Tenet's book discusses links between Iraq and al Qaida

[ProfJohn]

The following are all direct quotes right from Tenet?s book.
The media loves the ?without serious? debate quotes from the book, let?s see how they cover these quotes.

There was more than enough evidence to give us real concern about Iraq and al-Qa'ida; there was plenty of smoke, maybe even some fire: Ansar al-Islam [note: Tenet refers to Ansar al-Islam by its initials "AI" in several places]; Zarqawi; Kurmal; the arrests in Europe; the murder of American USAID officer Lawrence Foley, in Amman, at the hands of Zarqawi's associates; and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad operatives in Baghdad.

The intelligence told us that senior al-Qa'ida leaders and the Iraqis had discussed safe haven in Iraq. Most of the public discussion thus far has focused on Zarqawi's arrival in Baghdad under an assumed name in May of 2002, allegedly to receive medical treatment. Zarqawi, whom we termed a "senior associate and collaborator" of al-Qa'ida at the time, supervised camps in northern Iraq run by Ansar al-Islam (AI).
We believed that up to two hundred al-Qa'ida fighters began to relocate there in camps after the Afghan campaign began in the fall of 2001. The camps enhanced Zarqawi's reach beyond the Middle East. One of the camps run by AI, known as Kurmal, engaged in production and training in the use of low-level poisons such as cyanide. We had intelligence telling us that Zarqawi's men had tested these poisons on animals and, in at least one case, on one of their own associates. They laughed about how well it worked. Our efforts to track activities emanating from Kurmal resulted in the arrest of nearly one hundred Zarqawi operatives in Western Europe planning to use poisons in operations.

What was even more worrisome was that by the spring and summer of 2002, more than a dozen al-Qa'ida-affiliated extremists converged on Baghdad, with apparently no harassment on the part of the Iraqi government. They had found a comfortable and secure environment in which they moved people and supplies to support Zarqawi's operations in northeastern Iraq.

More al-Qa'ida operatives would follow, including Thirwat Shihata and Yussef Dardiri, two Egyptians assessed by a senior al-Qa'ida detainee to be among the Egyptian Islamic Jihad's best operational planners, who arrived by mid-May of 2002. At times we lost track of them, though their associates continued to operate in Baghdad as of October 2002. Their activity in sending recruits to train in Zarqawi's camps was compelling enough.
There was also concern that these two might be planning operations outside Iraq. Credible information told us that Shihata was willing to strike U.S., Israeli, and Egyptian targets sometime in the future. Shihata had been linked to terrorist operations in North Africa, and while in Afghanistan he had trained North Africans in the use of truck bombs. Smoke indeed. But how much fire, if any?

In the laborious exercise undertaken by analysts to understand the history of a potential Iraq-al Qa'ida relationship, they went back and documented the basis of a variety of sources--some good, some secondhand, some hearsay, many from other intelligence services. There were, over a decade, a number of possible high-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida, through high-level and third-party intermediaries. Our data told us that at various points there were discussions of cooperation, safe haven, training, and reciprocal nonaggression.

During the mid-1990s, Sudanese Islamic Front Leader Hasan al-Turabi reportedly served as a conduit for Bin Ladin between Iraq and Iran. Turabi in this period was trying to become the centerpiece of the Sunni extremist world. He was hosting conferences and facilitating the travel of North Africans to Hezbollah training camps in the Bekaa Valley, in Lebanon. There was concern that common interests may have existed in this period between Iraq, Bin Ladin, and the Sudanese, particularly with regard to the production of chemical weapons. The reports we evaluated told us of high-level Iraqi intelligence service contacts with Bin Ladin himself, though we never knew the outcome of these contacts.

Before you go off the deep end with your comments please remember that Tenet was appointed by Clinton and is NOT a neo-conservative.

 

[ProfJohn]

Oh look, I found another source that details the links between AQ and Iraq? the 9-11 commission report.
Page 66

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin?s public fatwa against the United State, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin?

There is more, but since it is a PDF I can't cut and paste. Go read it for yourself.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Oh look, I found another source that details the links between AQ and Iraq? the 9-11 commission report.
Page 66

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin?s public fatwa against the United State, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin?

There is more, but since it is a PDF I can't cut and paste. Go read it for yourself.

So Al Quida and Saddam had a "reported" meeting. What proof of extensive collaboration is one "reported" meeting. We discussed this "reported" meeting before the war too iirc. The intelligence sources also agreed that nothing came out of this "reported" meeting.

