Kerry was ready for war on Iraq in November 1997

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: conjur
"They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues"

And there is the summary.

Blix was, essentially, telling the U.N. that more time would be needed to see if Iraq would fully comply. Again, Saddam was not an imminent threat. Bush could and should have waited a few more months and garnered world support. He had to act like a cowboy and go rustle up a varmint on his own.

More time nothing, the Iraqis were delaying since 1991! All the while al-qaeda had 3 training bases in Iraq and was a safe haven for their terrorists.

In Kurd Controlled Northern Iraq.

True, but they were in an area that was not under Kurdish control.

Militant unit operating in Iraq is linked to Al-Qaeda

So we needed to invade the whole of Iraq to root them out? WHo's next, Algeria, Morocco?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Anyway - back to kerry's comments about the French and Russians.

"It's not the first time France has been very difficult. ... " he said. "I think a lot of us are very disappointed that the French haven't joined us in a number of other efforts with respect to China, with respect to other issues in Asia and elsewhere and also in Europe. These are, this is a disappointment. But the fact is this. The president has, in effect, put military action on the table. Secretary (Richard) Cohen canceled his trip, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff canceled a trip, troops are deployed, the aircraft carriers are being brandished. There's no misunderstanding here about where the United States is prepared to go and I think that people need to just sort of back off. It's funny how in Washington inevitably there are always distinctions to be found, even if they're only at the margins here, and I would suggest that if all we're doing is suggesting that the president needs to be doing some diplomacy behind-the-scenes, that's not a bad criticism because he's obviously doing that behindthe scenes."

Interesting little quote there from kerry.

CkG

Anyway...back to the valid reasons we had back then:


Saddam was also actively attacking the Kurds and violating the no-fly zones.

When Bush went to war, inspectors were back in the country and Hans Blix has said they were receiving far greater access than they had before.

Had Bush merely waited a few more months, the war would either have been justified with U.N. approval or completely unncecessary as the WMDs would have been found to no longer exist.

That would have left Bush with a conundrum, Saddam still in power and Bush unable to get to the oil. Of course he had to act w/o U.N. approval. How else to get Halliburton in there?

Wrong. Saddam was supposed to cooperate and provide all the WMDs for destruction and documenting. He did nothing of the sort. HE was supposed to do these things - the inspectors weren't supposed to go on wild goose chases. But keep believing that Saddam would have been cooperative "this time" although he lied on his report AGAIN. Sure - believe what you want Conjur. The fact is kerry was brow beating our allies at the time yet has the nerve to say Bush is alienating the world. What a tool. Maybe you should actually read the kerry quotes before you start defending him against them.

CkG

 

[DashRiprock]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: conjur
"They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues"

And there is the summary.

Blix was, essentially, telling the U.N. that more time would be needed to see if Iraq would fully comply. Again, Saddam was not an imminent threat. Bush could and should have waited a few more months and garnered world support. He had to act like a cowboy and go rustle up a varmint on his own.

More time nothing, the Iraqis were delaying since 1991! All the while al-qaeda had 3 training bases in Iraq and was a safe haven for their terrorists.

In Kurd Controlled Northern Iraq.

True, but they were in an area that was not under Kurdish control.

Militant unit operating in Iraq is linked to Al-Qaeda

So we needed to invade the whole of Iraq to root them out? WHo's next, Algeria, Morocco?

We've already been helping in the Philippines by training their military against Al-Qaeda linked terror groups.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: conjur
"They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues"

And there is the summary.

Blix was, essentially, telling the U.N. that more time would be needed to see if Iraq would fully comply. Again, Saddam was not an imminent threat. Bush could and should have waited a few more months and garnered world support. He had to act like a cowboy and go rustle up a varmint on his own.

More time nothing, the Iraqis were delaying since 1991! All the while al-qaeda had 3 training bases in Iraq and was a safe haven for their terrorists.

In Kurd Controlled Northern Iraq.

True, but they were in an area that was not under Kurdish control.

Militant unit operating in Iraq is linked to Al-Qaeda

So we needed to invade the whole of Iraq to root them out? WHo's next, Algeria, Morocco?

We've already been helping in the Philippines by training their military against Al-Qaeda linked terror groups.

As we should.

