Evidence That Saddam Intended To Attack The US and Iraq connections to Osama

[brandonbull]

Was Iraq Behind the Oklahoma City Bombing?
Tuesday, April 19, 2005

By John Gibson

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
On Tuesday's show you heard FOX News' Rita Cosby talking about the quite shocking claims made by a group of victims' families that Iraq was at the bottom of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City.

This has come up before: A reporter named Jayna Davis has a book out about it.

The whole thing stinks of Iraq. Ramzi Yousef (search), an Iraqi agent that was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and his associates were allegedly talking to Terry Nichols (search) in 1994 about how to build a fertilizer bomb.

So now the question: So if there is all this evidence, why has the U.S. government ignored it?

Well, for one thing, I submit George W. Bush didn't ignore it after September 11, 2001. He realized then that Iraq was behind a lot of the attacks on the U.S. and it was time for it to stop.

But before September 11th, he did ignore it and so did the Clinton administration. The lawyer who is suing told Rita he didn't think the previous administration was willing to go to war over the Murrah Building bombing.

The answer is Tim McVeigh (search) and the U.S. government were each doing their part to hide the real players. Government prosecutors said there was no "John Doe No. 2" even though dozens of people saw him. McVeigh insisted all the way to the grave that he acted alone, when everybody including his lawyer knew he was lying.

If McVeigh were just the grunt ? mixing the chemicals, driving the truck, setting the timer, and running off ? guilty though he might be, if the bombing was a plot by a foreign government, his lawyer would have had a chance at the sentencing hearing to argue that others were more responsible and McVeigh should not be executed.

The fear that the McVeigh execution might have been an error ? and a mistaken execution ? could put the federal death penalty itself in jeopardy. The fear of losing the federal death penalty could explain why the U.S. government does not appear to be anxious to act on evidence it has that Iraq may have been involved in the Oklahoma City bombing.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'll wait for more credible reports. Not that the Washington Post isn't ok - its article is pretty incomplete, you did not quote for example:

A senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday that Russia has provided helpful information in the war on terrorism, but that he was "not aware of any specific threat information we were told" about Iraqi activities before the March 2003 invasion.

Isn't it a bit funny that Saddam had over a decade to attack the US if he had wanted to, and did not - and that it would make no sense for him to do so.

One other humorous note is how the right wing *wailed and wailed* about the timing when the scandals hurting them came out, another and another and another, but a claim by Putin, who Bush vouches for, about Saddam saying *just* the right thing comes out years after the invasion just before the trial sentencing and the election, and you can hear a pin drop.

Why wouldn't Bush have mentioned this earlier in his justification for the war? In fact, Bush did the opposite.

Bush made the *only* justification for the war the WMD; he said that if Saddam 'disarmed' his WMD, *the US would not attack*. He said the war decision was completely up to Saddam. Not exactly the policy of a guy who knows Saddam is planning terrorist attacks that need to be prevented.

Well you DO quote a "senior U.S. intelligence official" and we know how "intellegent" they were on WMDs inside Iraq. Besides, you believe everyone within the government knows about all the information? Government's far too big for that, there's no surprize that person X knew nothing of it.

If Putian, who stood in our way ideologically, is saying this then that is plenty of credibility for me.

 

[TravisT]

The thing isn't that he was going to attack the US, it is that we thought he had the ability and was going to do it. No matter which side of the fence you stand on now, prior to that Iraq war the vast majority of Americans thought based on all the intelligence we had that Iraq was a threat. There was a Kerry Flip-Flop video, Clinton himself agreed, and many other Democratic figure-heads felt it was necessary to go into Iraq.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: brandonbull
Was Iraq Behind the Oklahoma City Bombing?
Tuesday, April 19, 2005

By John Gibson

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
On Tuesday's show you heard FOX News' Rita Cosby talking about the quite shocking claims made by a group of victims' families that Iraq was at the bottom of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City.

This has come up before: A reporter named Jayna Davis has a book out about it.

