The W
Views: 179006393
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.3.17 0918
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Well, ain't this a fun contradiction?
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1351 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (22 total)
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 57

Posts: 600/641
EXP: 1458490
For next: 27447

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 7145 days
Last activity: 6804 days
#1 Posted on 16.6.04 0958.42
Reposted on: 16.6.11 0959.01
Just a mere day of one another...I wonder if Cheney knew that the 9/11 report was a bout to come out and decided to beat them to the punch?

Cheney Claims al-Qaida Linked to Saddam (Yahoo News/AP)

    Originally posted by Dick Cheney reported by MIKE SCHNEIDER
    "He was a patron of terrorism," Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. "He had long established ties with al Qaida."



9/11 Panel Says Iraq Rebuffed Bin Laden (Yahoo News/AP)

    Originally posted by 9/11 Panel reported by HOPE YEN
    Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States.



Put this one right next to WMDs on the list of BS.


Promote this thread!
wmatistic
Andouille
Level: 96

Posts: 98/2190
EXP: 8792311
For next: 196508

Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 2562 days
Last activity: 1546 days
AIM:  
#2 Posted on 16.6.04 1005.31
Reposted on: 16.6.11 1006.22
Hold up a second. The first quote says Saddam had ties to Al Qaida. The second says he didn't help them plan 9/11. One does not contradict the other.

And lets also remember the many, many times the Clinton administration also made the exact same claim of a link between the two rather than just trying to say oh the Bush administration is making stuff.
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 57

Posts: 601/641
EXP: 1458490
For next: 27447

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 7145 days
Last activity: 6804 days
#3 Posted on 16.6.04 1023.02
Reposted on: 16.6.11 1024.18
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    Hold up a second. The first quote says Saddam had ties to Al Qaida. The second says he didn't help them plan 9/11. One does not contradict the other.

    And lets also remember the many, many times the Clinton administration also made the exact same claim of a link between the two rather than just trying to say oh the Bush administration is making stuff.


What is it with you people and automatically tossing out a Clinton routine?

Hello, if I have to forget about the farce of an election in 2000, then you all have to shut up about what happened during Clinton's admin.

Deal?

BTW, try reading the articles, the second one directly rebuttal's what Cheney said.


    Originally posted by AP article
    While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a "collaborative relationship."




I figured that the quotes would be enough to spurn people to actually read the articles, but I guess using out of context quotes is a sound form of developing rational conclusions. [/sarcasm]

I also figured that any person NOT born yesterday could ascertain what Cheney was doing by making that statement just a mere ONE DAY before the 9/11 commission comes out to say that Iraq had NO ties to al-Qaida and contradict one of the reasons we were given for going to war.
wmatistic
Andouille
Level: 96

Posts: 99/2190
EXP: 8792311
For next: 196508

Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 2562 days
Last activity: 1546 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on 16.6.04 1033.15
Reposted on: 16.6.11 1034.15
    Originally posted by ThreepMe
      Originally posted by wmatistic
      Hold up a second. The first quote says Saddam had ties to Al Qaida. The second says he didn't help them plan 9/11. One does not contradict the other.

      And lets also remember the many, many times the Clinton administration also made the exact same claim of a link between the two rather than just trying to say oh the Bush administration is making stuff.


    What is it with you people and automatically tossing out a Clinton routine?

    Hello, if I have to forget about the farce of an election in 2000, then you all have to shut up about what happened during Clinton's admin.

    Deal?

    BTW, try reading the articles, the second one directly rebuttal's what Cheney said.


      Originally posted by AP article
      While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a "collaborative relationship."




    I figured that the quotes would be enough to spurn people to actually read the articles, but I guess using out of context quotes is a sound form of developing rational conclusions. [/sarcasm]

    I also figured that any person NOT born yesterday could ascertain what Cheney was doing by making that statement just a mere ONE DAY before the 9/11 commission comes out to say that Iraq had NO ties to al-Qaida and contradict one of the reasons we were given for going to war.


There's no "you people" here. Your post seemed to be saying this was all yet another Bush administration lie. I was pointing out that if it was, it was also a lie that the previous administration believed in. In other words a whole lot of people over the last 12 years have said Iraq has ties to Al Qaida so it's not just a Bush thing. Not that you came out and said it was, but that seemed to be the jist of it.