Now that we are in Iraq there's no going back.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: conjur
Ah...leave it to the World Nut Daily to conclude: "Kerry said it was clear the U.S. did not need allies nor the U.N. to force its will on Iraq."

Kerry's own words...

"The administration is leading." said Kerry. "The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. (Richard) Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests. And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he's not going to get away with a breach of the '91 agreement that he's got to live up to, which is allowing inspections and dismantling his weapons and allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons. That's the price he pays for invading Kuwait and starting a war."

Owned.

I hope you kept your receipt. You forget that Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 because of these issues. He blew away your anti-Kerry rant in the process.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Anyway...back to the valid reasons we had back then:


Saddam was also actively attacking the Kurds and violating the no-fly zones.

When Bush went to war, inspectors were back in the country and Hans Blix has said they were receiving far greater access than they had before.

Had Bush merely waited a few more months, the war would either have been justified with U.N. approval or completely unncecessary as the WMDs would have been found to no longer exist.

That would have left Bush with a conundrum, Saddam still in power and Bush unable to get to the oil. Of course he had to act w/o U.N. approval. How else to get Halliburton in there?

Wrong. Saddam was supposed to cooperate and provide all the WMDs for destruction and documenting. He did nothing of the sort. HE was supposed to do these things - the inspectors weren't supposed to go on wild goose chases. But keep believing that Saddam would have been cooperative "this time" although he lied on his report AGAIN. Sure - believe what you want Conjur. The fact is kerry was brow beating our allies at the time yet has the nerve to say Bush is alienating the world. What a tool. Maybe you should actually read the kerry quotes before you start defending him against them.

CkG

Again, I'll defer to Hans Blix and David Kay over your Bush opinion.

BTW, to me, the rest of the world is more than just France and Russia. May not be to you, but to most people it is. Besides, even back in 1991 France was dragged kicking and screaming into the fray. That's nothing new about them.

 

[DashRiprock]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: conjur
"They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues"

And there is the summary.

Blix was, essentially, telling the U.N. that more time would be needed to see if Iraq would fully comply. Again, Saddam was not an imminent threat. Bush could and should have waited a few more months and garnered world support. He had to act like a cowboy and go rustle up a varmint on his own.

More time nothing, the Iraqis were delaying since 1991! All the while al-qaeda had 3 training bases in Iraq and was a safe haven for their terrorists.

In Kurd Controlled Northern Iraq.

True, but they were in an area that was not under Kurdish control.

Militant unit operating in Iraq is linked to Al-Qaeda

So we needed to invade the whole of Iraq to root them out? WHo's next, Algeria, Morocco?

We've already been helping in the Philippines by training their military against Al-Qaeda linked terror groups.

As we should.

Now that we are in Iraq there's no going back.

Sad but true. If we all keep in mind what the ultimate goal of Al-Qaeda is, we would be more united. It's an All or Nothing fight.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: conjur
Ah...leave it to the World Nut Daily to conclude: "Kerry said it was clear the U.S. did not need allies nor the U.N. to force its will on Iraq."

Kerry's own words...

"The administration is leading." said Kerry. "The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. (Richard) Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests. And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he's not going to get away with a breach of the '91 agreement that he's got to live up to, which is allowing inspections and dismantling his weapons and allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons. That's the price he pays for invading Kuwait and starting a war."

Owned.

I hope you kept your receipt. You forget that Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 because of these issues. He blew away your anti-Kerry rant in the process.

With UN approval, right?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Anyway...back to the valid reasons we had back then:


Saddam was also actively attacking the Kurds and violating the no-fly zones.

When Bush went to war, inspectors were back in the country and Hans Blix has said they were receiving far greater access than they had before.

Had Bush merely waited a few more months, the war would either have been justified with U.N. approval or completely unncecessary as the WMDs would have been found to no longer exist.

That would have left Bush with a conundrum, Saddam still in power and Bush unable to get to the oil. Of course he had to act w/o U.N. approval. How else to get Halliburton in there?

