Bush stands by al Qaeda-Saddam link

us.cnn.com...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq was in league with al Qaeda under Saddam Hussein's rule, saying Tuesday that fugitive Islamic militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheney yesterday and Bush today? Where's the proof? come on guys
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush said Tuesday that Saddam also had ties to Palestinian militant groups and was making payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are incredible claims made with no back up !!!! Show me the paper trail

Apparently, Bin Laden asked Iraq for help but was rejected:

link:
In a report based on research and interviews by the commission staff, the panel said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam even though he opposed the Iraqi leader's secular regime.

A senior Iraqi intelligence official reportedly met with bin Laden in 1994 in Sudan, the panel found, and bin Laden "is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded."

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said. "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."

The panel's findings appear to contradict Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion Monday that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida.

He would be stupid not to think they were in the same league. It's obvious that they are on the same team. Bin Laden and Hussein must be brothers.

what a joke! so the White House has indirectly said that the panel has no credibility. " I feel so lost" who should i believe

I think it is pretty obvious that Saddam has had ties to terrorism for quite a long time. What is in question are his ties to the Al Qaida Attack on 9/11/01, whether or not a link will be found is moot, Saddam has long harbored terrorist fugitives (Abu Nidal, Khala Khadr al-Salahat, Abdul Rahman Yasin) along with Al-Zarqawi .

If you don't want to associate your gov't with terrorists, why would you allow them to hide out in your country?


There is also pretty credible evidence that Saddam did pay families of Palestinian homicide bombers.

Payment for Palestinians

While I share some of your frustration on this War on Terror, I have no doubt that Saddam's regime willingly funded, harbored, promoted terrorist activity, and to dismiss this as Bush Administration Propaganda is simply not accepting the factual information that is available.

Well, what about the Al-qaeda links in Saudi Arabia? We have direct information that they funded some of the 9/11 terrorists. What about Pakistan? They have had quite a few Al-Qeeda links over the years. How about sudan, hell they are supporting Al-Qeda members in their country today. Big deal if bush still thinks there was an Iraq Al-Qeda connection, what does that mean anyway. There are plenty of countries with solid links to them that he's not even remotely interested in going to war with. Iraq had no 9/11 connection but the saudi government did and we have proof of that. It's pointless to say that the Iraq terrorists connection was a reason for going to war. If that was even a strong deciding factor than there are much better targets.

JackAtMtn:

While I share some of your frustration on this War on Terror, I have no doubt that Saddam's regime willingly funded, harbored, promoted terrorist activity, and to dismiss this as Bush Administration Propaganda is simply not accepting the factual information that is available.

Um, how about some links as to how Saddam's regime "funded, harbored and promoted terrorist activity".

If you want to talk factual information, the United States harbors and funds and TRAINS terrorists, too, and it's well documented. They just export them to Latin america and let them do what they want after they train them.

It used to be called the School of the Americas, located at Fort Benning.

www.soaw.org...

SOA graduates have included many of the most notorious human rights abusers from Latin America. SOA graduates have led military coups and are responsible for massacres of hundreds of people. Among the SOA's nearly 60,000 graduates are notorious dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador, and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia. SOA graduates were responsible for the Uraba massacre in Colombia, the El Mozote massacre of 900 civilians in El Salvador, the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, and the Jesuit massacre in El Salvador, the La Cantuta massacre in Peru, the torture and murder of a UN worker in Chile, and hundreds of other human rights abuses. In September 1996, under intense pressure from religious and grassroots groups, the Pentagon released seven Spanish-language training manuals used at the SOA until 1991. The New York Times reported, "Americans can now read for themselves some of the noxious lessons the United States Army taught thousands of Latin Americans... [The SOA manuals] recommended interrogation techniques like torture, execution, blackmail and arresting the relatives of those being questioned."

Come up with something backing up your statement too please.


IRAQ HAD NO CONNECTION WITH AL QAEDA.

I find most of the people who think that are the same types who think all Arabs are crazy killbots who want to rape your white women and bathe in your blood.



[edit on 16-6-2004 by Jakomo]

Well according the 9/11 commision posted on CNN.com, the panel find no evidence that linked Al Qaeda with Iraq into planning the 9/11 attacks.

www.cnn.com...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The panel investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks found that there was "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States," according to a staff report issued on Wednesday.

The report says Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.

From CNN

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.

Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.

The 9/11 Commission concluded there was no link before or after 9/11. How can Bush claim there was still a link, if he knows something that the 9/11 Commission doesn't he needs to fess up!!!! Enough with this stupid keeping secrets crap, if there is no evidence, there is no connection in my eyes! I refuse to give into any more lies that Bush wants to dish out! This has happened way to much and he should be reprimanded along with his administration!

Here's the full text of the report: 9/11 Statement Text

Originally posted by Jakomo
J
Um, how about some links as to how Saddam's regime "funded, harbored and promoted terrorist activity".

IRAQ HAD NO CONNECTION WITH AL QAEDA.

I find most of the people who think that are the same types who think all Arabs are crazy killbots who want to rape your white women and bathe in your blood.

It seems that Seekerof has done more than enough posting of links to satisfy your needs and instead of reposting them all I will just direct you to his thread.
Seekerof

Enjoy the reading.........

JackAtMtn:

It seems that Seekerof has done more than enough posting of links to satisfy your needs and instead of reposting them all I will just direct you to his thread.

How about reading all those threads where Seekerof claims the links and where I and many others jump on him and prove him WRONG!

How about making an effort, ANY effort to back up what you say?

How about bothering to read the LAST TWO posts on that thread you referenced.