Face the facts. Rumsfeld himself (and the US) was far more of a collaborator with Saddam than ever Al Qaida was.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Before you go off the deep end with your comments please remember that Tenet was appointed by Clinton and is NOT a neo-conservative.

Sorry, your continued attempts at blaming Clinton for the mistakes of your hero for the last seven years is not cutting it.

 

[NeoV]

it's called "covering your own ass".

 

[conjur]

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Way to go PooferJohn! You just shot down your own beloved pResident!


Newsflash for ya. Zarqawi was KNOWN to have been operating the in the Kurdish areas in northern Iraq. In fact, Bush had more than one chance to take Zarqawi out before the invasion but rejected each opportunity.

Also, that part of Iraq was protected by the US/British No-Fly Zone and, therefore, was out of the control of Saddam. It was protected by the US/British!



And a dozen or so extremists? wow. Good thing we sent in 150,000 troops to take them out. But, looks like they missed maybe?

But, as it is now, the Iraqis have been fighting against foreign fighters and have been for over a year so this BS the Frat Boy spewed last night (which was essentially a repeat of thoe 2004 GOP Convention http://www.bushflash.com/quicktime/gop.mov ) about Al Qaeda being in Baghdad and Iraq being the central front in the "war on terruh" is just more BS rhetoric and fear-mongering.

Anything to justify the continued feeding of The Beast.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Oh look, I found another source that details the links between AQ and Iraq? the 9-11 commission report.
Page 66

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin?s public fatwa against the United State, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin?

There is more, but since it is a PDF I can't cut and paste. Go read it for yourself.

Old news and not substantiated, there is no AQ-Iraq connection. I'm sorry, get over it.

FYI you can very easily paste any text from a PDF, have one of your handlers at RNC HQ show you how.

 

[Thump553]

Tenet was a colossal failure as the head of intelligence-both 9/11 and Iraq occured on his watch, for which Bush awarded him a medal. Now he writes a turncoat, quickbuck book. I'm surprised you give it even (albiet highly selective) credence PJ-I wouldn't even use this book as a doorstop.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Tenet was a colossal failure as the head of intelligence-both 9/11 and Iraq occured on his watch, for which Bush awarded him a medal. Now he writes a turncoat, quickbuck book. I'm surprised you give it even (albiet highly selective) credence PJ-I wouldn't even use this book as a doorstop.

I think he is merely doing what the others are doing. There are enough examples of posters here who would use it to support their own views while claiming others who use it to support contrarian views are somehow wrong.

To reply to ProfJohn's original question, its being ignored because it does not advance the press's agenda.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Old news and not substantiated, there is no AQ-Iraq connection. I'm sorry, get over it.

FYI you can very easily paste any text from a PDF, have one of your handlers at RNC HQ show you how.

It is interesting how the left looks at link after link between Saddam and terrorists and tries to dismiss them as ?not substantiated.?

But they look at the one line in the Presidential Daily Brief that says ?Bin Laden determined to strike in US.? and makes the claim that we didn?t react enough to that line. Why don?t you look at that one line and dismiss it as ?not substantiated??

One line in a brief should be cause for us launching an all out assult on Osama, but page after page about terrorists connections should be no concern to us?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Thump553
Tenet was a colossal failure as the head of intelligence-both 9/11 and Iraq occured on his watch, for which Bush awarded him a medal. Now he writes a turncoat, quickbuck book. I'm surprised you give it even (albiet highly selective) credence PJ-I wouldn't even use this book as a doorstop.

I think he is merely doing what the others are doing. There are enough examples of posters here who would use it to support their own views while claiming others who use it to support contrarian views are somehow wrong.

To reply to ProfJohn's original question, its being ignored because it does not advance the press's agenda.

If that were true it would be pretty apparent that the Admin would still be pushing it. But unfortunately truth gets in the way, so now the only person still making this claim is Cheney, who has zero credibility with anyone.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
Old news and not substantiated, there is no AQ-Iraq connection. I'm sorry, get over it.

FYI you can very easily paste any text from a PDF, have one of your handlers at RNC HQ show you how.

It is interesting how the left looks at link after link between Saddam and terrorists and tries to dismiss them as ?not substantiated.?

But they look at the one line in the Presidential Daily Brief that says ?Bin Laden determined to strike in US.? and makes the claim that we didn?t react enough to that line. Why don?t you look at that one line and dismiss it as ?not substantiated??

One line in a brief should be cause for us launching an all out assult on Osama, but page after page about terrorists connections should be no concern to us?

You seem to forget the 9-11 commission report. Or are they "left" as well?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
Old news and not substantiated, there is no AQ-Iraq connection. I'm sorry, get over it.