The whole thing stinks of Iraq. Ramzi Yousef (search), an Iraqi agent that was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and his associates were allegedly talking to Terry Nichols (search) in 1994 about how to build a fertilizer bomb.

So now the question: So if there is all this evidence, why has the U.S. government ignored it?

Well, for one thing, I submit George W. Bush didn't ignore it after September 11, 2001. He realized then that Iraq was behind a lot of the attacks on the U.S. and it was time for it to stop.

But before September 11th, he did ignore it and so did the Clinton administration. The lawyer who is suing told Rita he didn't think the previous administration was willing to go to war over the Murrah Building bombing.

The answer is Tim McVeigh (search) and the U.S. government were each doing their part to hide the real players. Government prosecutors said there was no "John Doe No. 2" even though dozens of people saw him. McVeigh insisted all the way to the grave that he acted alone, when everybody including his lawyer knew he was lying.

If McVeigh were just the grunt ? mixing the chemicals, driving the truck, setting the timer, and running off ? guilty though he might be, if the bombing was a plot by a foreign government, his lawyer would have had a chance at the sentencing hearing to argue that others were more responsible and McVeigh should not be executed.

The fear that the McVeigh execution might have been an error ? and a mistaken execution ? could put the federal death penalty itself in jeopardy. The fear of losing the federal death penalty could explain why the U.S. government does not appear to be anxious to act on evidence it has that Iraq may have been involved in the Oklahoma City bombing.

This is ridiculous. I am hardly surprised Fox News would pick up this ball and run with it, but the whole notion seems crazy, and FN's conspiracy theory as to why it's being kept quiet makes no sense. Clearly even if all McVeigh did was "mixing the chemicals, driving the truck, setting the timer, and running off," he would be guilty of more than 150 counts of first-degree murder whether he acted alone or not, and his federal death sentence would be more than justified.

 

[fitzov]

Saddam was going to attack USA? Why on Earth would he do that?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Brackis
ProfJohn, you cannot steer the discussion away from WMD's if your first sentence ends in a clause that includes "attacking the US before we invaded."

It said he planned to attack using terrorism, not WMDs. WMDs have absolutely nothing to do with this story. Fact of the matter is that before the war, every country on Earth that mattered believed Iraq had WMDs.

SO let me get this straight. Iraq was going to attack us, but not use its WMDs?

were they going to swim over to the US and throw rocks and sticks at us?

Al Qaeda did quite a bit of damage just armed with box cutters as I recall.

 

[feralkid]

All lies and no facts make Puffy John a dull boy.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Interesting how when you present the idea that maybe Saddam was actually a threat some people start thinking so conventionally...

Saddam didn't need to send in his army. All he needed to do was find a group to fund and train. An attack on the US doesn't require WMD's. In the case of 9/11 all it took were box cutters.

It's laughable how some people who are open to the idea that GWB planned and executed 9/11 are unwilling to look at the more realistic scenario that Saddam was working to attack the US. Come on... It's not like this is a right-wing whacko theory. Putin said it. Other connections were reported by CNN and WaPo.

I thought you guys were supposed to be enlightened and open minded?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Interesting how when you present the idea that maybe Saddam was actually a threat some people start thinking so conventionally...

Saddam didn't need to send in his army. All he needed to do was find a group to fund and train. An attack on the US doesn't require WMD's. In the case of 9/11 all it took were box cutters.

It's laughable how some people who are open to the idea that GWB planned and executed 9/11 are unwilling to look at the more realistic scenario that Saddam was working to attack the US. Come on... It's not like this is a right-wing whacko theory. Putin said it. Other connections were reported by CNN and WaPo.

I thought you guys were supposed to be enlightened and open minded?

Straw man argument to the rescue!


Wheeee!

 

[Craig234]

The irony of the right-wingers singing the praises of the credibility of the head of the USSR is a bit amusing. "The fact our own intelligence agencies, by far the largest in the world, had no evidence of this means nothing - rather, we MUST TAKE THE WORD OF THE HEAD OF THE USSR in forming our nation's war policy, for thousands of Americans killed!