Wrong. Saddam was supposed to cooperate and provide all the WMDs for destruction and documenting. He did nothing of the sort. HE was supposed to do these things - the inspectors weren't supposed to go on wild goose chases. But keep believing that Saddam would have been cooperative "this time" although he lied on his report AGAIN. Sure - believe what you want Conjur. The fact is kerry was brow beating our allies at the time yet has the nerve to say Bush is alienating the world. What a tool. Maybe you should actually read the kerry quotes before you start defending him against them.

CkG

Again, I'll defer to Hans Blix and David Kay over your Bush opinion.

BTW, to me, the rest of the world is more than just France and Russia. May not be to you, but to most people it is. Besides, even back in 1991 France was dragged kicking and screaming into the fray. That's nothing new about them.

Like I said - it was Blix or Kay that said they were gone in '94 - so do you believe them on that?

But like I said to get the thread back on topic - john "foragainst" kerry was browbeating those who wouldn't "help us" or some such thing and yet he has the nerve to say Bush has alientated our allies. What a two faced POS - he can't have it both ways.

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Anyway...back to the valid reasons we had back then:


Saddam was also actively attacking the Kurds and violating the no-fly zones.

When Bush went to war, inspectors were back in the country and Hans Blix has said they were receiving far greater access than they had before.

Had Bush merely waited a few more months, the war would either have been justified with U.N. approval or completely unncecessary as the WMDs would have been found to no longer exist.

That would have left Bush with a conundrum, Saddam still in power and Bush unable to get to the oil. Of course he had to act w/o U.N. approval. How else to get Halliburton in there?

Wrong. Saddam was supposed to cooperate and provide all the WMDs for destruction and documenting. He did nothing of the sort. HE was supposed to do these things - the inspectors weren't supposed to go on wild goose chases. But keep believing that Saddam would have been cooperative "this time" although he lied on his report AGAIN. Sure - believe what you want Conjur. The fact is kerry was brow beating our allies at the time yet has the nerve to say Bush is alienating the world. What a tool. Maybe you should actually read the kerry quotes before you start defending him against them.

CkG

Again, I'll defer to Hans Blix and David Kay over your Bush opinion.

BTW, to me, the rest of the world is more than just France and Russia. May not be to you, but to most people it is. Besides, even back in 1991 France was dragged kicking and screaming into the fray. That's nothing new about them.

Like I said - it was Blix or Kay that said they were gone in '94 - so do you believe them on that?

But like I said to get the thread back on topic - john "foragainst" kerry was browbeating those who wouldn't "help us" or some such thing and yet he has the nerve to say Bush has alientated our allies. What a two faced POS - he can't have it both ways.

CkG

Again, CkG, you seem to forget that Saddam was actively violating No-Fly zones and attacking the Kurds AT THAT TIME when Kerry supported action.

That was NOT the case when Bush went in with guns blazing.

Stop the spin!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Anyway...back to the valid reasons we had back then:


Saddam was also actively attacking the Kurds and violating the no-fly zones.

When Bush went to war, inspectors were back in the country and Hans Blix has said they were receiving far greater access than they had before.

Had Bush merely waited a few more months, the war would either have been justified with U.N. approval or completely unncecessary as the WMDs would have been found to no longer exist.

That would have left Bush with a conundrum, Saddam still in power and Bush unable to get to the oil. Of course he had to act w/o U.N. approval. How else to get Halliburton in there?

Wrong. Saddam was supposed to cooperate and provide all the WMDs for destruction and documenting. He did nothing of the sort. HE was supposed to do these things - the inspectors weren't supposed to go on wild goose chases. But keep believing that Saddam would have been cooperative "this time" although he lied on his report AGAIN. Sure - believe what you want Conjur. The fact is kerry was brow beating our allies at the time yet has the nerve to say Bush is alienating the world. What a tool. Maybe you should actually read the kerry quotes before you start defending him against them.

CkG

Again, I'll defer to Hans Blix and David Kay over your Bush opinion.

BTW, to me, the rest of the world is more than just France and Russia. May not be to you, but to most people it is. Besides, even back in 1991 France was dragged kicking and screaming into the fray. That's nothing new about them.

Like I said - it was Blix or Kay that said they were gone in '94 - so do you believe them on that?

But like I said to get the thread back on topic - john "foragainst" kerry was browbeating those who wouldn't "help us" or some such thing and yet he has the nerve to say Bush has alientated our allies. What a two faced POS - he can't have it both ways.

