was collected under Clinton's watch?
You when on this rant and rave about war crimes and no ties to IRAQ

well this looks to me like in 2001 there was more than GWB stating there was ties

 

[georgephillip]

In 2001 some were predicting the Iraq War would be a "cakewalk"

Do you think they were right?

How does PTSD and soldier suicide factor into your definition of success?

 

[hipeter924]

into a war over the WMD thing. Bush was not.
Take the red pill.

Yet....Clinton murdered 1 million Iraqi children under HIS watch through his international sanctions, and what of the innocent civilians he bombed and killed in Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Serbia? I guess they don't matter:

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Maybe Americans don't care about the hundreds of Iraqis Clinton killed during the impeachment trial bombings of Iraq, and the scores of Iraqi civilians (and sheep) killed during the almost daily bombings of Iraq in the two years since then. Most Americans, incredibly enough, don't even know we're still at war, that we've been bombing Iraq every other day for the last two years! [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Okay, for the sake of argument, say we can forgive Clinton for killing a few hundred or thousand Iraqis with bombs. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Bombs are merciful compared to what Clinton has done to the innocent children of Iraq, the most vulnerable of all, by maintaining ten years of the harshest sanctions in the history of mankind, begun on August 6, 1990, and kept in place at the insistence of the United States. On May 12, 1996, television’s "Sixty Minutes" interviewed Madeleine Albright (then U.S. ambassador to the UN, now Secretary of State). Leslie Stahl asked Albright, "We have heard half a million children have died [from economic sanctions in Iraq]. That's more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?"
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice. But the price, we think, is worth it."
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I believe there is a special place in hell reserved for Madeleine Albright. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Yes, even four and a half years ago, 500,000 Iraqi children had already died as a direct result of economic sanctions. Over one million Iraqi civilians have died from the sanctions, mostly children under age five. Those are not Iraqi figures -- those figures come from Unicef, the World Health Organization, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the UN’s Department of Humanitarian Affairs, and other international sources. The "oil-for-food" program is so ineffectual that two consecutive UN directors of that program (Denis Haliday and Hans Von Sponeck) resigned, out of protest that they were presiding over a humanitarian disaster which can only be called genocide. They were UN Assistant Secretaries General, the highest ranking UN personnel ever to resign for reasons of conscience. Now Denis Haliday and Hans Von Sponeck are touring America and other countries, pleading for an end to the sanctions on Iraq.[/FONT]

http://www.ornery.org/essays/2001-01-26-1.html

 

[JRK]

into a war over the WMD thing. Bush was not.
Take the red pill.

Yet....Clinton murdered 1 million Iraqi children under HIS watch through his international sanctions, and what of the innocent civilians he bombed and killed in Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Serbia? I guess they don't matter:

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Maybe Americans don't care about the hundreds of Iraqis Clinton killed during the impeachment trial bombings of Iraq, and the scores of Iraqi civilians (and sheep) killed during the almost daily bombings of Iraq in the two years since then. Most Americans, incredibly enough, don't even know we're still at war, that we've been bombing Iraq every other day for the last two years! [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Okay, for the sake of argument, say we can forgive Clinton for killing a few hundred or thousand Iraqis with bombs. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Bombs are merciful compared to what Clinton has done to the innocent children of Iraq, the most vulnerable of all, by maintaining ten years of the harshest sanctions in the history of mankind, begun on August 6, 1990, and kept in place at the insistence of the United States. On May 12, 1996, television’s "Sixty Minutes" interviewed Madeleine Albright (then U.S. ambassador to the UN, now Secretary of State). Leslie Stahl asked Albright, "We have heard half a million children have died [from economic sanctions in Iraq]. That's more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?"
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice. But the price, we think, is worth it."
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I believe there is a special place in hell reserved for Madeleine Albright. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Yes, even four and a half years ago, 500,000 Iraqi children had already died as a direct result of economic sanctions. Over one million Iraqi civilians have died from the sanctions, mostly children under age five. Those are not Iraqi figures -- those figures come from Unicef, the World Health Organization, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the UN’s Department of Humanitarian Affairs, and other international sources. The "oil-for-food" program is so ineffectual that two consecutive UN directors of that program (Denis Haliday and Hans Von Sponeck) resigned, out of protest that they were presiding over a humanitarian disaster which can only be called genocide. They were UN Assistant Secretaries General, the highest ranking UN personnel ever to resign for reasons of conscience. Now Denis Haliday and Hans Von Sponeck are touring America and other countries, pleading for an end to the sanctions on Iraq.[/FONT]