As for the quotes, well it seemed like you had one posted and then the second to directly refute the first. That's how it came across to me so when it didn't I was like WTF?

But anyway how bout you chill out, the smarmy tone is not neccessary.

StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 161

Posts: 1513/7105
EXP: 53050468
For next: 1062765

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 937 days
Last activity: 937 days
#5 Posted on 16.6.04 1717.17
Reposted on: 16.6.11 1718.14
Okay threep, hows about Hilary Clinton, on the floor of congress, stating that Saddam had ties to Al Queda and then voting FOR war against Iraq. Or, is that special effects and smoke and mirrors?

Or hows about Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. Name sound familiar? He was part of the Fedayeen Saddam, and had been present at an al Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on January 5-8, 2000. U.S. intelligence officials believe this was a chief planning meeting for the September 11 attacks.

Shakir had been nominally employed as a "greeter" by Malaysian Airlines, a job he told associates he had gotten through a contact at the Iraqi embassy.

He was present for three days of meetings with several of the hijackers who would crash planes into the Pentagon and the WTC.

A week after September 11, Shakir is caught in Qatar, and when interregated, gives textbook intellegence agency answers to avoid being cooperative.

Or how about CIA director George Tenet in a letter to Congress on October 7, 2002:


--Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

--We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

--Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

--Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

--We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

--Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.



Enough of a link for you?



(edited by StaggerLee on 16.6.04 1523)
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 161

Posts: 3111/7062
EXP: 53475080
For next: 638153

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 1927 days
Last activity: 1496 days
#6 Posted on 16.6.04 1810.58
Reposted on: 16.6.11 1812.11
I'm pretty sure that the Reagan administration had a better relationship to Bin Laden than Saddam did. Saddam and Bin Laden HATED each other, even to the point that they couldn't put their differences aside to team up against the USA.
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 62

Posts: 555/763
EXP: 1898484
For next: 86213

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 4025 days
Last activity: 10 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on 16.6.04 1814.23
Reposted on: 16.6.11 1818.11
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Okay threep, hows about Hilary Clinton, on the floor of congress, stating that Saddam had ties to Al Queda and then voting FOR war against Iraq. Or, is that special effects and smoke and mirrors?

    Or hows about Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. Name sound familiar? He was part of the Fedayeen Saddam, and had been present at an al Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on January 5-8, 2000. U.S. intelligence officials believe this was a chief planning meeting for the September 11 attacks.

    Shakir had been nominally employed as a "greeter" by Malaysian Airlines, a job he told associates he had gotten through a contact at the Iraqi embassy.

    He was present for three days of meetings with several of the hijackers who would crash planes into the Pentagon and the WTC.

    A week after September 11, Shakir is caught in Qatar, and when interregated, gives textbook intellegence agency answers to avoid being cooperative.

    Or how about CIA director George Tenet in a letter to Congress on October 7, 2002:


    --Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

    --We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

    --Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

    --Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

    --We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

    --Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.



    Enough of a link for you?



    (edited by StaggerLee on 16.6.04 1523)




Didnt the commission investigate ALL of this and still find no link?


Sorry, No dice Stagg. Theres no connection. None. End of story.
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 100

Posts: 359/2336
EXP: 10151886
For next: 202546

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 6 days
#8 Posted on 16.6.04 1832.29
Reposted on: 16.6.11 1832.29
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Okay threep, hows about Hilary Clinton, on the floor of congress, stating that Saddam had ties to Al Queda and then voting FOR war against Iraq.


And it's bitten all of those Democrats who voted for the war - including Kerry - in the ass. And please, STOP holding up the Clintons as some heroes of left/liberal folks. He is far from a progressive guy. 90% of the Clinton bashing I acutally agree with - just for different reasons.

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    >Or hows about Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. Name sound familiar? He was part of the Fedayeen Saddam, and had been present at an al Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on January 5-8, 2000.


At this point, the only connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda has been this one guy - that's it. Some grand conspiracy. His name, misspelled, appeared on a list of attendees.

Now it very well could have been a legitimate link, but there still isn't enough evidence to confirm or deny it - and the only people who seem to be interested in the guy is the conservative media.

Quite frankly, I have little faith in US intelligence at this point, when they keep screwing up time and time again. And yes, it happened under Clinton, so save your breath....

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Or how about CIA director George Tenet in a letter to Congress on October 7, 2002:


Whatever happened to that guy? He hasn't been around much lately.