CkG

Then niether should "We will not in into the business of Nation Building" and "America will not be the World's Policeman" Bush

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Anyway...back to the valid reasons we had back then:


Saddam was also actively attacking the Kurds and violating the no-fly zones.

When Bush went to war, inspectors were back in the country and Hans Blix has said they were receiving far greater access than they had before.

Had Bush merely waited a few more months, the war would either have been justified with U.N. approval or completely unncecessary as the WMDs would have been found to no longer exist.

That would have left Bush with a conundrum, Saddam still in power and Bush unable to get to the oil. Of course he had to act w/o U.N. approval. How else to get Halliburton in there?

Wrong. Saddam was supposed to cooperate and provide all the WMDs for destruction and documenting. He did nothing of the sort. HE was supposed to do these things - the inspectors weren't supposed to go on wild goose chases. But keep believing that Saddam would have been cooperative "this time" although he lied on his report AGAIN. Sure - believe what you want Conjur. The fact is kerry was brow beating our allies at the time yet has the nerve to say Bush is alienating the world. What a tool. Maybe you should actually read the kerry quotes before you start defending him against them.

CkG

Again, I'll defer to Hans Blix and David Kay over your Bush opinion.

BTW, to me, the rest of the world is more than just France and Russia. May not be to you, but to most people it is. Besides, even back in 1991 France was dragged kicking and screaming into the fray. That's nothing new about them.

Like I said - it was Blix or Kay that said they were gone in '94 - so do you believe them on that?

But like I said to get the thread back on topic - john "foragainst" kerry was browbeating those who wouldn't "help us" or some such thing and yet he has the nerve to say Bush has alientated our allies. What a two faced POS - he can't have it both ways.

CkG

Again, CkG, you seem to forget that Saddam was actively violating No-Fly zones and attacking the Kurds AT THAT TIME when Kerry supported action.

That was NOT the case when Bush went in with guns blazing.

Stop the spin!

- why don't you stop your spin. You know what you say is trash - kerry clearly was brow beating the French and Russians - yet he seems to think Bush shouldn't do the same or he is "alienating" them. You guys are a joke - why don't you actually read what kerry said instead of making excuses for it.

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Anyway...back to the valid reasons we had back then:


Saddam was also actively attacking the Kurds and violating the no-fly zones.

When Bush went to war, inspectors were back in the country and Hans Blix has said they were receiving far greater access than they had before.

Had Bush merely waited a few more months, the war would either have been justified with U.N. approval or completely unncecessary as the WMDs would have been found to no longer exist.

That would have left Bush with a conundrum, Saddam still in power and Bush unable to get to the oil. Of course he had to act w/o U.N. approval. How else to get Halliburton in there?

Wrong. Saddam was supposed to cooperate and provide all the WMDs for destruction and documenting. He did nothing of the sort. HE was supposed to do these things - the inspectors weren't supposed to go on wild goose chases. But keep believing that Saddam would have been cooperative "this time" although he lied on his report AGAIN. Sure - believe what you want Conjur. The fact is kerry was brow beating our allies at the time yet has the nerve to say Bush is alienating the world. What a tool. Maybe you should actually read the kerry quotes before you start defending him against them.

CkG

Again, I'll defer to Hans Blix and David Kay over your Bush opinion.

BTW, to me, the rest of the world is more than just France and Russia. May not be to you, but to most people it is. Besides, even back in 1991 France was dragged kicking and screaming into the fray. That's nothing new about them.

Like I said - it was Blix or Kay that said they were gone in '94 - so do you believe them on that?

But like I said to get the thread back on topic - john "foragainst" kerry was browbeating those who wouldn't "help us" or some such thing and yet he has the nerve to say Bush has alientated our allies. What a two faced POS - he can't have it both ways.

CkG

Again, CkG, you seem to forget that Saddam was actively violating No-Fly zones and attacking the Kurds AT THAT TIME when Kerry supported action.

That was NOT the case when Bush went in with guns blazing.

Stop the spin!

- why don't you stop your spin. You know what you say is trash - kerry clearly was brow beating the French and Russians - yet he seems to think Bush shouldn't do the same or he is "alienating" them. You guys are a joke - why don't you actually read what kerry said instead of making excuses for it.

