• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Pentagon finds no link between Iraq and alCIAda

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ranmaniac

Golden Member
May 14, 2001
1,939
0
76
I guess we're going to see an Obama presidency after all.

McCain is going to look as foolish talking about the Iraq war as he does about the economy.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,083
126
Originally posted by: ranmaniac
I guess we're going to see an Obama presidency after all.

McCain is going to look as foolish talking about the Iraq war as he does about the economy.
I don't know. You still have morons here and about believing that Mr. Obama is some sort of "secret Muslim."

/so many looking for something/anything to fuel their irrational hate....
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
WASHINGTON ? The Pentagon on Wednesday canceled plans for broad public release of a study that found no pre-Iraq war link between late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the al Qaida terrorist network.

Rather than posting the report online and making officials available to discuss it, as had been planned, the U.S. Joint Forces Command said it would mail copies of the document to reporters ? if they asked for it. The report won't be posted on the Internet.

The reversal highlighted the politically sensitive nature of its conclusions, which were first reported Monday by McClatchy.

In making their case for invading Iraq in 2002 and 2003, President Bush and his top national security aides claimed that Saddam's regime had ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

But the study, based on more than 600,000 captured documents, including audio and video files, found that while Saddam sponsored terrorism, particularly against opponents of his regime and against Israel, there was no evidence of an al Qaida link.

The study comes at a difficult time for the Bush administration. The fifth anniversary of the Iraq war is approaching on March 19, and Bush is attempting to hold support for a continued large U.S. troop presence there following a report from his on-the-ground commander, Army Gen. David Petraeus, in early April.

Navy Capt. Dennis Moynihan, a spokesman for the Norfolk, Va.-based Joint Forces Command, said, "We're making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we'll send it out via CD in the mail."

Moynihan declined further comment.

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, referred questions to Joint Forces Command.

An executive summary of the study says that Saddam's regime had interaction with terrorist groups, including Palestinian terror organizations and some pan-Islamic groups.

But "the predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq," says the summary, posted online by ABC News.

That confirms what many experts on Saddam's Iraq have long argued: that his security services were dedicated mainly to fighting threats to his rule.


The summary says that Saddam's secular regime increased cooperation with ? and attempts to manipulate ? Islamic fundamentalists after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, despite being leery of the Islamists. Iraqi leaders "concluded that in some cases, the benefits of associations outweighed the risks," it says.
Too bad we didn't have this kind of information before the war we might have saved ourselves quite a bit of time, effort, money and human lives. Hell, maybe the Pentagon would be able to afford the bandwidth required by massive several megabyte Adobe Documents!

If anyone is able to find the report and post it online - I'd appreciate it.

Pentagon cancels release of controversial Iraq report

EDIT: As a a side-note isn't anyone deeply concerned as to why the Bush Administration isn't concerned about this?

This was a repost and has been merged with this pre-existing thread

Fern
AnandTech P&N Moderator
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
12,493
3,876
136
although i totally agree that not invading iraq would have been the right course of action, having the data available wouldn't have mattered. the neocon spin machine would have suppressed it, or discredited it or spun it into oblivion because the bush-cheney-rumsy- et al admin crooks and the robber-barons these guys represent were not going to let that coincidental once-in-a-lifetime golden goose profiteering opportunity get away from them.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,667
46
91
True, it wouldn't of mattered because Cheney's cabal would of suppressed the information. They did have the very facts to the same conclusion and they suppressed them. And anyone that came out reporting those facts had their careers ruined. It was a perilous time for military commanders and newspaper reporters alike as even the fbi was in on the act to suppress the evidence.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Fern


So they found "no direct operation" link between Saddam & AQ? I thought that was well known and old news?

Fern
Apparantely you don't read some of the apologist's threads around here.
I think some of us read "differently".

The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion

While the documents reveal no Saddam-al Qaida links, they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.
In the first paragraph above we see the "official" conclusion is that they found no "direct operational link", later the author "modifies" this to the absolute "no links".