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.


Well, if you remove "varying reliability", then it's pretty confident.

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Enough of a link for you?






At best, the evidence is circumstantial. At worst, it's down right false. And brought to us by a guy whose credibility was so shot, he had to resign. Not exactly the most reliable of sources.

This administration has been caught making stuff up so many times at this point, that even if there was legitimate links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, no one would believe them. It's going to take an outside source with no vested interest in that country to really make any 9/11-Iraq connection trustworthy.

If it happens, then I'd eat crow and admit you're right... but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 161

Posts: 1516/7105
EXP: 53050468
For next: 1062765

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 937 days
Last activity: 937 days
#9 Posted on 16.6.04 1840.33
Reposted on: 16.6.11 1843.23
Most intellegence is of the circumstantial variety. Its always third hand information at BEST that is considered to be GOOD intel.

George Tennet went with the information presented, and at the time, deemed, by the entire international community, to be reliable.

A member of Saddams most loyal army regiment attends a meeting, is arrested with contact information for all the head people in the AL Queda camp. That isnt cicumstantial, that is proven fact. The CIA and Qatar officials thought they could flip him and get him to be an informant, and he hasnt been heard from since he was released. The only reason they agreed to let him go was because he said he would be an informant. WHy state that he would do that if he didnt have a link? why not just maintain your innocence?

In Sudan, just because we dont have a transcript from the meeting, means no cooperation is possible?
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 100

Posts: 360/2336
EXP: 10151886
For next: 202546

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 6 days
#10 Posted on 16.6.04 1909.26
Reposted on: 16.6.11 1911.58
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    The only reason they agreed to let him go was because he said he would be an informant. WHy state that he would do that if he didnt have a link?


Well, they let him go, didn't they?

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    why not just maintain your innocence?

    In Sudan, just because we dont have a transcript from the meeting, means no cooperation is possible?


Sure, cooperation is possible. But anything's possible - that's why you need PROOF.

So let me see if I understand this - Shakir is the best evidence of a 9-11-Iraq connection. He was supposedly AT the planning meeting for 9-11. He has a list of the heads of Al Qaeda. He IS the connection - and they just let him go?

He wasn't caught selling cocain on a street corner - he, according to you, planned a mass murder. You don't just "let them go" and hope he'll "flip". Either the connection didn't pan out and we were hoping to get something substantial by releasing him - or we have Crockett and Tubbs running our military intelligence.

EDIT: I originally went with a Ponch and John CHiPS reference, but I though that dated me a bit.

(edited by Leroy on 16.6.04 1711)
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst
Level: 73

Posts: 1124/1136
EXP: 3448851
For next: 37034

Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 7192 days
Last activity: 6662 days
AIM:  
#11 Posted on 16.6.04 1914.29
Reposted on: 16.6.11 1916.46
It's no big surprise that Saddam would've wanted an alliance with Al-Qaeda. Of COURSE he'd be sending people to them, especially after what they did, having them as allies would have been great for him. I'd be surprised to find that he hadn't tried to contact just about every terrorist organization with any significant presence out of sheer desperation.

But there's no indication that Al-Qaeda bit, or that they ever would have. Considering the nature of the group, the LAST regime that they would work with on any level would be Saddam Hussein's non-religious, relatively progressive one. In a lot of ways he was everything they stood AGAINST - he was a dictator, not a zealot, and judging by the way the country was run as far as things like women's rights were concerned, he wasn't even close to being as fundamentalist as they were.

Look at it like this. You call a girl, wanting to go out with her. She doesn't return your calls.

Is she your girlfriend?
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 161

Posts: 1519/7105
EXP: 53050468
For next: 1062765

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 937 days
Last activity: 937 days
#12 Posted on 16.6.04 2257.02
Reposted on: 16.6.11 2259.02
Leroy, thats the problem with intel, it isnt always 100% tangible proof.

As far as why they let him go, it is pretty much a standard way of doing business with the CIA. Thats how you get people who will be able to get you information. You either buddy up with them and make them a monetary offer, or you get them on something that can hurt them, and bribe them with freedom in exchange for information. During the majority of the Clinton years, the CIA only had at the most 4 agents on the ground in Iraq. Its hard to make contacts, get reliable info, and flip contacts when you have four people trying to keep tabs on an entire nation.

The fact that they met, should be enough to at least give the benefit of the doubt.