CkG

What excuse did I make? I was just pointing out that the Dub is just as guilty. Unfortunately his lies have had much more harmful consequences.

 

[conjur]

I am spinning nothng.

You are just blind to the fact that we had GOOD CAUSE. Saddam was actively attacking Kurds and violating no-fly zones.

What was going on when Bush attacked? Oh yeah! Inspectors were moving all over the country and finding proof of destruction of some items, found some illegal items and had the Iraqis destroy them (remember the missiles they destroyed or have you conveniently forgotten that?)


BIG difference between the two timeframes.

 

[DashRiprock]

Originally posted by: conjur
I am spinning nothng.

You are just blind to the fact that we had GOOD CAUSE. Saddam was actively attacking Kurds and violating no-fly zones.

What was going on when Bush attacked? Oh yeah! Inspectors were moving all over the country and finding proof of destruction of some items, found some illegal items and had the Iraqis destroy them (remember the missiles they destroyed or have you conveniently forgotten that?)


BIG difference between the two timeframes.

How about the Al-Qaeda training camps that Saddam was harboring after 1997? They were our enemy after 9/11 and then teaming up with a despotic regime that used WMD before. I don't think I would wait until we actually had a picture of Saddam handing over mustard gas to Bin Ladens boys before we did anything about it. We knew how ruthless both could be.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: conjur
I am spinning nothng.

You are just blind to the fact that we had GOOD CAUSE. Saddam was actively attacking Kurds and violating no-fly zones.

What was going on when Bush attacked? Oh yeah! Inspectors were moving all over the country and finding proof of destruction of some items, found some illegal items and had the Iraqis destroy them (remember the missiles they destroyed or have you conveniently forgotten that?)


BIG difference between the two timeframes.

How about the Al-Qaeda training camps that Saddam was harboring after 1997? They were our enemy after 9/11 and then teaming up with a despotic regime that used WMD before. I don't think I would wait until we actually had a picture of Saddam handing over mustard gas to Bin Ladens boys before we did anything about it. We knew how ruthless both could be.

Again, what Al Qaeda Training Camps was Hussien Harboring?

 

[DashRiprock]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: conjur
I am spinning nothng.

You are just blind to the fact that we had GOOD CAUSE. Saddam was actively attacking Kurds and violating no-fly zones.

What was going on when Bush attacked? Oh yeah! Inspectors were moving all over the country and finding proof of destruction of some items, found some illegal items and had the Iraqis destroy them (remember the missiles they destroyed or have you conveniently forgotten that?)


BIG difference between the two timeframes.

How about the Al-Qaeda training camps that Saddam was harboring after 1997? They were our enemy after 9/11 and then teaming up with a despotic regime that used WMD before. I don't think I would wait until we actually had a picture of Saddam handing over mustard gas to Bin Ladens boys before we did anything about it. We knew how ruthless both could be.

Again, what Al Qaeda Training Camps was Hussien Harboring?

These...

article

JANUARY 1999: IRAQ TRAINS MORE AL QAEDA OPERATIVES AT ADDITIONAL CAMPS AROUND BAGHDAD

In addition to the al-Nasiriyah and Salman Pak training camps, by January 1999, bin Laden and al Qaeda operatives were being trained by Iraqi intelligence and military officers at other training camps on the outskirts of Baghdad.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: conjur
I am spinning nothng.

You are just blind to the fact that we had GOOD CAUSE. Saddam was actively attacking Kurds and violating no-fly zones.

What was going on when Bush attacked? Oh yeah! Inspectors were moving all over the country and finding proof of destruction of some items, found some illegal items and had the Iraqis destroy them (remember the missiles they destroyed or have you conveniently forgotten that?)


BIG difference between the two timeframes.

How about the Al-Qaeda training camps that Saddam was harboring after 1997? They were our enemy after 9/11 and then teaming up with a despotic regime that used WMD before. I don't think I would wait until we actually had a picture of Saddam handing over mustard gas to Bin Ladens boys before we did anything about it. We knew how ruthless both could be.

Again, what Al Qaeda Training Camps was Hussien Harboring?