I think theoretically we could have many types of links:

1. Direct operational links
2. Financial links (general monetary support)
3. Info/intel links (generally providing intel/info)
4. material/supplies links (providing food/weapons etc)
5. knowlege/tech asistance links (how to make explosives etc)
6. Communication links (meeting/talking - which has been confirmed)
7. Other support links (I'm tired of listing so I'll lump a bunch together - providing safe houses, medical treatment, transportaion etc).
8. No links

So, if we have a scale of "links" from #1 - 8. Number 1 being the worse, and number 8 the best, the author (like the OP) just managed to take a statement of "no operation links" and turn it into "no links". We just went from no #1 all the way to #8 - they flew from one side of the scale to the complete opposite side in a blink of the eye. Hardly acurate.

What to make of this statement?:

Other documents indicate that the Fedayeen Saddam opened paramilitary training camps that, starting in 1998, hosted "Arab volunteers" from outside of Iraq . What happened to the non-Iraqi volunteers is unknown..
Or this one:

they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.
Or:

The Pentagon sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East , U.S. officials told McClatchy . However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.
I notice in this paragraph links to terrorists groups were acknowleged. I also notice the word "primarily" is chosen by the author. He didn't say "exclusively". I.e., some undefined amout of terrorist support that had nothing to with "enemies of his regime". What did it have to do with?


And the author writes this?

As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq . "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims," he said.
Are we to conclude that there are no AQ in Iraq now and GWB is incorrect? Finding no operation links back before 2003 in no way means that there are no AQ in Iraq now.

IMO, the article is poorly written at best. At worst, the author is intentionally distorting the finding of the report. I'm often surprised how people can read the same article and come away with such different interpretations.

No, Sadam had nothing to do with 911 as far we know, but he was involved with terorism at various levels.

This hints at the spin to come (or perhaps fortells of the apparent spin in the article):

The new study appears destined to be used by both critics and supporters of Bush's decision to invade Iraq to advance their own familiar arguments.
BTW: Don't confuse my post with any effort to argue the merits, or lack thereof, of invading Iraq, It's more a comment on this article, specifically, and in general the habit of people to interpret information to suit their agenda.

Fern
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
699
126
I did not state that AQ was not now in Iraq. I am simply stating that one of the horsesh!t reasons of going into Iraq was that AQ was there and Sadaam supported them. It is thrown around this forum by certain neoconistic people from time to time when there is nothing else left to justify why we invaded Iraq in the first place.

When all else fails, pull out the boogeyman...just like McCain pulled AQ out of his butt today stating that they may attack trying to sway US elections.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: NeoV
so fern, did you have sex with Lewinski or not?
I'm not "into" fat chicks and pizza.


Edit: I do tax law, we have to argue over the slightest meaning of words in that Martian text otherwise known as the Internal Revenue Code.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Engineer
I did not state that AQ was not now in Iraq. I am simply stating that one of the horsesh!t reasons of going into Iraq was that AQ was there and Sadaam supported them. It is thrown around this forum by certain neoconistic people from time to time when there is nothing else left to justify why we invaded Iraq in the first place.

When all else fails, pull out the boogeyman...just like McCain pulled AQ out of his butt today stating that they may attack trying to sway US elections.
I'm not really arguing with you, I prolly shouldn't have tacked onto your post.

After reading your post above I went over and checked that thread. If I was him I'd be worried about that too. What's his big claim to fame? Supporting the surge.

His much spun "100 years in Iraq" remark is just gonna kill him in the election if Iraq turns ugly and the surge is deemed a failure.

IMO, His ONLY hope to win the election is to pick up some independant voters who are wary about a quick withdrawl from Iraq. The way I see it, the more the mood in this country turns anti-Iraq "war", the less chance he has to win. An erruption of violence there would be unwelcome by him.

Other than try to get out in front of that by making this statement, IDK what he can do. He can't change his policy now. He's already deemed a flip-flopper by many.