You meet with a hit man. A hit man kills your boss. NObody was in the room with you and the hit man. While nobody can PROVE that you set up a hit, the obvious link is there.

bigpoppa
Medisterpoelse
Level: 3

Posts: 1/1
EXP: 85
For next: 43

Since: 17.6.04

Since last post: 7224 days
Last activity: 7222 days
#13 Posted on 17.6.04 0054.43
Reposted on: 17.6.11 0055.30
    Originally posted by Leroy

    Now it very well could have been a legitimate link, but there still isn't enough evidence to confirm or deny it - and the only people who seem to be interested in the guy is the conservative media.

A recent Washington Post editorial had a few thoughts on why that is.

http://www.washtimes.com/ op-ed/20040601-101402- 8522r.htm

I am only quoting a few selected portions, not the entire article:::

    Washington's conventional wisdom is as notorious for its often wrong-headedness as for its frequent flip-flops. One of the most flagrant recent demonstrations is on the ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, which were confirmed beyond doubt a few years ago, but now are considered laughably dubious.

    (snip)

    For instance, in a Jan. 11, 1999, story headlined "Saddam + Bin Laden?" Newsweek said, "Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas ... U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden ... Saddam and bin Laden have interests — and enemies — in common." About the same time, NPR's Mike Shuster asserted in an interview, "Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994." Mr. Hayes also cites a Feb. 13, 1999, AP article, posted on CNN that day and published in The Washington Post on the following morning, on bin Laden's departure from Afghanistan, which stated, "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers."
    Despite the additional evidence of those ties that has surfaced since then, liberal elites have now decided that no such connection exists. As Mr. Hayes says in the book's introduction, "On the Washington, D.C. cocktail party circuit, the mere mention of Iraq-al Qaeda ties elicits laughter, even derision." Mr. Hayes quotes "60 Minutes" anchor Lesley Stahl saying "there was no connection" between Saddam and al Qaeda; the editor of the Los Angeles Times asserting that proof of the connection is a "myth"; and a Reuters dispatch that read, "There is no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."
    What happened? The derisive decision had more to do with the regime change of 2000 than that of 2003.


From that same mentioned author, here's portions from his writing that tells even more about Iraq and al Qaeda. He also covers the Shakir situation in detail, but this is just another snip about the connections.

Note the portion in bold at the bottom.


    There was a time not long ago when the conventional wisdom skewed heavily toward a Saddam-al Qaeda links. In 1998 and early 1999, the Iraq-al Qaeda connection was widely reported in the American and international media. Former intelligence officers and government officials speculated about the relationship and its dangerous implications for the world. The information in the news reports came from foreign and domestic intelligence services. It was featured in mainstream media outlets including international wire services, prominent newsweeklies, and network radio and television broadcasts.

    Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:

    "Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer."

    Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden:

    "Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad."

    NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:

    "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. . . . 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 before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets."

    By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the need to qualify these claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post ended this way: "The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers."

    Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin Laden might be coordinating efforts? Among other places, from high-ranking Clinton administration officials.

    In the spring of 1998--well before the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa--the Clinton administration indicted Osama bin Laden. The indictment, unsealed a few months later, prominently cited al Qaeda's agreement to collaborate with Iraq on weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton Justice Department had been concerned about negative public reaction to its potentially capturing bin Laden without "a vehicle for extradition," official paperwork charging him with a crime. It was "not an afterthought" to include the al Qaeda-Iraq connection in the indictment, says an official familiar with the deliberations. "It couldn't have gotten into the indictment unless someone was willing to testify to it under oath." The Clinton administration's indictment read unequivocally:

    "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."


I'm sure CNN, CBS, et all will be sure to remind everyone of all this as soon as they can, they're just busy right now.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 135

Posts: 3306/4700
EXP: 28695342
For next: 639739

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 4713 days
Last activity: 3168 days
#14 Posted on 17.6.04 0613.42
Reposted on: 17.6.11 0614.04
Ya know...mobody has quite yet explained that terrorist training camp with the airplane fuselage they found in southen Iraq.