These...

article

JANUARY 1999: IRAQ TRAINS MORE AL QAEDA OPERATIVES AT ADDITIONAL CAMPS AROUND BAGHDAD

In addition to the al-Nasiriyah and Salman Pak training camps, by January 1999, bin Laden and al Qaeda operatives were being trained by Iraqi intelligence and military officers at other training camps on the outskirts of Baghdad.

Do you have any legitimate sources to back your claim?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: conjur
I am spinning nothng.

You are just blind to the fact that we had GOOD CAUSE. Saddam was actively attacking Kurds and violating no-fly zones.

What was going on when Bush attacked? Oh yeah! Inspectors were moving all over the country and finding proof of destruction of some items, found some illegal items and had the Iraqis destroy them (remember the missiles they destroyed or have you conveniently forgotten that?)


BIG difference between the two timeframes.

How about the Al-Qaeda training camps that Saddam was harboring after 1997? They were our enemy after 9/11 and then teaming up with a despotic regime that used WMD before. I don't think I would wait until we actually had a picture of Saddam handing over mustard gas to Bin Ladens boys before we did anything about it. We knew how ruthless both could be.

Again, what Al Qaeda Training Camps was Hussien Harboring?

These...

article

JANUARY 1999: IRAQ TRAINS MORE AL QAEDA OPERATIVES AT ADDITIONAL CAMPS AROUND BAGHDAD

In addition to the al-Nasiriyah and Salman Pak training camps, by January 1999, bin Laden and al Qaeda operatives were being trained by Iraqi intelligence and military officers at other training camps on the outskirts of Baghdad.

Wrong!

Read this thread

 

[DashRiprock]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: conjur
I am spinning nothng.

You are just blind to the fact that we had GOOD CAUSE. Saddam was actively attacking Kurds and violating no-fly zones.

What was going on when Bush attacked? Oh yeah! Inspectors were moving all over the country and finding proof of destruction of some items, found some illegal items and had the Iraqis destroy them (remember the missiles they destroyed or have you conveniently forgotten that?)


BIG difference between the two timeframes.

How about the Al-Qaeda training camps that Saddam was harboring after 1997? They were our enemy after 9/11 and then teaming up with a despotic regime that used WMD before. I don't think I would wait until we actually had a picture of Saddam handing over mustard gas to Bin Ladens boys before we did anything about it. We knew how ruthless both could be.

Again, what Al Qaeda Training Camps was Hussien Harboring?

These...

article

JANUARY 1999: IRAQ TRAINS MORE AL QAEDA OPERATIVES AT ADDITIONAL CAMPS AROUND BAGHDAD

In addition to the al-Nasiriyah and Salman Pak training camps, by January 1999, bin Laden and al Qaeda operatives were being trained by Iraqi intelligence and military officers at other training camps on the outskirts of Baghdad.

Wrong!

Read this thread

Why don't you read this...

link

Some can't see the forest through the trees.

 

[conjur]

bin Laden is religious....Saddam is secular. They don't like each other.

 

[burnedout]

I have access to this particular CNN transcript through LexisNexis. If interested, I'll post it. Be advised that the transcript is over 3,700 words.

Excerpts:

JOHN SUNUNU, CROSSFIRE: Senator Kerry, in fact, in spite of the administration claiming it has restored unanimity, that has not occurred. All the strength of this resolution had to be pulled out of it get any votes at all other than our own. Isn't this exercise actually counterproductive in sending a signal to Iraq that the coalition still remains frayed?

SEN. JOHN KERRY, (D), MASSACHUSETTS, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, John, you're correct that this resolution is less than we would have liked. I don't think anybody can deny that we would have liked it to have threatened force and we would have liked it to carry the term serious consequences will flow. On the other hand, the coalition is together. I mean the fact is there is a unanimous statement by the security council and the United Nations that there has to be immediate, unrestricted, unconditional access to the sites. That's very strong language. And it also references the underlying resolution on which the use of force is based. So clearly the allies may not like it, and I think that's our great concern -- where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity, but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq.

 

[DashRiprock]

Originally posted by: conjur
bin Laden is religious....Saddam is secular. They don't like each other.

But they both hate the US.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DashRiprock

Originally posted by: conjur
bin Laden is religious....Saddam is secular. They don't like each other.

But they both hate the US.

So do many other people but it doesn't mean they are partners.