But I think he needs to pay attention to Al Sadr and the Mahdi Army (they are not AQ, they are Shia not Sunni). IIRC the February truce/cease fire was extended 6 months, ending in October ;) Possibly very bad news for him and the Repubs. If you're a politition, it's a great year to be a Democrat.

Fern
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,085
189
106
Originally posted by: Engineer
No suprise on the report or it's new found censoring. Not suprising at all.
And no surprise at all for NOT finding a link between Iraq and AQ....


This country is stuck on STUPID!

Again,

Your corrupted tax dollars at work!

 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
It was well known by all intelligence agencies before the war was even started and it wasn't even the reason for this war, retaliation for 9/11 has NEVER been mentioned as a reason and terrorist ties were not important either.

Truth is that the US actively sponsors more terrorist groups in the same indirect fashion Iraq did when SH was the law.

Actually, not only the US but GB and the rest of the EU did the same damn thing, just through different means.

The Iraq war was started because they presented a threat to the US and it's allies with their UAV's (RC planes) that could deliver chemicals (hey, these guys bought clorex from GB, i know it for a fact because the evidence has been presented to me).

Tony Blair and the rest of his crew along with GW and his administration should be put on trial for this shit.

That does NOT change that what is done is done and now needs to be fixed, i have full confidence that the troops over there are doing good and from what i hear from the people over there, the situation has improved.

Maluckey can tell you more about that.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
-snip-
The Iraq war was started because they presented a threat to the US and it's allies with their UAV's (RC planes) that could deliver chemicals (hey, these guys bought clorex from GB, i know it for a fact because the evidence has been presented to me).
You're saying that Iraq had chemical (WMD) weapons?

Fern
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,531
2
81
Ah yes, that fleet of remote controlled planes....that was right up there with Powell's sock n puppet show - "did you hear that? Lets move these weapons" for the UN.

BLAH BLAH BLAH

Those planes were in no condition to fly, and there was hardly a 'fleet' of them anyway - but yes, this was one of the many highly 'suped' up threats that was mentioned

WTH is clorex anyway?
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
-snip-
The Iraq war was started because they presented a threat to the US and it's allies with their UAV's (RC planes) that could deliver chemicals (hey, these guys bought clorex from GB, i know it for a fact because the evidence has been presented to me).
You're saying that Iraq had chemical (WMD) weapons?

Fern
No, i'm saying we were presented with evidence that they were buying chlorine, which can be used to make chlorine gas.

They were also buying iodine and ammonia, two components that make up a mine trigger, never mind that the iodine was included in the NaCl they bought and the ammonia was part of a floor cleaning product, they still bought it.

That is the quality of the intelligence and how the handpicking of ingredients of products were made to make people believe that they were building bombs, same goes for the centrifuges that Powell got laughed out of the UN for presenting, everyone knew that they would have to be rebuilt to a degree where it would have been easier to just create them from old scrap aluminum parts of bigger missiles.

I'm saying that they lied intentionally and that every intelligence officer or any officer who were presented with the original intelligence reports knows that.

 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: NeoV
Ah yes, that fleet of remote controlled planes....that was right up there with Powell's sock n puppet show - "did you hear that? Lets move these weapons" for the UN.

BLAH BLAH BLAH

Those planes were in no condition to fly, and there was hardly a 'fleet' of them anyway - but yes, this was one of the many highly 'suped' up threats that was mentioned

WTH is clorex anyway?
That was my point, those UAV's were hobby RC planes, badly built at that, held together with tape and built from balsa wood, they couldn't carry a handgrenade without crashing because of the extra weight.

clorex is what we use to clean the shitstains out of our white undies with, it's low concentrate chlorine.

That there was no threat was my point, the ridiculous evidence is just a humorous way to present that fact. ;)
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Fern


So they found "no direct operation" link between Saddam & AQ? I thought that was well known and old news?

Fern
Apparantely you don't read some of the apologist's threads around here.
I think some of us read "differently".

The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion

While the documents reveal no Saddam-al Qaida links, they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.
In the first paragraph above we see the "official" conclusion is that they found no "direct operational link", later the author "modifies" this to the absolute "no links".

