Saddan had no link to Al Qaeda, report censored

[Greg Pack]

Doug although wikipedia is a useful tool, anything controversial should be taken with a grain of salt. Not a good place to cite as a reputable factual internet source.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051204-5682.html

The same booming economy that we had in the late 90's that many libs love to cite was an equity bubble. President Clinton slipped out just a few months before it popped and Bush inherited it. This bubble was allowed to move into housing and got worse. Most blame Mr. Greenspan for allowing the supply of money to flow into housing relatively unabated. People watched "Flip this house" on HGTV and got excited. They bought up every shack in California, installed granite countertops and sold it for 150K profit to the next sucker. It was a wonderful ponzi scheme unless you were the last one in. Now, the government is trying to pick up these idiots' tabs.

You guys should like Bush more than you do, he is the most Democrat-like president we have had well, since his daddy. It's not a political thing. George Bush appointed Greenspan and Clinton re-appointed him.

Commodities run in cycles. Investment guy Jim Rogers points out 17 year cycles. He predicted the start of a boom in 2000. You could argue that that our need for a bubble to keep the economy growing is moving out of housing and into commodities. BTW, a lot of people think the dollar will continue to fall another 10-20% before it is backstopped, so you might as well prepare for it. Look at the ticker symbol UDN, USO,UNG, GLD,SLV, DBA,& RJA if you feel commodities will continue on their run. But the commodity bubble might pop too, then we're probably back to an equity bubble. Just don't be the guy left holding the bag.

Methinks many, many libs are going to become disenchanted when they finally get their people in office and realize so little that affects their daily life has changed.

 

[pitzerwm]

Like I've said many times Doug, "so what"? Most of us know the truth, and while we wish things were different, it isn't going to be different. If the Dems get in they claim that they are just drop everything and pull out. An idiot can see that would be as big of a disaster as it is now. Like it or not Iraq oil is important to the world supply. If we leave the country and its a total civil war, the oil supply will stop, then oil will be $150 a barrel and the dems will find someone else to blame. Not understanding that political unknowns, the rapid growth of China and India isn't pushing the price of oil up, has their head in the sand. So you sitting here claiming to understand/know something that we don't know is ridiculous, and since the most you can do about it besides bitching, is to vote GW out of office but since it is pretty much guaranteed that he will leave office in Jan. IMO you continue to **** into the wind.

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

cfcw,

I know all about wiki. However it is ok for this purpose of reference (I'm not using it for a paper).Many LIBS are mad as hell with Polosi and Reed now for not doing more. So why would I be surprised if not much changes after the election?

Bill, Bush is making sure we CAN'T PULL TROOPS OUT! And I'm almost gonna bet that oil will hit $150 a barrel before the election this fall! So I don't see blaming the Dems ahead of time.... Bush F this one up. History will tell.

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

http://glumbert.com/media/presidentswords

funny... comedy central

http://glumbert.com/media/madworld

Sad... but well put.

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

sadder

http://glumbert.com/media/saddestsong

 

[pitzerwm]

Doug, you will like this one and actually, I don't disagree with Lee Iacocca either.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/iacocca.asp

Most people would agree that Bush has screwed up a lot of things, but I don't see anyone that I'd want in there. We are dammed if we do and dammed if we don't.

 

[jfmoran]

While I admire Lee Iacocca and his leadership skills (I wrote a paper on him for some college work a couple of years ago), I believe this article is just a tad self-serving. I have a few issues with Lee, #1 he allegedly supported Bush for president in 2000, Kerry in 2004 and Richardson in 2008, #2 despite his brilliance as a CEO he was on the receiving end of one of the most famous cases of corporate welfare when the US government guaranteed the loans that allowed Chrysler to stave off Bankruptcy and recover as a company and #3 at one time he was one of the most recognizable faces in America and hugely popular (despite the government handout) and was encouraged to run for president and in my opinion, didn't have the balls too. While I don't disagree with his assessment of our leaders, it's a bit grand standing and self-serving considering he was never a political leader in our country.

John Moran

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

Jimmy.... WTF do you think is driving up the cost of OIL now? Get a grip dude.... the Feds have DEFLATED THE DOLLAR to hedge off inflation... THAT IN TURN HAS DRIVEN INVESTORS TO COMODITIES.... that commodity is OIL and GOLD. Since we begun slashing the dollar... oil has shot up 25% from $80 -$110 a barrel and Gold closed at over $1000 yesterday. Study your economics before you slam me for my political view. Politics has a lot to do with oil dude.... how much oil do war ships, tank and planes need to run a war? Who declare war.... corporations... free trade zones? Politicians DO!

The price of oil has every thing to do with politicians... wake up. They write the US ENERGY POLICY TOO!

Now this is too freaky:

http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/analysts-govt-funds-heat-up-oil-prices/n20080316144309990020

"They have two places to put their money: stock markets and commodities markets," said James Cordier, president of optionsellers.com, a trading firm. "That's an easy choice right now."

The S&P 500 index has fallen approximately 16 percent from its high last October, while oil futures traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange have jumped 29 percent since then.

Some analysts estimate that the stampede by investment banks, hedge funds and other institutional investors into oil futures - which closed Friday at $110.21 a barrel - has lifted the price by as much as $30.

The same dynamic has sent gold to record high prices near $1,000 per ounce.

Maybe I just read more?

 

[pitzerwm]

Well, there is a lot of articles telling you where to put your money. I'd guess that one out of 1000's advice is right, but the trick is which one. Obviously, I watch the financial channel all day long and I have no suggestions. I think you need to be patient there are a lot of rainbows to chase. I remember when Gold went from $470 to $800 in a couple of days and then back to $200 or so in days. You might as well go to the casino and put it all on black or red.

 

[SCS]

You know Doug it has been quite a while but I don't remember the President telling the country we need to go to war in Iraq because Sadam was heavily involved with AlKaeda. The case as I remember it was the Sadam was a very bad guy with intentions and plans to comitt terrorist acts against us who violated the UN Sanction that specified the country was to be invaded should he violate it. Turns out all of that has been proven true.

I also remember the left saying the real reason was we were going there to steal their oil. That turned out not to be true.

Then they said it was to get cheap oil for the oil companies that Bush was in bed with. That turned out not to be true.

Then they said it was to protect Israel. That turned out not to be true.

Then they said it was a personal grudge to get sadam for attempting to kill his father George Bush the senior. That turned out not to be true.

Then it was to line the pockets of defense contractors. That turned out not to be true.

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

You know Doug it has been quite a while but I don't remember the President telling the country we need to go to war in Iraq because Sadam was heavily involved with AlKaeda. The case as I remember it was the Sadam was a very bad guy with intentions and plans to comitt terrorist acts against us who violated the UN Sanction that specified the country was to be invaded should he violate it. Turns out all of that has been proven true.


Scott,

I think you better go watch that link to the actual video of the Adminstration "WORDS" that I posted. here: http://www.leadingtowar.com/

It it, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeild, Rice ALL STATED from their lips that Saddam has links to Al Qeada, that he has, is seeking or is only 6 months aways for a nuclear weapon. NONE was true.

September 25, 2002
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice appears on PBS’ News Hour and states
[link to source]

“We know too that several of the (al Qaeda) detainees, in particular, some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development.”



September 26, 2002
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld holds a Department of Defense news briefing [link to source]

“We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior level contacts going back a decade, and of possible chemical and biological agent training. And when I say contacts, I mean between Iraq and al Qaeda… We do have– I believe it's one report indicating that Iraq provided unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters for al Qaeda members.”



October 7, 2002
President George W. Bush outlines the Iraqi threat in Cincinnati [link to source]

“We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.”


November 4, 2002
Remarks by President George W. Bush at the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport
[link to source]

“ [Hussein’s] had contacts with al Qaeda. Imagine a scenario where an al Qaeda-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons.”

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

cont.

January 2003 [reported at a later date]
From a CIA statement (declassified by Congress in October 2005) [link to source]

“In January 2003, the CIA produced an updated version of the report ‘Iraqi Support for Terrorism.’ That report cited the [al-Libi] claims that al-Qa’ida sent operatives to Iraq to acquire chemical and biological weapons and related training but noted the detainee was not in a position to know if any training had taken place.”





February 5, 2003
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on CNN’s Larry King Live [link to source]

“There is no question in my mind about the al Qaeda connection. And what emerges is a picture of a Saddam Hussein who … began to give them assistance in chemical and biological weapons, something that they were having trouble achieving on their own…”



February 5, 2003
Secretary of State Colin Powell addresses the United Nations Security Council [link to source]

“I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative [Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi] telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al-Qaida. ... The support that this detainee describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two al-Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abdallah al-Iraqi had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gasses. Abdallah al-Iraqi characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.”



February 6, 2003
President George W. Bush gives a statement in the White House Roosevelt Room [link to source]

“Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.”



March 9, 2003
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on CBS News’ Face the Nation [link to source]

“We know from a detainee that – the head of training for al-Qaida – that they sought help in developing chemical and biological weapons because they weren't doing very well on their own. They sought it in Iraq. They received the help.”

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

Scott,

Don't make this about "THE LEFT" they didn't go to war. And I think most would agree that the contractors have make a lot of money in Iraq.... go read the news and prospectus about them! KBR failed to pay 35 BILLION in payroll TAXES (they can't be doing that poorly). Thy sticking to the FACTS... after 5 years... they're out there!

 

[SCS]

Doug, if I recall correctly you and I have gone over this before on this forum. You face the unfortunate circumstances that all of the folks on this forum were actually alive and aware during the time leading up to the invasion of Iraq. You are misleading people when you try to get them to believe that al Kaeda presence in Iraq was the reason for the invasion. The reason was as I stated above. I would bet that almost every person on this forum would agree with that.

Was there a link between Iraq and Al Kaeda of course. Every one knows that and it has been proven (if you want to just google it and post the thousands of links that show this, but you won't you will just post the ones that show otherwise). Was it the primary motivating factor for the invasion no (in fact I would guess that many of the links were not even discovered until after the invasion).

Stop posting links no one reads them when you post them because they are predominately from unreliable internet sources or taken out of context by Socialist, left wing, hate Bush wing nuts like yourself.

Here's what I'll give you (and it's not enough for you because you're a hater) and I suspect most would agree with me:

THE DOMINANT OPINION OF OUR (AND OTHER COUNTRIES) INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATES IN SOME INSTANCES OVERESTIMATED IRAQS PROGRESS IN DEVELOPING WEAPONS AND PLANS THAT PRESUMABLY (AND CONSISTENT WITH SADAMS NUMEROUS STATEMENTS) WERE TO BE USED AGAINST US AND OUR ALLIES.

That is it. There is no big conspiracy. There is no horific criminal conduct by our leaders or our intelligence agency or our military. There is no scandal. There is no justification for your psycotic level of hatred.

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

apparently SCS CAN'T REAd and doesn't believe our our Milatary REPORTS, so I'll reiterate it again sloooowly. read the article again and I will highlight the lines for yooou!
{Entire article}
ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: ABC News has obtained a comprehensive military study of Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism. The study, which is due to be released Wednesday, is based on the analysis of some 600,000 official Iraqi documents seized by US forces after the invasion. It is also based on thousands of hours of interrogations of former top officials in Saddam's government who are now in U.S. custody.

The headline: "This study found no 'smoking gun' (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda."

Others have reached the same conclusion, but no previous study has had access to so much information. Further, this is the first official acknowledgement from the U.S. military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda.

The study does, however, show that Saddam Hussein did much to support terrorism in the Middle East and used terrorism "as a routine tool of state power." Saddam's government, for example, had a program for the "development, construction, certification and training for car bombs and suicide vests in 1999 and 2000." The U.S. military is still dealing with the fall-out from this particular program.

The report says Saddam's bureaucrats carefully recorded the regime's connections to Palestinian terrorists groups and its financial support for the families of suicide bombers.The primary target, however, of Saddam's terror activities was not the United States, and not Israel. "The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq." Saddam's primary aim was self preservation and the elimination of potential internal threats to his power.

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

Was there a link between Iraq and Al Kaeda of course. Every one knows that and it has been proven (if you want to just google it and post the thousands of links that show this, but you won't you will just post the ones that show otherwise). Was it the primary motivating factor for the invasion no (in fact I would guess that many of the links were not even discovered until after the invasion).

Your wrong, wrong, wrong. The 911 report stated "no link between Saddam & Al Qeada", the CIA's reports said "no links exist", 3 or 4 NIE said no link along with our presence is making it more dangerous and now the US military says "no link exist" yet YOU insist that the administation is correct and justify it by saying that I'm wrong because I'm a "hater" of Bush? No, I just refuse to drink the kool-aide. You continue to be deluded into thinking that everything leading up to this war was correct and factual instead of the real facts.... we we told what the administration wanted to tell us to get us into this war for there our reasons... not for the US best interest, and certianly not based on facts of evidence. If you watched the video link you would actually see that about 1/2 of what they did say WAS THE TRUTH, it's the other half that was a far strech. But your too scared to actually watch the links (for fear of being BRAIN WASHED by socialist beings).

 

[SCS]

Doug you are makeing my case for me. I'll try to make this simple for you.

Where are all the quotes from before the invasion saying we are invading because Iraq is linked to Al Kaeda? They don't exist because that was not the reason for the invasion. We were all here and listening we never heard this. You are apparently the only person who was hearing this and you can't come up with a reference for what you think you heard over and over again from the Bush adm leading up to the invasion. I told you above the reason the Bush Adm gave for the invasion but you can't address it.

Was there ever any link of any kind between Iraq and Al Kaeda? Of course there was apparently you don't want to believe that because in your eyes that makes Bush right some how (don't ask me how but for you this is an issue). If it will shut you up I'll get you one documented link that will make your references to "none" and "no" disputed. The link I will find you will not be significant nor relevant (because that's not why we went in) but it will show there was a link since apparently you are obsessed with this issue. But it doesn't matter that is not why we went into Iraq and no one has ever said it was the primary reason.

Rather than just posting your liberal media, socialist, hate bush, moveon.org, daily Kos, talking points why don't you try to address my prior points. And no I don't read or listen to your links and no one else does here either.

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

Scott, The quotes are 4 threads above! READ THEM. They were repeated over and over again as to why we had to go into Iraq, because Saddam could and did have links to Al Qeada (which was not true and has been proven to be not true) because he had weapons and his associations with them and the 911 members would bring a "mushroom cloud"!

That turned public support that was at a low to over 60% support into going to war. But again your affraid to watch any documentary or read any media.

You also said we found WMD... you never provide me with that proof... because there wasn't any! Saddam distroyed it in 91' and the rest was distroyed under the UN weapons inspections programs. The only stuff he had is what WE SHIPPED HIM durring the Iran Iraq war under the direction of Rumfeild.... which BTW came from a Florida company (the agents which was used to gas the Kurds in the north).

So no WMD, no Nuke program, no Al Qeada, no drone planes with crop dusting equipment to spread gas & chemical agents, no mobil labs, only a few dozens SCUD missles with RESIDUE of old nerve/gas agents left in the shell cases.

 

[Jimmy Buffett]

Hey Doug did you know that Coke is suing Coke Zero for taste infringement? I know that it's true. I saw it on tv.

 

[rph9168]

Before he was hanged, Saddam admitted that he intentionally deceived the US and others while violating the weapons inspection agreement he had signed because he thought others (mainly Iran) would take that as a sign of weakness. He also said he had the means to create the WMF in a very short period of time at hand if necessary. They have found some components buried in the desert in Iraq. He also said he thought the cause of Al Quaeda was a benefit to his manitaining power in Iraq and was willing to work with them if necessary.

I agree with most of the others that reasons given for attaching Iraq did not include Al Quaeda. Trying to continue that argument is ridiculous and serves only the purpose to prove ignorance of the facts.