And - we must keep this secret from the American people when we explain our reason for going to war!"

John, you completely failed to understand the point I made. It doens't matter how many reasons were listed as 'nice to haves' for going to war. There's a difference between the things that are benefits to going to war, and *justifications* for war. Please, follow this logic:

Bush said that if Saddam disarmed of WMD, then *war would be avoided*. The US would invade only if Saddam did disarm his WMD.

That means that whatever other issues the US raised for reasons to invade, however many there were, all put together they fell short of justification for invading under Bush's own policy. Otherwise, how could Bush defend leaving all those issues without invading, if Saddam disarmed from his WMD, as Bush said was his policy?

Bush was very clear on this; when asked what would prevent war, he gave only the one answer, disarming WMD. And he said the decision was completely up to Saddam whether there would be war, based on getting rid of WMD.

So, all the other reasons, benefits, etc. were inadequate under Bush's own policy for war. He said so. Now that WMD were found to be an error, some want to elevate the other issues to the level of justifying the war, but that directly contradicts Bush's own stated policy.

Do you understand that his saying there would be no war if Saddam got rid of WMD means that under his policy, any issue but WMD - all of them put together - fell short of justifying the war under his policy?

 

[Pens1566]

Of course we should trust the russians, King George looked into Pooty-Put's eyes and "saw his soul".

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Of course we should trust the russians, King George looked into Pooty-Put's eyes and "saw his soul".

Did Putin then kiss King Georgie on the stomach? :laugh:

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: brandonbull
Was Iraq Behind the Oklahoma City Bombing?
Tuesday, April 19, 2005

By John Gibson

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
On Tuesday's show you heard FOX News' Rita Cosby talking about the quite shocking claims made by a group of victims' families that Iraq was at the bottom of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City.

This has come up before: A reporter named Jayna Davis has a book out about it.

The whole thing stinks of Iraq. Ramzi Yousef (search), an Iraqi agent that was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and his associates were allegedly talking to Terry Nichols (search) in 1994 about how to build a fertilizer bomb.

So now the question: So if there is all this evidence, why has the U.S. government ignored it?

Well, for one thing, I submit George W. Bush didn't ignore it after September 11, 2001. He realized then that Iraq was behind a lot of the attacks on the U.S. and it was time for it to stop.

But before September 11th, he did ignore it and so did the Clinton administration. The lawyer who is suing told Rita he didn't think the previous administration was willing to go to war over the Murrah Building bombing.

The answer is Tim McVeigh (search) and the U.S. government were each doing their part to hide the real players. Government prosecutors said there was no "John Doe No. 2" even though dozens of people saw him. McVeigh insisted all the way to the grave that he acted alone, when everybody including his lawyer knew he was lying.

If McVeigh were just the grunt ? mixing the chemicals, driving the truck, setting the timer, and running off ? guilty though he might be, if the bombing was a plot by a foreign government, his lawyer would have had a chance at the sentencing hearing to argue that others were more responsible and McVeigh should not be executed.

The fear that the McVeigh execution might have been an error ? and a mistaken execution ? could put the federal death penalty itself in jeopardy. The fear of losing the federal death penalty could explain why the U.S. government does not appear to be anxious to act on evidence it has that Iraq may have been involved in the Oklahoma City bombing.

This is ridiculous. I am hardly surprised Fox News would pick up this ball and run with it, but the whole notion seems crazy, and FN's conspiracy theory as to why it's being kept quiet makes no sense. Clearly even if all McVeigh did was "mixing the chemicals, driving the truck, setting the timer, and running off," he would be guilty of more than 150 counts of first-degree murder whether he acted alone or not, and his federal death sentence would be more than justified.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50569

http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates33.html

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I know this is going to ruin the day for a lot of you, but here it is, evidence that Saddam was in fact planning on attacking the US before we invaded.

This is for all you ?Saddam had no ties to terror? types.
Starting with the Washington Post.
Russia Warned U.S. About Iraq, Putin Says

Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday...