I think theoretically we could have many types of links:

1. Direct operational links
2. Financial links (general monetary support)
3. Info/intel links (generally providing intel/info)
4. material/supplies links (providing food/weapons etc)
5. knowlege/tech asistance links (how to make explosives etc)
6. Communication links (meeting/talking - which has been confirmed)
7. Other support links (I'm tired of listing so I'll lump a bunch together - providing safe houses, medical treatment, transportaion etc).
8. No links

So, if we have a scale of "links" from #1 - 8. Number 1 being the worse, and number 8 the best, the author (like the OP) just managed to take a statement of "no operation links" and turn it into "no links". We just went from no #1 all the way to #8 - they flew from one side of the scale to the complete opposite side in a blink of the eye. Hardly acurate.

What to make of this statement?:

Other documents indicate that the Fedayeen Saddam opened paramilitary training camps that, starting in 1998, hosted "Arab volunteers" from outside of Iraq . What happened to the non-Iraqi volunteers is unknown..
Or this one:

they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.
Or:

The Pentagon sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East , U.S. officials told McClatchy . However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.
I notice in this paragraph links to terrorists groups were acknowleged. I also notice the word "primarily" is chosen by the author. He didn't say "exclusively". I.e., some undefined amout of terrorist support that had nothing to with "enemies of his regime". What did it have to do with?


And the author writes this?

As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq . "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims," he said.
Are we to conclude that there are no AQ in Iraq now and GWB is incorrect? Finding no operation links back before 2003 in no way means that there are no AQ in Iraq now.

IMO, the article is poorly written at best. At worst, the author is intentionally distorting the finding of the report. I'm often surprised how people can read the same article and come away with such different interpretations.

No, Sadam had nothing to do with 911 as far we know, but he was involved with terorism at various levels.

This hints at the spin to come (or perhaps fortells of the apparent spin in the article):

The new study appears destined to be used by both critics and supporters of Bush's decision to invade Iraq to advance their own familiar arguments.
BTW: Don't confuse my post with any effort to argue the merits, or lack thereof, of invading Iraq, It's more a comment on this article, specifically, and in general the habit of people to interpret information to suit their agenda.

Fern
Nice post Fern. Maybe the apologist hunters in here will actually begin to notice the meaning of words of phrases? I doubt it because they'll usually happily ignore any extra words that get in their way where Iraq is concerned, but I'm ever the optimist.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
I suppose if I quote "The sky is light blue." in a comment, then a paragraph later mention "a blue sky"; I must have some agenda for modifying the terms since I've now said something completely different?

The author's comment was simply using his own words to reference the report.

I guess some of you recognize and admire the Bush/Cheney word games and must think it is common. It is not. Bush and Cheney & co. are elite masters of deceit. Most people chose words that actually describe the state of things rather than define a state of perception.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Fern


So they found "no direct operation" link between Saddam & AQ? I thought that was well known and old news?

Fern
Apparantely you don't read some of the apologist's threads around here.
I think some of us read "differently".

The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion

While the documents reveal no Saddam-al Qaida links, they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.
In the first paragraph above we see the "official" conclusion is that they found no "direct operational link", later the author "modifies" this to the absolute "no links".

I think theoretically we could have many types of links:

1. Direct operational links
2. Financial links (general monetary support)
3. Info/intel links (generally providing intel/info)
4. material/supplies links (providing food/weapons etc)
5. knowlege/tech asistance links (how to make explosives etc)
6. Communication links (meeting/talking - which has been confirmed)
7. Other support links (I'm tired of listing so I'll lump a bunch together - providing safe houses, medical treatment, transportaion etc).
8. No links

So, if we have a scale of "links" from #1 - 8. Number 1 being the worse, and number 8 the best, the author (like the OP) just managed to take a statement of "no operation links" and turn it into "no links". We just went from no #1 all the way to #8 - they flew from one side of the scale to the complete opposite side in a blink of the eye. Hardly acurate.