Just saying...
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 142

Posts: 2151/5284
EXP: 34613216
For next: 355299

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 1675 days
Last activity: 1675 days
#15 Posted on 17.6.04 0730.07
Reposted on: 17.6.11 0730.39


That's the Times, not the Post. There is a HUGE difference.
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 62

Posts: 558/763
EXP: 1898484
For next: 86213

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 4025 days
Last activity: 10 days
AIM:  
#16 Posted on 17.6.04 0746.23
Reposted on: 17.6.11 0750.55
Well now that weve established that EVERYONE was wrong on this; Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, congress, CIA, and the Liberal/conservative media, Can we move on?


People screwed up, lets us all now make better decisions, shall we?
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 135

Posts: 3308/4700
EXP: 28695342
For next: 639739

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 4713 days
Last activity: 3168 days
#17 Posted on 17.6.04 0948.19
Reposted on: 17.6.11 0953.00
Apparently Britain Disagrees

    Originally posted by The Guardian, 6/17/2004
    Deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein did let al-Qaida operate out of Iraq, Downing Street insisted today.

    A US report yesterday said there was no conclusive evidence of a link between the former Iraqi dictator and Osama bin Laden's terrorist group.

    But Downing Street said Saddam had created "a permissive environment" for terrorists and al-Qaida operatives were in the country during his time in office.

    No 10 said it was not claiming a direct link but a spokeswoman said: "The prime minister has always said Saddam created a permissive environment for terrorism and we know that the people affiliated to al-Qaida operated in Iraq during the regime.

    "The prime minister always made it clear that Saddam's was a rogue state which threatened the security of the region and the world."
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 57

Posts: 608/641
EXP: 1458490
For next: 27447

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 7145 days
Last activity: 6804 days
#18 Posted on 17.6.04 1000.07
Reposted on: 17.6.11 1005.28
    Originally posted by Grimis
    Apparently Britain Disagrees

      Originally posted by The Guardian, 6/17/2004
      Deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein did let al-Qaida operate out of Iraq, Downing Street insisted today.

      A US report yesterday said there was no conclusive evidence of a link between the former Iraqi dictator and Osama bin Laden's terrorist group.

      But Downing Street said Saddam had created "a permissive environment" for terrorists and al-Qaida operatives were in the country during his time in office.

      No 10 said it was not claiming a direct link but a spokeswoman said: "The prime minister has always said Saddam created a permissive environment for terrorism and we know that the people affiliated to al-Qaida operated in Iraq during the regime.

      "The prime minister always made it clear that Saddam's was a rogue state which threatened the security of the region and the world."



I want to know just how permissive we're talking about.

Because if you think about it, we were permissive enough to allow these assclowns to train in the US to crash the planes.

Not I'm not saying that the level of "permission" is equal, but by that logic, we rank on the "permissive" scale.

Did Saddam invite them? Did he turn a blind eye, knowing full well that al-Qaida was there? Did Saddam know that al-Qaida was there working on the 9/11 plot? Did Saddam just set up regulations (or lack there of) to allow these things and just didn't care to know anything more after that?

The level of permission can really determine the difference between "Strong Links," to "Weak Links," to "Almost Non-Existant Links."

Hell, almost every one has some kind of link to al-Qaida. Even the U.S. We need to quantify the degree before we get the fingers pointed back at us.

(edited by ThreepMe on 17.6.04 0801)
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 161

Posts: 1527/7105
EXP: 53050468
For next: 1062765

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 937 days
Last activity: 937 days
#19 Posted on 17.6.04 1659.39
Reposted on: 17.6.11 1700.44
Yes, the US Government, KNEW they had terrorist organisations training in flight schools in the USA and did absolutely nothing about it. They probably didnt check thier visas either, just to verify who they were. THey also let them build camps to train at, Just like Iraq. /sarcasm
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 116

Posts: 2319/3284
EXP: 16937086
For next: 387059

Since: 23.1.02
From: In a Blue State finally

Since last post: 1903 days
Last activity: 1903 days
#20 Posted on 17.6.04 1708.59
Reposted on: 17.6.11 1709.26
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    They also let them build camps to train at, Just like Iraq.


Oh man, you've been to Fort Benning (soaw.org) too?

-Jag

Strangely enough, the Fort Benning website (benning.army.mil) has nothing about the SOA on it..
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Interesting note on the proposed Kerry / McCain ticket
Next thread: 9/11 originally supposed to be *much* more devastating?
Previous thread: Moore had Iraqi prisoner abuse footage
(1351 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Well, ain't this a fun contradiction?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2024 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.205 seconds.