(Shoktek

Seems that instead of addressing the real issue at hand for what it is--Saddam(Iraq), Osama(Al Qaeda) links...you are just "spewing" crap that makes no sense, and continues to weaken your dying position. And once again, trying to defend Bush to the death, and blame everything on Clinton and the Democrats

(MakodFilu

But if you want to believe Al Qaeda is omnipresent, omniscient and there is no evil in wich Al Qaeda is not involved, well, I can't change that childish way of thinking...

Or does Seekerof do your thinking for you? Maybe you can both be wrong TOGETHER, instead of separately.


Just to show you how to do it, here's a link to the Department of Defense site that says what pretty much the rest of us (reasonable) people are saying.

www.dod.mil...

News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.

And have you bothered to read what the (bipartisan) 9-11 Commission had to say about it? Just scroll up and read it, it's right there.

Or, you know, ask Seekerof what you should say.




[edit on 16-6-2004 by Jakomo]

[edit on 16-6-2004 by Jakomo]

Saddam hated religious fundamentalism like al queda. He was a dictator, he dictated. Nothing that would upset his rule would be tolerated. What Cheney and Bush are doing, are just repeating a lie so people will swallow it. Read some of the posts, "They must have ties because they are both bad and hate the US" Rove is hoping that these people vote. Some links to Cheney's latest asssertions.

"President Bush yesterday defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion this week that Saddam Hussein had longstanding ties with Al Qaeda, even as critics charged that the White House had no new proof of a connection ."

Boston Globe

ORLANDO, Fla. - Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Saddam Hussein had ``long-established ties'' with al-Qaeda, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.

The vice president offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda.
CNN

Bush, Bush, and Bush...............................beat them drums people.
Lets take a step back in time and see what others have to say, since everyone is producing their 'proofs and evidences':
Here's what a court of law said, in 1998 Under President Clinton):

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.

BIN LADEN, ATEF INDICTED IN U.S. FEDERAL COURT FOR AFRICAN BOMBINGS
Lawsuit: Iraq Involved In 9/11 Conspiracy

The above is just two of many upon many pre-Bush 'proofs and evidences' that can be found regarding Iraq/Saddam having known affiliations/connections with Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. This is NOT restricted to the Bush administration in the least bit!

As to this current unfolding announcement from the bipartisan witch-hunt, better known as the 9/11 Commission, they are saying nothing that the Bush administration has not already made clear:
The White House's continued stance is that there is and was a connection, between Iraq/Saddam and Osama Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda, but that there is no said link, "no credible evidence" between Saddam and the events of 9/11 (which I think is still inconclusive)....:
Bush Disavows Hussein-Sept. 11 Link

IMHO, I believe there are two different arguments being confused by the 9/11 Commission.



seekerof

Well you know we funded and trained bin Laden. So.... I guess you could say we were linked to 9/11. And since we put Saddam in power and we supported bin Laden that does tie the two together. LOL. Bush logic working here.

Continuing to take facts out of historical context Indy?
The US funded and aid so-called Al-Qaeda/OsamaBL/Mujhadeen during what events, what time period?

Was it not during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan?
Was it not still considered during the Cold War period?
The US's foreign policy during this time period was what, in regards to Iran, and Russia?



seekerof

When it happened isn't relevant. Fact is we trained him and funded him. And fact is we were behind Saddam getting in to power. Are you saying that is not correct? What I am trying to say (and maybe not so well) is that the US didn't do a very good job of picking its friends. And you know how people are often guilty by association.

[edit on 16-6-2004 by Indy]

Again, in reference to the US support of Saddam, what was the time period and its historical context? US relations with Iran were at the lowest point they could be without going to war with them. The US found and funded a better alternative: Saddam/Iraq (reference and time period: Iran/Iraq war).


seekerof

[edit on 16-6-2004 by Seekerof]

I'm sorry but if Saddam is a better alternative we have really set our sites low. Tell me about all the crimes the Iranians committed. Besides holding some of our people hostage for little over a year. I might add they were all released. Lets look at all the murders by Saddam and his people and try and find something remotely close for the Iranians. What about the chemical weapons?

Indy, your asking questions that have been responsed to by me and countless others in a wide variety of threads.
Again, I only stressed that one must consider the time period and the historical contexts given for such above 'facts' that the two of us have been going on about for the past couple postings.

I do not deny that we funded Al-Qaeda/OBL/the Mujhadeen, nor do I deny that the US aided Saddam/Iraq prior to and during the Iran/Iraq war. What I do deny and contest is that there is no connection between Saddam/Iraq and Al-Qaeda and OBL. My opinion, as presented, argued, debated, flamed, and called an "an idiot" for is that there is a connection. I doubt, without further conclusive 'proofs and evidences,' that Saddam/Iraq was linked to 9/11, but I do believe that besides 9/11, a link/connection is there and a link/connection that was well-founded, cited, and documented before Bush ever came into the White House.



seekerof

Someone called you an idiot for that? Saddam obviously has SOME link to terrorism since he rewards the families of suicide bombers. One must assume and probably rightfully so that the support doesn't stop and start with sympathy payments. Lets face it. Saddam didn't get where he was by being a nice guy. The problem we are going to run into is that we (the government) gives OBL too much credit and every time there is a terrorist attack we immediately link it to him. OBL is probably getting credit for stunts performed by people he has never heard of. And just because we say its part of his network doesn't necessarily make it so. Bottom line is I would never put Saddam in the category of clean. And he openly pays the families of terrorists and since his specialty isn't charity I can safely assume that he probably helped provide the explosives necessary for the attacks to be carried out to begin with.

Ok... did I ramble too much? Got a head cold and the brain is getting squished. :-/