What to make of this statement?:

Other documents indicate that the Fedayeen Saddam opened paramilitary training camps that, starting in 1998, hosted "Arab volunteers" from outside of Iraq . What happened to the non-Iraqi volunteers is unknown..
Or this one:

they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.
Or:

The Pentagon sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East , U.S. officials told McClatchy . However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.
I notice in this paragraph links to terrorists groups were acknowleged. I also notice the word "primarily" is chosen by the author. He didn't say "exclusively". I.e., some undefined amout of terrorist support that had nothing to with "enemies of his regime". What did it have to do with?


And the author writes this?

As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq . "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims," he said.
Are we to conclude that there are no AQ in Iraq now and GWB is incorrect? Finding no operation links back before 2003 in no way means that there are no AQ in Iraq now.

IMO, the article is poorly written at best. At worst, the author is intentionally distorting the finding of the report. I'm often surprised how people can read the same article and come away with such different interpretations.

No, Sadam had nothing to do with 911 as far we know, but he was involved with terorism at various levels.

This hints at the spin to come (or perhaps fortells of the apparent spin in the article):

The new study appears destined to be used by both critics and supporters of Bush's decision to invade Iraq to advance their own familiar arguments.
BTW: Don't confuse my post with any effort to argue the merits, or lack thereof, of invading Iraq, It's more a comment on this article, specifically, and in general the habit of people to interpret information to suit their agenda.

Fern
Nice post Fern. Maybe the apologist hunters in here will actually begin to notice the meaning of words of phrases? I doubt it because they'll usually happily ignore any extra words that get in their way where Iraq is concerned, but I'm ever the optimist.
I am telling you that there were not even INDICATIONS of such a link even PRE WAR, everyone knows that, i'm awaiting palehorse to come in and back me up on this because he KNOWS that too.

It was NEVER presented as a fact even, hardly mentioned at all except in passing and always proceded with some excuse, it had NOTHING to do with the invasion nor was it EVER presented as part of any reason to invade.

It is completely irrelevant to the case of evidence that was handpicked before the invasion because it was not part of it.

It sure was spewed through the media centrals and right wing fanatic sites fast enough to make one believe it was, but it wasn't.

There are still people out there who believe Iraq was a war in retaliation of 9/11, i promise you there are. Now i'm probably the most freedom loving chap you'll ever meet but these people are CLEARLY not bright enough to vote.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I suppose if I quote "The sky is light blue." in a comment, then a paragraph later mention "a blue sky"; I must have some agenda for modifying the terms since I've now said something completely different?
Error: Epic Analogy Failure

The author's comment was simply using his own words to reference the report.
Yes, but as a professional wordsmith the author has a responsibility to maintain accuracy if venturing into paraphrasing. I simply think they failed. I do consider the possibility it was a result of editorial changes. I also consider it was due to "overhyping" for a dramatic effect - it sells pnewpapers etc- something I find the MSM increasingly guilty of.

I guess some of you recognize and admire the Bush/Cheney word games and must think it is common. It is not. Bush and Cheney & co. are elite masters of deceit. Most people chose words that actually describe the state of things rather than define a state of perception.
Not me. I don't like those kinds of games and am tired of watching polititions play them.

Your last sentance is a condemnation of the article. They went far more for perception instead of reality, IMO.
Edit: Check the article's title "Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam, al Qaida"

Would as many people have bothered to read it if the article was accurate?

I think most of us would just think "no sh!t", we already knew Saddam had nothing to do with 911. That's old news.

Fern
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I suppose if I quote "The sky is light blue." in a comment, then a paragraph later mention "a blue sky"; I must have some agenda for modifying the terms since I've now said something completely different?
Error: Epic Analogy Failure

The author's comment was simply using his own words to reference the report.
Yes, but as a professional wordsmith the author has a responsibility to maintain accuracy if venturing into paraphrasing. I simply think they failed. I do consider the possibility it was a result of editorial changes. I also consider it was due to "overhyping" for a dramatic effect - it sells pnewpapers etc- something I find the MSM increasingly guilty of.

