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

[hellokeith]

ProfJohn,

Nice post.

However, the libs and hippies will never accept any pro-war evidence, not even Democratic party members overwhelmingly voting for the war based on the same intelligence that the US administration, Russia, France, and the UN had. They're are the same yellow bellies that let Hitler run across Europe killing millions because "it's not America's problem".

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -George Orwell

 

[techs]

The mere fact that anyone dares to re-print the claim in this post proves they are not interested in facts but are part of the blinded by Bush propaganda team.

SADDAM had no ties with Al-Qaeda. Saddam and Al-Qaeda hated each other.
Putins claim has NEVER been supported by any SHRED of evidence.
Nuff said.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: 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.

In the same way that removing the Taliban lessoned the risk of us being attacked by al-Qaeda.

The Taliban was not out there attack us, but they were supporting and giving 'aid and comfort' to the people that were.

Similarly, Saddam was supporting terror groups. He was sending money to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine and he was most likely helping to train terrorists inside his country.

By removing Saddam we remove this assistance he was giving. Therefore, we lessoned the risk of suffering a terror attack from a Saddam supported group.

As Jaskalas said, the fact that Iraq has turned into a total mess does not mean that these reasons were not correct at the time they were implemented.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
And umbrella, I am 37 years old, got out of high school a few years ago.

Yes, but how many, and was it with or w/o a diploma?

ProfJohn, I admire your . . . tenacious persistance . . . you are a true believer. I know it must be lonely down at your end of the Bell Curve of rational opinion, and that neighbors like Pabster just bring down property values and leave their balls on your lawn, but . . .

Let's get down to specifics.

All I expect anyone to take away from this thread is the idea that Saddam did have ties with terror groups.

Others have demolished your sources story beyond repair, so your fall back position sounds ok, however . . .

Hussein and the religious zealots of Al Queda hated and distrusted each other. You DO know this, right? Backed into a corner by a common enemy, it only makes sense that they would put out feelers towards each other, but it was never destined to go anywhere real, and, indeed, it didn't.

Thank you, and good day.


Edit: Haha, didn't see techs post above when I posted.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: techs
The mere fact that anyone dares to re-print the claim in this post proves they are not interested in facts but are part of the blinded by Bush propaganda team.

SADDAM had no ties with Al-Qaeda. Saddam and Al-Qaeda hated each other.
Putins claim has NEVER been supported by any SHRED of evidence.
Nuff said.

The two Free Republic translations are proof of what Putin said. Do you not see that? What part of "call to strike the presence and interests of America" and " names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests " Don't you not understand?

I don't have time to dig up the al-Qaeda-Saddam links, but they are there and I have posted them before.
There was a time in which they were working together. However, it is believed that their relationship soured some time before our invasion. Unfortunately, Saddam didn't bother to send us the memo stating their "hatred" for each other and we did not learn of the rift in their relationship until AFTER the war.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: 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.

Which is a requirement for protecting an ally in a mutual war?

Originally posted by: 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.

The truth is not a talking point. The news is several years old, makes it harder to find good internet links to the information ? but back in 2002 it was widely reported.

Perhaps the only liberal ?credible? link found by search engines today would be the BBC, but you can run a search yourself and see the results for yourself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html

http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/eng_n/saddam.htm

Again, Israel and us are fighting a mutual war against Islamic extremists. Providing material support and safe haven to them is tantamount to an act of war.

Yet all I see here is the good old line.

?See no evil
Hear no evil
Speak no evil?

Heads are firmly buried in the sand for opposition against ?the greatest threat?, which liberals firmly believe is our own country. Heaven forbid we act against those who seek to kill us.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: techs
The mere fact that anyone dares to re-print the claim in this post proves they are not interested in facts but are part of the blinded by Bush propaganda team.

SADDAM had no ties with Al-Qaeda. Saddam and Al-Qaeda hated each other.
Putins claim has NEVER been supported by any SHRED of evidence.
Nuff said.

The two Free Republic translations are proof of what Putin said. Do you not see that? What part of "call to strike the presence and interests of America" and " names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests " Don't you not understand?

I don't have time to dig up the al-Qaeda-Saddam links, but they are there and I have posted them before.
There was a time in which they were working together. However, it is believed that their relationship soured some time before our invasion. Unfortunately, Saddam didn't bother to send us the memo stating their "hatred" for each other and we did not learn of the rift in their relationship until AFTER the war.

Yeah, right.
The Free Republic has the real info, not EVERY intelligence report and commission that investigated this issue since 9-11.
Even your icon, Bush, has debunked your cr*p.
Why don't you shut up your propaganda?
All you do is show how brainwashed you are.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: techs
The mere fact that anyone dares to re-print the claim in this post proves they are not interested in facts but are part of the blinded by Bush propaganda team.