Clinton’s Worst Crimes - The Ornery American

The cost we incurred during this 10 year period goes un-noticed also
to be honest
1991 is when this should have ended
Great thread

 

[hipeter924]

into a war over the WMD thing. Bush was not.
Take the red pill.

Yet....Clinton murdered 1 million Iraqi children under HIS watch through his international sanctions, and what of the innocent civilians he bombed and killed in Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Serbia? I guess they don't matter:

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Maybe Americans don't care about the hundreds of Iraqis Clinton killed during the impeachment trial bombings of Iraq, and the scores of Iraqi civilians (and sheep) killed during the almost daily bombings of Iraq in the two years since then. Most Americans, incredibly enough, don't even know we're still at war, that we've been bombing Iraq every other day for the last two years! [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Okay, for the sake of argument, say we can forgive Clinton for killing a few hundred or thousand Iraqis with bombs. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Bombs are merciful compared to what Clinton has done to the innocent children of Iraq, the most vulnerable of all, by maintaining ten years of the harshest sanctions in the history of mankind, begun on August 6, 1990, and kept in place at the insistence of the United States. On May 12, 1996, television’s "Sixty Minutes" interviewed Madeleine Albright (then U.S. ambassador to the UN, now Secretary of State). Leslie Stahl asked Albright, "We have heard half a million children have died [from economic sanctions in Iraq]. That's more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?"
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice. But the price, we think, is worth it."
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I believe there is a special place in hell reserved for Madeleine Albright. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Yes, even four and a half years ago, 500,000 Iraqi children had already died as a direct result of economic sanctions. Over one million Iraqi civilians have died from the sanctions, mostly children under age five. Those are not Iraqi figures -- those figures come from Unicef, the World Health Organization, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the UN’s Department of Humanitarian Affairs, and other international sources. The "oil-for-food" program is so ineffectual that two consecutive UN directors of that program (Denis Haliday and Hans Von Sponeck) resigned, out of protest that they were presiding over a humanitarian disaster which can only be called genocide. They were UN Assistant Secretaries General, the highest ranking UN personnel ever to resign for reasons of conscience. Now Denis Haliday and Hans Von Sponeck are touring America and other countries, pleading for an end to the sanctions on Iraq.[/FONT]

Clinton’s Worst Crimes - The Ornery American

The cost we incurred during this 10 year period goes un-noticed also
to be honest
1991 is when this should have ended
Great thread

Unfortunately hypocrisy and misinformation goes on and on and on, its also disgusting to slander one President as being a mass murderer and a war criminal, while ignoring the actions of another which could also be compared to such, and even worse applauding one President for those actions. I am yet to applaud Bush for invading Iraq, or Clinton for his air bombing campaigns, but several people in this thread have beaten us to it.

I think a lot of people are asking the question, why didn't George Bush Sr end the war when he had won, rather than letting Saddam remain in power to terrorize his citizens and genocide Kurds with biological and chemical weapons, it could have been over well in 1991, we never got an answer from the US government, just silence, just like over Pinochet's dictatorship.

As I said when I negged geauxtohell "Take a red pill yourself. George Galloway would be proud", after all he has done nothing in this thread but support Saddam's regime.

PS: Since your new my personal advise is putting geauxtohell on your ignore list, some people in this forum don't deserve an answer (but that recent post of his struck a chord with me), then again I am not here to be popular and I don't care about getting negs for having an intellectual conscience and critical mind (not scared of dying for that either).