You forgot to include the most important part of the article:

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 19, 2004

Welcome to over two years ago, and thanks for posting yet another worthless attempt to dissemble and distract attention from the facts about the piss poor job the Bushwhackos have done in everything they've done, before and after this article was first published.

Why did you find it convenient not to include the second paragraph of the story?

Putin, who opposed Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, did not go into detail about the information that was forwarded, and said Russia had no evidence that Hussein was involved in any attacks.

When's the last time you saw any follow up confirming this story? How much credibility should we give it, now? :roll:

What happened before the Bush invasion? The Bushwhackos gave completely fabricated misinformation and disinformation to Congress, the American people and the world in their march to a war they claimed was their last resort when it was, in fact, their only intention. So far, that has only cost the lives of thousands of American troops, tens of thousands of wounded Americans, possibly hundreds of thousands of other lives and trillions of dollars of deby our greatgrandchildren will be paying for the rest of their lives. ALL FOR LIES!

What's happened since? Brownie did a heck of a job with Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Halliburton continues to reap a fortune while overcharging and under-performing on their no bid contracts in Iraq.

Jack Abramoff, and disgraced Congressmen, Tom DeLay, Bob Ney and Randy "Duke" Cunningham are in or on their way to prison while Senator Bill Frist is still under investigation for stock by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department for illegal stock transactions, and there is strong evidence that Dennis Hastert and others in the Republican leadership tried to cover up of Mark Foley's predatory pedophilia with House pages.

Then, there are small matters like the President shredding the U.S. Constitution with warrantless domestic spying and holding prisoners without bringing charges against them or even allowint them access to any defense counsel. Other small matters like the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. Secret "renditions" of captives to foreign CIA prisons for torture.

PrevaricatorJohn -- You are a lying, cowardly sycophantic pimp for the Bushwhacko adminstration and their Repbulican whore criminals running both houses of Congress, afraid of and embarrassed by the truth about who they are and what they've done while they've held the majority.

If you're going to drag up tired old meaningless crap to distract from the horrible truth about them, it just confirms that you're one of them, and anything you say should be questioned to the same degree as anything said by any of those Republican criminals and traitors.

Keep it up. I'll be glad to continue to post far more of the litany of their crimes and ethical and moral transgressions over the entirety of their majority reign in every one of your threads.

 

[Fern]

P&N is like a buffet.

Instead of meat, vegitables and desert, it offers facts, lies and distortion.

Just move down the line and chose whatever suits your tastes.

Fern

 

[Jaskalas]

It?s relevant to today. We?re still in Iraq today, and many of you still firmly believe we?ve no business having done what we did by invading Iraq. While we can all agree that it?s in chaos right now, and that our military leaders have been terribly incompetent at handling Iraq, this subject is not of the handling of Iraq but of one of the ideas behind going into it.

While it turns out the WMDs were old and misused, even a head of state and opponent of our action believes there was a threat from a hostile state like Iraq. ProfJohn has merely presented an argument, and a fairly good one in regards to a very current issue.

 

[ProfJohn]

I love the typical leftist response to my post.

First we try to attack the messenger and destroy his credibility. Calling me a high schooler or saying I am not old enough to vote, followed by the whole banned thing. And then we get Harvey with yet another personal attack ?You are a lying, cowardly sycophantic pimp for the Bushwhacko administration? at least he didn?t tell me to ?STFU? this time, so we are making progress.

Second, you ignore the whole point of the post and instead try to reframe the argument into something you feel you can win.
I clearly stated at the beginning of my post ?This is for all you ?Saddam had no ties to terror? types.?
The point of my post and this thread was to show that Saddam had contacts with and was working with terrorists. I don?t even mention WMD in my thread, except a comment at the end about posting proof of that.

And yet you all run with the WMD and ?justifying? the war thing, while completely ignoring the fact that Saddam did indeed have ties to terror.