SADDAM had no ties with Al-Qaeda. Saddam and Al-Qaeda hated each other.
Putins claim has NEVER been supported by any SHRED of evidence.
Nuff said.

The two Free Republic translations are proof of what Putin said. Do you not see that? What part of "call to strike the presence and interests of America" and " names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests " Don't you not understand?

I don't have time to dig up the al-Qaeda-Saddam links, but they are there and I have posted them before.
There was a time in which they were working together. However, it is believed that their relationship soured some time before our invasion. Unfortunately, Saddam didn't bother to send us the memo stating their "hatred" for each other and we did not learn of the rift in their relationship until AFTER the war.

Yeah, right.
The Free Republic has the real info, not EVERY intelligence report and commission that investigated this issue since 9-11.
Even your icon, Bush, has debunked your cr*p.
Why don't you shut up your propaganda?
All you do is show how brainwashed you are.

The mere fact that anyone dares to mention the truth, as drowned out by your "defeat Republican" ideology shows how rabid many of you are. This isn't about Bush, it could have been anyone sending us into Iraq, destroying hostile, terrorist sympathizing governments is the right thing to do.

You would see this country destroyed fighting amongst ourselves before you?d do anything that remotely sides with your opponent. Even when our survival in a war against foreign opponents is at stake.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: 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.

Which is a requirement for protecting an ally in a mutual war?

You mean like we did in '67, '73, etc. ????

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
ProfJohn,

Nice post.

However, the libs and hippies will never accept any pro-war evidence, not even Democratic party members overwhelmingly voting for the war based on the same intelligence that the US administration, Russia, France, and the UN had. They're are the same yellow bellies that let Hitler run across Europe killing millions because "it's not America's problem".

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -George Orwell

So anytime any nation thinks they may want to "attack" the United States, we should start a war?


Switch to decaf, get back on the meds.


:roll:

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
....
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.
...

Since speculation is your food of choice here, why not speculate that dumbya planned this attack on Iraq since he took the oath of office, if not before, since that has been documented several times, and since dumbya himself has said it, Saddam had NO links to Al Qaeda, none, zip, also, Iraq had zero links to the attacks on 9/11, nada. So why invade a nation that we knew had wmd's, in fact, it was a 'slam-dunk'. He and his gang of thugs chose to invade Iraq on faulty intel, and purposefully decieved the citizens of the US regarding those facts.
Meanwhile, smoke 'em out, dead or alive, I really don't think about him, OBL, is running free, making audio and video tapes, planning future attacks, which we are just as vulnerable to as we were on 9.10.01, check the port security if you doubt me.
Scraps of the 9/11 commisions recommendations were applied, dumbya actually didn't even want the 9/11 commision to investigate, why would that be?
And what about being accountable for all the death and destruction wrought in Iraq now? How many hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians need to die for this war based on faulty intel? How many US soldiers? British Soldiers? Do you believe we'll be out of there in less than 5 years? How many more THOUSAND US soldiers will be killed between now and then. And what will dumba be doing in 2011? Having someone ghost write his memiors, sitting in crawford, tx, clearing brush.
Would you send your son/daughter to fight in this war? Would you even go yourself? This war was based on lies and false intel, people need to be held accountable, the US is no longer respected, and all of this is due to 1 little man, who decided to exact revenge on a dicatator who threatened his daddy. Hell, even daddy didn't stay in Bagdad, he was actually smart enough to realize that Iraq cannot be occupied.
Good luck to you and your gang of neo-con thugs, you were wrong, you are wrong and everyone has to pay for it.

 

[Pens1566]

Sheik, you need at least one deflection and one strawman in there for "Prof" to understand your post. Too much reason and applying the same standards to both sides of the argument and he gets a little confused.

 

[techs]

Hey, ProfJohn, you take the completely unsubstantiated word of our enemy, Putin, over our President?
Why do you hate America?

 

[Craig234]

However, the libs and hippies will never accept any pro-war evidence, not even Democratic party members overwhelmingly voting for the war based on the same intelligence that the US administration, Russia, France, and the UN had. They're are the same yellow bellies that let Hitler run across Europe killing millions because "it's not America's problem".

The author of this piece is deep in the ideological cult of the right wing.

First, the 'liberals and hippies' would accept good evidence. You don't have any - so in the face of the leaders you put into power making claims that were false, you have the gall to attack the side that was correct.

Second, the democrats *did* mostly give the benefit of the doubt to the intelligence reports of WMD - which is why they approved of the pressures to force Saddam to allow the inspections back, to rid him of the WMD without war if at all possible.

*That policy was working well. Saddam DID comply with the inspections, which were in progressing and would have completed in a few months, securing the world from the threat of Saddam having WMD, without war*.

This is where the democrats and Bush seperated: Bush chose war *instead* of the peaceful solution to WMD: he ordered the inspectors out, even though Hans Blix said the inspections were going well and that force was unnecessary (there were only minor problems, he reported). Bush chose to invade when it was unnecessary.