FYI you can very easily paste any text from a PDF, have one of your handlers at RNC HQ show you how.

It is interesting how the left looks at link after link between Saddam and terrorists and tries to dismiss them as ?not substantiated.?

But they look at the one line in the Presidential Daily Brief that says ?Bin Laden determined to strike in US.? and makes the claim that we didn?t react enough to that line. Why don?t you look at that one line and dismiss it as ?not substantiated??

One line in a brief should be cause for us launching an all out assult on Osama, but page after page about terrorists connections should be no concern to us?

Because they aren't verifiable, see Tony Snow a day ago. Don't try to compare this with Bush's dereliction of duty on the PDB, you are dissembling again. The definitive narrative on this is that there was no cooperation between Saddam and AQ, period.

 

[DealMonkey]

Before I go and look at the source of these quotes, I assume PJ is taking each and every one of them out of context?

 

[jman19]

I'm not quite sure why ProfJohn tries so hard to prove a link between Iraq and al-Qaida that, if it even existed, was weak at best, especially when there are states that are well known supporters of terrorism that we seem to do nothing about.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Because they aren't verifiable, see Tony Snow a day ago. Don't try to compare this with Bush's dereliction of duty on the PDB, you are dissembling again. The definitive narrative on this is that there was no cooperation between Saddam and AQ, period.

Where can I find this 'definitive narrative'? Is it in a book some place? Who wrote it? Who declared it 'definitive'?

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
Because they aren't verifiable, see Tony Snow a day ago. Don't try to compare this with Bush's dereliction of duty on the PDB, you are dissembling again. The definitive narrative on this is that there was no cooperation between Saddam and AQ, period.

Where can I find this 'definitive narrative'? Is it in a book some place? Who wrote it? Who declared it 'definitive'?

You are wasting your time. These people are anti-Bush and anti-War. They love socialists and dictators.

There were plenty of ingredients found but no chemical weapon smoking gun so they try to completely invalidate everything.

Also...most people don't realize that it doesnt take much to create a lot of damage.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
Because they aren't verifiable, see Tony Snow a day ago. Don't try to compare this with Bush's dereliction of duty on the PDB, you are dissembling again. The definitive narrative on this is that there was no cooperation between Saddam and AQ, period.

Where can I find this 'definitive narrative'? Is it in a book some place? Who wrote it? Who declared it 'definitive'?

You are wasting your time. These people are anti-Bush and anti-War. They love socialists and dictators.

There were plenty of ingredients found but no chemical weapon smoking gun so they try to completely invalidate everything.

Also...most people don't realize that it doesnt take much to create a lot of damage.

Exactly right. We're still waiting on this "definitive" source, not to mention what was written or said. I suspect all we'll get is more namecalling and fingerpointing.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The following are all direct quotes right from Tenet?s book.
The media loves the ?without serious? debate quotes from the book, let?s see how they cover these quotes.

There was more than enough evidence to give us real concern about Iraq and al-Qa'ida; there was plenty of smoke, maybe even some fire: Ansar al-Islam [note: Tenet refers to Ansar al-Islam by its initials "AI" in several places]; Zarqawi; Kurmal; the arrests in Europe; the murder of American USAID officer Lawrence Foley, in Amman, at the hands of Zarqawi's associates; and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad operatives in Baghdad.

The intelligence told us that senior al-Qa'ida leaders and the Iraqis had discussed safe haven in Iraq. Most of the public discussion thus far has focused on Zarqawi's arrival in Baghdad under an assumed name in May of 2002, allegedly to receive medical treatment. Zarqawi, whom we termed a "senior associate and collaborator" of al-Qa'ida at the time, supervised camps in northern Iraq run by Ansar al-Islam (AI).
We believed that up to two hundred al-Qa'ida fighters began to relocate there in camps after the Afghan campaign began in the fall of 2001. The camps enhanced Zarqawi's reach beyond the Middle East. One of the camps run by AI, known as Kurmal, engaged in production and training in the use of low-level poisons such as cyanide. We had intelligence telling us that Zarqawi's men had tested these poisons on animals and, in at least one case, on one of their own associates. They laughed about how well it worked. Our efforts to track activities emanating from Kurmal resulted in the arrest of nearly one hundred Zarqawi operatives in Western Europe planning to use poisons in operations.

What was even more worrisome was that by the spring and summer of 2002, more than a dozen al-Qa'ida-affiliated extremists converged on Baghdad, with apparently no harassment on the part of the Iraqi government. They had found a comfortable and secure environment in which they moved people and supplies to support Zarqawi's operations in northeastern Iraq.

More al-Qa'ida operatives would follow, including Thirwat Shihata and Yussef Dardiri, two Egyptians assessed by a senior al-Qa'ida detainee to be among the Egyptian Islamic Jihad's best operational planners, who arrived by mid-May of 2002. At times we lost track of them, though their associates continued to operate in Baghdad as of October 2002. Their activity in sending recruits to train in Zarqawi's camps was compelling enough.
There was also concern that these two might be planning operations outside Iraq. Credible information told us that Shihata was willing to strike U.S., Israeli, and Egyptian targets sometime in the future. Shihata had been linked to terrorist operations in North Africa, and while in Afghanistan he had trained North Africans in the use of truck bombs. Smoke indeed. But how much fire, if any?

In the laborious exercise undertaken by analysts to understand the history of a potential Iraq-al Qa'ida relationship, they went back and documented the basis of a variety of sources--some good, some secondhand, some hearsay, many from other intelligence services. There were, over a decade, a number of possible high-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida, through high-level and third-party intermediaries. Our data told us that at various points there were discussions of cooperation, safe haven, training, and reciprocal nonaggression.

During the mid-1990s, Sudanese Islamic Front Leader Hasan al-Turabi reportedly served as a conduit for Bin Ladin between Iraq and Iran. Turabi in this period was trying to become the centerpiece of the Sunni extremist world. He was hosting conferences and facilitating the travel of North Africans to Hezbollah training camps in the Bekaa Valley, in Lebanon. There was concern that common interests may have existed in this period between Iraq, Bin Ladin, and the Sudanese, particularly with regard to the production of chemical weapons. The reports we evaluated told us of high-level Iraqi intelligence service contacts with Bin Ladin himself, though we never knew the outcome of these contacts.

Before you go off the deep end with your comments please remember that Tenet was appointed by Clinton and is NOT a neo-conservative.

Just in the Kurdish "SAFE ZONE" where Saddam prohibited by US and British air power? You seem to be blowing a lot of hot air without proving any points.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
Because they aren't verifiable, see Tony Snow a day ago. Don't try to compare this with Bush's dereliction of duty on the PDB, you are dissembling again. The definitive narrative on this is that there was no cooperation between Saddam and AQ, period.

Where can I find this 'definitive narrative'? Is it in a book some place? Who wrote it? Who declared it 'definitive'?

You are wasting your time. These people are anti-Bush and anti-War. They love socialists and dictators.

There were plenty of ingredients found but no chemical weapon smoking gun so they try to completely invalidate everything.

Also...most people don't realize that it doesnt take much to create a lot of damage.

I'm anti-idiot get it right. Also, you can find the ingredients to make chemical weapons at your local hardware store.

9/11 Commission -

"The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found ?no credible evidence? of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States"
....
"The report said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, even though the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for ?anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.?"
...
" At yesterday's hearing, commissioner Fred F. Fielding questioned the staff's finding of no apparent cooperation between bin Laden and Hussein. He pointed to a sentence in the first sealed indictment in 2001 of the al Qaeda members accused of the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; that sentence said al Qaeda reached an understanding with Iraq that they would not work against each other and would cooperate on acquiring arms.

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, now a U.S. attorney in Illinois, who oversaw the African bombing case, told the commission that reference was dropped in a superceding indictment because investigators could not confirm al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq as they had done with its ties to Iran, Sudan and Hezbollah. The original material came from an al Qaeda defector who told prosecutors that what he had heard was secondhand. "

Text

Looks like you all are the ones wasting our time, you can continue to put forth these false conclusions that are not credible in any shape, fashion or form. You are among the 9% that are with Cheney on this, good for you, I hope you sleep better at night.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
Because they aren't verifiable, see Tony Snow a day ago. Don't try to compare this with Bush's dereliction of duty on the PDB, you are dissembling again. The definitive narrative on this is that there was no cooperation between Saddam and AQ, period.

Where can I find this 'definitive narrative'? Is it in a book some place? Who wrote it? Who declared it 'definitive'?

You are wasting your time. These people are anti-Bush and anti-War. They love socialists and dictators.

There were plenty of ingredients found but no chemical weapon smoking gun so they try to completely invalidate everything.

Also...most people don't realize that it doesnt take much to create a lot of damage.

I'm anti-idiot get it right. Also, you can find the ingredients to make chemical weapons at your local hardware store.

9/11 Commission -

"The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found ?no credible evidence? of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States"
....
"The report said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, even though the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for ?anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.?"
...
" At yesterday's hearing, commissioner Fred F. Fielding questioned the staff's finding of no apparent cooperation between bin Laden and Hussein. He pointed to a sentence in the first sealed indictment in 2001 of the al Qaeda members accused of the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; that sentence said al Qaeda reached an understanding with Iraq that they would not work against each other and would cooperate on acquiring arms.

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, now a U.S. attorney in Illinois, who oversaw the African bombing case, told the commission that reference was dropped in a superceding indictment because investigators could not confirm al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq as they had done with its ties to Iran, Sudan and Hezbollah. The original material came from an al Qaeda defector who told prosecutors that what he had heard was secondhand. "

Text

Looks like you all are the ones wasting our time, you can continue to put forth these false conclusions that are not credible in any shape, fashion or form. You are among the 9% that are with Cheney on this, good for you, I hope you sleep better at night.

True..and if were a stranger that went there and bought a truckload of fertilizer you would probably raise some red flags.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Old news and not substantiated, there is no AQ-Iraq connection. I'm sorry, get over it.

QFT!

FYI you can very easily paste any text from a PDF, have one of your handlers at RNC HQ show you how.

They don't have time to attach PrevaricatorJohn's Internet training wheels. They're too busy working overtime, "losing" more of the e-mail traffic with the Whitehouse, especially those with Rove regarding Alberto Gonales and the fired federal prosecutors. :laugh:

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
Because they aren't verifiable, see Tony Snow a day ago. Don't try to compare this with Bush's dereliction of duty on the PDB, you are dissembling again. The definitive narrative on this is that there was no cooperation between Saddam and AQ, period.

Where can I find this 'definitive narrative'? Is it in a book some place? Who wrote it? Who declared it 'definitive'?

You are wasting your time. These people are anti-Bush and anti-War. They love socialists and dictators.

There were plenty of ingredients found but no chemical weapon smoking gun so they try to completely invalidate everything.

Also...most people don't realize that it doesnt take much to create a lot of damage.

I'm anti-idiot get it right. Also, you can find the ingredients to make chemical weapons at your local hardware store.

9/11 Commission -

"The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found ?no credible evidence? of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States"
....
"The report said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, even though the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for ?anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.?"
...
" At yesterday's hearing, commissioner Fred F. Fielding questioned the staff's finding of no apparent cooperation between bin Laden and Hussein. He pointed to a sentence in the first sealed indictment in 2001 of the al Qaeda members accused of the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; that sentence said al Qaeda reached an understanding with Iraq that they would not work against each other and would cooperate on acquiring arms.

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, now a U.S. attorney in Illinois, who oversaw the African bombing case, told the commission that reference was dropped in a superceding indictment because investigators could not confirm al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq as they had done with its ties to Iran, Sudan and Hezbollah. The original material came from an al Qaeda defector who told prosecutors that what he had heard was secondhand. "

Text

Looks like you all are the ones wasting our time, you can continue to put forth these false conclusions that are not credible in any shape, fashion or form. You are among the 9% that are with Cheney on this, good for you, I hope you sleep better at night.

True..and if were a stranger that went there and bought a truckload of fertilizer you would probably raise some red flags.

Sure it would. But I think it's fair to say that Saddam didn't really run as tight of a ship as we were led to believe. I think one thing that we can all agree on is that Iraqi's aren't good housekeepers. They didn't run their defense programs like we do. Finding a few dozen shells in the desert that someone buried and forgot about in 1989 or whenever isn't a smoking gun.

We know that he was bluffing about everything, he was paranoid and terrified of Iran and losing power.

We were told that he had reconstituted all of his programs, we were shown pictures of mobile weapons factories and given the exact amount of time it would take Saddam to launch these weapons against our allies in the region. We were told how easily this could be given to extremist elements and then transferred to the US.

I remember Colin Powell's address to the UN, I watched the entire thing live. I listened to everything the Admin was putting forth as concrete evidence and I believed them at the time.

 

[Jhhnn]

Funny how the CIA and the Admin knew about the Al Qaeda camps in northern Iraq all along, but did nothing to damage them between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.... nor would they allow Saddam to take action, either...

Apparently, it's more important to have a terrorist boogeyman than to destroy him-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Funny how the CIA and the Admin knew about the Al Qaeda camps in northern Iraq all along, but did nothing to damage them between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.... nor would they allow Saddam to take action, either...

Apparently, it's more important to have a terrorist boogeyman than to destroy him-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

I thought we were in a world war against terrorism? Why haven't we attacked Hezbollah? The people that killed all of our marines.