Even worse are those of you with your ?were they going to swim over to the US and throw rocks and sticks at us?? and ?sanctions annihilated their military and they had no means to attack the U.S.? type comments.
As several others have pointed out, they don?t need a military to kill innocent civilians, Look what 19 crazies did on 9-11. Ask the people of Israel how a force with no military power can inflict so much damage and death upon them.

All I expect anyone to take away from this thread is the idea that Saddam did have ties with terror groups. Read the OP and click and read the links. Research some of the other sites on the web with information. It is very clear that Saddam was working with terror groups, including radical jihadists types.

As far as the creditability of ?Free Republic? they posted the letters on their page, all it takes is someone who can read the language to translate them. I am sure if what they post as their translation is false that someone out on the web would have figured that out by now.

And umbrella, I am 37 years old, got out of high school a few years ago.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
...and there is strong evidence that Dennis Hastert and others in the Republican leadership tried to cover up of Mark Foley's predatory pedophilia with House pages."

Right, Harvey. Please, provide some of this 'strong evidence' you speak of.

Hastert has asserted he knew nothing beyond the initial 'friendly' email and no one has proven otherwise.

 

[Jaskalas]

Don?t forget the money directly given to Palestinian suicide bombers. That alone is an act of war.

 

[Aisengard]

And even if every single thing ProfJohn has linked to is true (although there's little to no evidence to support that fact, a matter ProfJohn conveniently ignored), he still ignores the fundamental question "how does invading Iraq remove that threat?"

This is why we make fun of you, ProfJohn. You can't see past the talking points brought up by Rush and Hannity, and you can only link to similarly befuddled websites like Free Republic. But please, do stay. It's fun to kick you and Pabster around.

 

[shadow9d9]

Iraq was in no place even closeto being able to attack us.. that is the point.. we tackled them in about 3 days... There are many countries that wish to attack us, but they don't have the means...

However, keep repeating yourself and patting yourself on the back about how the "lefties" are doing this and that.. the "lefties" didn't bring us to Iraq or let bin laden escape afghanistan...

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
While we can all agree that it?s in chaos right now, and that our military leaders have been terribly incompetent at handling Iraq

No we can not all agree that. Our civilian leaders have been terribly incompetent in Iraq. Our military leaders have done a pretty good job under the circumstances. Our failure in Iraq lies with Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld, not with the military.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Don?t forget the money directly given to Palestinian suicide bombers. That alone is an act of war.

Enough with the talking points. He did not give money to suicide bombers. That is another of Dub's big lies. Even if he had, it would not be an act of war against the US because the suicide bombers did not target us.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Don?t forget the money directly given to Palestinian suicide bombers. That alone is an act of war.

Against Israel. Last time I checked they weren't the 51st state.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, the reason Russia had information about Iraq's plan to attack us (via terrorism) and we did not is that Russia had contacts within Iraq that we lacked.
Their years of supporting Iraq would have assured that they would have developed the kind of intelligence contacts that we were not able to develop.

Why Bush and Co. didn't talk about this in the run up to the war? I have no idea. Perhaps for the same reason it took two congressmen to bring out the story about the chemical weapon shells found in Iraq. Maybe they felt the Russian story would "cloud" the issue or something along that lines. I really don't know why they kept the information from the public, and neither does anyone else.

On the WMD thing, perhaps Bush was guessing that Saddam would never give up his WMD programs and Bush was gambling on that fact. Or perhaps Bush felt that without WMD the threat from Saddam via terror groups was not great enough to warrant an invasion. Plus any non-WMD terror attack could have been responded to by our military with MUCH greater force than any attack could inflict.

On the justification for the war. At the time of the attack EVERYONE thought Saddam had WMD, Clinton, Kerry and nearly every major Democrat felt that Saddam had WMD. EVERY intelligence source in the world thought that Saddam had WMD as well. If, as you state, the sole reason for going to war was Iraq's WMD programs then EVERYONE in the world was of the belief that Saddam had not given up his WMD programs. All the hindsight in the world will not change this fact.