As for your attack about yellow bellies and Hitler, you apparently fail to understand that it was largely the *republicans* who opposed going into WWII, who opposed democrat Roosevelt's leading the nation to war - and it was even the American people generally, of whom a Gallup poll in Sep 1940 showed 88% of opposed to entering the war.

But not all wars are WWII against Hitler, despite the way you militaristic idealogues believe. Viet Nam was not WWII. While your type screamed for us to go in, to stay in, as we killed 2 million Vietnamese who just wanted to be free of foreign occupation, you try to paint it like WWII, as you do conflct after conflict.

 

[Balt]

/yawn

ProfJohn, your credibility on these boards is so shot that even if you could point to sources more reliable than the "Free Republic" no one would bother to take anything you post seriously. The more it becomes evident that Bush doesn't have a leg to stand on, the more you grasp at straws. The desperation is disgusting.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: 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.

You might have something to complain about IF you ever posted anything that could remotely be considered factual. However, that's not the case. Once you're busted in a thread, all you'll do is ignore any replies documenating facts that refute your inane blather or start another thread with yet another laundry list of lies and irrelevant garbage in your continuous attempt to dissemble, distract attention from the truth about the Bushwhacko criminals and traitors and their corrupt allies in Congress.

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.
.
.
All I expect anyone to take away from this thread is the idea that Saddam did have ties with terror groups.

You must be the last remaining neocon cretin still posting this garbage. Unless you're one of the Republican criminals desperately trying to hold onto power, regardless of the truth, the only question is, WHY? :roll:

Originally posted by: Pabster
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.

Gosh oh golly gee whiz, Pabster. Is your Google button broken?

Hastert says he learned about it when the story broke on ABC News. Since then, he and other Republicans have pointed fingers at anyone and everyone other than themselves, including George Soros, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, "duh Democrats" and "duh librul meediuh." Several other Republican members of Congress and two of their chiefs of staff say they notified Hastert anywhere between six months and six years ago, and the FBI is investigating to determine what Hastert and others knew about Foley and when they knew it. Here's only one of several stories you can easily find about it:

Hastert Was Warned About Foley Two Years Ago, GOP Aide Says

Speaker's Spokesman Disputes Fordham's Claim That He Previously Alerted Hastert's Office About Foley's Behavior

By JAKE TAPPER and JOHN YANG

Oct. 4, 2006 ? Despite claims by senior congressional aide Kirk Fordham that he notified House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office more than two years ago about possible inappropriate contact between former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., and underage congressional pages, the Speaker's office insists it did nothing wrong in the way it handled the investigation.

"That never happened," Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean told ABC News.

But Fordham, who resigned as Foley's chief of staff to work for another member of the GOP leadership, Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., said that as far back as 2003, Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, had been told that Foley was too friendly with pages. According to Fordham, Palmer spoke to Foley about the matter.

Neither Foley nor Palmer could be reached for comment, yet Hastert's office disputes the account.

Fordham, who is openly gay, acknowledged helping Foley deal with the fallout from ABC News' story about obscene instant messages he had sent former congressional pages, but Fordham added he "did so as a friend of my former boss, not as Congressman Reynolds' chief of staff. I reached out to the Foley family, as any good friend would, because I was worried about their emotional well-being."

Fordham also contradicted stories circulating in Washington that he had tried to prevent an investigation by House leadership into any questionable contact between Foley and pages.

"I never attempted to prevent any inquiries or investigation of Foley's conduct by House officials or any other authorities," he said.

Fordham said he was resigning because "It is clear the Democrats are intent on making me a political issue in my boss's race, and I will not let them do so."

But the questions about Fordham's role were being raised just as often ? if not, more so ? by Republicans.

"Fordham had, for a while, a good idea of the Foley situation, and he tried to suppress it," said one former House GOP leadership aide, who would speak only on condition of anonymity. This aide said he had "complete confidence that the Speaker and his senior people didn't know about Foley's prefatory issue with pages" until last Friday.

The aide did say it was an open question as to whether the Speaker's counsel, Ted VanderMeid, knew anything before then.

Asked to describe the mood among the Hastert team, the aide said they were "frustrated" and "deeply disappointed that so many people are willing to throw Denny to the sharks," a reference to conservatives who have called for Hastert's resignation, as well as to comments by Reynolds and Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, distancing themselves from Hastert.

"Boehner's instincts are the same he showed back in '98," the aide said, referring to the time Boehner pleaded ignorance about an attempted coup of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and was defeated in his re-election to House leadership largely as a result.

What we have are diametrically opposed stories. By definition, at least one of them is false, and the odds are against Hastert. Are all those other Repbulicans lying to set up Hastert? :roll:

The last paragraph in the L..A. Times article about Fordham's accusations also states:

Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., the congressman who sponsored the page at the heart of the furor, said Hastert "knew about the e-mails that we knew about," including one in which Foley asked the page to send his picture. But he quickly backed off that comment, saying he discussed the e-mails with Hastert's aides, not the speaker himself.

Do you really think anyone on Hastert's staff would withhold such an accusation from Hastert, himself? Even if you believe a story that fishy, do you really think that lets Hastert off the hook? :thumbsdown:

 

[slash196]

Uh, I don't know about the rest of P&N, but I don't exactly hold Putin's word in high regard. He's about as trustworthy as a crack-addicted used-car salesman.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: slash196
Uh, I don't know about the rest of P&N, but I don't exactly hold Putin's word in high regard. He's about as trustworthy as a crack-addicted used-car salesman.

No, he's A-OK because W looked into his eyes and "saw his soul".
/sarcasm

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
....
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.
...

Since speculation is your food of choice here, why not speculate that dumbya planned this attack on Iraq since he took the oath of office, if not before, since that has been documented several times, and since dumbya himself has said it, Saddam had NO links to Al Qaeda, none, zip, also, Iraq had zero links to the attacks on 9/11, nada. So why invade a nation that we knew had wmd's, in fact, it was a 'slam-dunk'. He and his gang of thugs chose to invade Iraq on faulty intel, and purposefully decieved the citizens of the US regarding those facts.
Meanwhile, smoke 'em out, dead or alive, I really don't think about him, OBL, is running free, making audio and video tapes, planning future attacks, which we are just as vulnerable to as we were on 9.10.01, check the port security if you doubt me.
Scraps of the 9/11 commisions recommendations were applied, dumbya actually didn't even want the 9/11 commision to investigate, why would that be?
And what about being accountable for all the death and destruction wrought in Iraq now? How many hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians need to die for this war based on faulty intel? How many US soldiers? British Soldiers? Do you believe we'll be out of there in less than 5 years? How many more THOUSAND US soldiers will be killed between now and then. And what will dumba be doing in 2011? Having someone ghost write his memiors, sitting in crawford, tx, clearing brush.
Would you send your son/daughter to fight in this war? Would you even go yourself? This war was based on lies and false intel, people need to be held accountable, the US is no longer respected, and all of this is due to 1 little man, who decided to exact revenge on a dicatator who threatened his daddy. Hell, even daddy didn't stay in Bagdad, he was actually smart enough to realize that Iraq cannot be occupied.
Good luck to you and your gang of neo-con thugs, you were wrong, you are wrong and everyone has to pay for it.

:beer: 'nuff said

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: slash196
Uh, I don't know about the rest of P&N, but I don't exactly hold Putin's word in high regard. He's about as trustworthy as a crack-addicted used-car salesman.

No, he's A-OK because W looked into his eyes and "saw his soul".
/sarcasm

Christ, tell me that's not an actual quote...

 

[jpeyton]

Saddam and his country were overthrown in record time. He knew the outcome of the invasion before it began.

Why would Saddam attack a country he knows would annihilate his regime?

Wouldn't Powell's speech at the UN have mentioned Saddam's imminent plans to attack the US? Or any of Bush's speeches?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: slash196
Uh, I don't know about the rest of P&N, but I don't exactly hold Putin's word in high regard. He's about as trustworthy as a crack-addicted used-car salesman.

No, he's A-OK because W looked into his eyes and "saw his soul".
/sarcasm

Christ, tell me that's not an actual quote...

Did you guys rail against Putin when he opposed the war in Iraq?

Yet, bring up the slightest mention that Russia thought Iraq was a threat and poof, Putin is suddenly the Anti-Christ to you is and lined up for more mocking and ridicule than we?d find on a late night show.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: slash196
Uh, I don't know about the rest of P&N, but I don't exactly hold Putin's word in high regard. He's about as trustworthy as a crack-addicted used-car salesman.

No, he's A-OK because W looked into his eyes and "saw his soul".
/sarcasm

Christ, tell me that's not an actual quote...

Wish I could.

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.

"I was able to get a sense of his soul.

"He's a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country and I appreciate very much the frank dialogue and that's the beginning of a very constructive relationship," Mr Bush said.

What's even funnier to me is that I recently saw an interview with highly connected Russian who said that Bush saying that was actually an insult to Putin!

. . . Because Putin, as a long time KGB operative, prizes his ability to keep a poker face and NEVER let anyone know his inner self or feelings -- let alone Commander Dumbya! :shocked:

 

[techs]

I like the fact that this thread continues to stay on top.
It keeps reminding people of our involvelment in Iraq and how badly Bush misjudged the whole thing.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Christ, tell me that's not an actual quote...

Christ had nothing to do with it, and here's your choice of sources verifying that Bush looked into Putin's eyes and "saw his soul."