I guess some of you recognize and admire the Bush/Cheney word games and must think it is common. It is not. Bush and Cheney & co. are elite masters of deceit. Most people chose words that actually describe the state of things rather than define a state of perception.
Not me. I don't like those kinds of games and am tired of watching polititions play them.

Your last sentance is a condemnation of the article. They went far more for perception instead of reality, IMO.
Edit: Check the article's title "Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam, al Qaida"

Would as many people have bothered to read it if the article was accurate?

I think most of us would just think "no sh!t", we already knew Saddam had nothing to do with 911. That's old news.

Fern
Speak for yourself, ZeroIQ stated in another threat that the Iraq invasion was retaliation for 9/11 and even while it *might* not be true it was believed to be true at the time.

I promise you my friend, there are a lot more like him.

No evidence nor even a suggestion that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 was ever laid forth, yet a majority of the American believed it, they didn't do that just by chance you know, clever speeches that almost, but not quite made that connection were spoken on an almost daily basis and while the admin didn't really make the connection, others did, some, like FoxNews even did so "in the Presidents own words", of course the admin never denied it but would never confirm it either... and then "you know" you know.

Nudge nudge, wink wink.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I am telling you that there were not even INDICATIONS of such a link even PRE WAR, everyone knows that, i'm awaiting palehorse to come in and back me up on this because he KNOWS that too.

It was NEVER presented as a fact even, hardly mentioned at all except in passing and always proceded with some excuse, it had NOTHING to do with the invasion nor was it EVER presented as part of any reason to invade.

It is completely irrelevant to the case of evidence that was handpicked before the invasion because it was not part of it.

It sure was spewed through the media centrals and right wing fanatic sites fast enough to make one believe it was, but it wasn't.

There are still people out there who believe Iraq was a war in retaliation of 9/11, i promise you there are. Now i'm probably the most freedom loving chap you'll ever meet but these people are CLEARLY not bright enough to vote.
"Such a link?" What specific kind of link out of the 8 Fern listed are you talking about?

If you're talking about an operational iink, we agree. If you're using an operational link to employ as a blanket term to imply there were no links at all, we disagree. Saddam did have links to AQ but like any group or anything he couldn't control utterly and completely, he wouldn't work with them. It's the same reason Saddam's Iraq was somewhat sectarian. Saddam wanted complete power/control and neither OBL or an Iraqi imam was going to share that power/control with him.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I am telling you that there were not even INDICATIONS of such a link even PRE WAR, everyone knows that, i'm awaiting palehorse to come in and back me up on this because he KNOWS that too.

It was NEVER presented as a fact even, hardly mentioned at all except in passing and always proceded with some excuse, it had NOTHING to do with the invasion nor was it EVER presented as part of any reason to invade.

It is completely irrelevant to the case of evidence that was handpicked before the invasion because it was not part of it.

It sure was spewed through the media centrals and right wing fanatic sites fast enough to make one believe it was, but it wasn't.

There are still people out there who believe Iraq was a war in retaliation of 9/11, i promise you there are. Now i'm probably the most freedom loving chap you'll ever meet but these people are CLEARLY not bright enough to vote.
"Such a link?" What specific kind of link out of the 8 Fern listed are you talking about?

If you're talking about an operational iink, we agree. If you're using an operational link to employ as a blanket term to imply there were no links at all, we disagree. Saddam did have links to AQ but like any group or anything he couldn't control utterly and completely, he wouldn't work with them. It's the same reason Saddam's Iraq was somewhat sectarian. Saddam wanted complete power/control and neither OBL or an Iraqi imam was going to share that power/control with him.
There was no link, NONE, not ONE of ANY kind.

In fact, there is PLENTY of proof to the opposite (SH had a force to FIGHT the militant extremists as a whole and Al Quaida especially), also known before the war, SH abhored the AQ and they weren't even in contact with him before the US invasion.

Son, you have fallen victim of your own stupidity, i'm afraid i can't help you more, move along.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY