9/11 Commission finds no Credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam

POSTED BY: Zoriah
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 7, 2004 14:06
VIEWED: 22056
PAGE 1 of 1

ZORIAH

Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:50 AM

Interesting developments today. I heard on the radio this morning that the 9/11 commission had ruled out that there were any definite links between Al Quaeda and Iraq, one of the primary reasons given for the US led invasion. I live in New Zealand so the sources for news is often varied with a tendency to draw from Australian and UK channels etc.

So I go online to check out the headlines.

What a huge difference: compare the major US headlines slant to the International ones.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

"Probe Rules out Iraq-9/11 Links" - the article goes on to say that the commission found 'no credible evidence' that Iraq helped the terrrorist militants.

http://www.abc.com.au/

"Sept 11 Report destroys argument for Iraq War" -
A report from the official investigation into the September 11 terrorist attacks "blows apart" Prime Minister John Howard's argument that the invasion of Iraq is part of the war on terrorism.

THEN let's look at CNN

http://www.cnn.com/

"9/11 Panel: Al Qaeda planned to Hijack 10 planes" - with caption : plot originally called for hijacking 10 planes and crashing them into the FBI and CIA headquarters, the Pentagon and the White House, as well as nuclear plants etc

ABC news
http://abcnews.go.com/Sections/WNT/

and it's the same - focussed on the possiblity the original 9/11 plot was for more planes (and therefore could have been much worse) and completely burying the biggest news coming from the official 9/11 commission about the LACK of CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that IRAQ and Saddam Hussein's regime was connected to/aiding Al Qaeda at all.

Foxnews.com didn't even have the 9/11 findings on their front headlines, no, they were busy trying to justify why a detainee was hidden from the Red Cross inspections.

http://www.foxnews.com/

"US Kept Terrorist from Red Cross" Plus some smaller headlines about Anti-torture stance, oil pipelines attacked, Buffy force for good, and Zarqawi may be in Fallujhah! :lol:

IMO it seems the major US media channels really want to keep the general public ignorant/unaware of certain developments. At least the Washington Post has both headlines featured equally prominently on their front page.

A poll conducted by the University of Maryland in April found that 57% of Americans believe Iraq was substantially supporting al-Qaeda before the 11 September 2001 attacks or was involved in the attacks themselves. And that number was hardly changed from a similar poll a year earlier.

Get informed people!!!

SUCCATASH

Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:54 AM

Yes.

SEVENPERCENT

Thursday, June 17, 2004 3:18 AM

Informed, politically aware Americans knew this already, and watched the country get hijacked by its leaders into an unjust war- But what are you gonna do? The real news is out there, the history books are out there, yet the majority of Americans fail to pay any attention to either of them- If there's an article that confirms the Iraq facts such as no connection, the conservative outlets call it propaganda from the Liberal Media Elite and say that no matter what we did the right thing because we want to be good Americans and defeat evil; and the average Joe says, 'yeah, he was evil, and I dont want to be un-American,' and falls for it- Or you get the 'Our administration lied, but hey we have soldiers over there now so we're gonna go ahead and believe anything the govt. force feeds us because if you speak out you're un-American and against the troops' group-
The thing that amuses me though is that someone in New Zealand can find the articles and figure out the facts, but people in the country that's at war act like they have blinders on-
And just for the record, I had a moratorium on politics until this thread, so I had to release the pressure valve with this post- lol- It's all your fault Zoriah for making me crabby today- lol

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

SUCCATASH

Thursday, June 17, 2004 3:34 AM

Yes. Yes.

ZORIAH

Thursday, June 17, 2004 3:58 AM

Sorry!

*offers a big hug*

I have had some cranky days lately, let me tell you. But that's because I want to make sure I am keeping up with the news, I care about what is happening around the world and some stuff is just darn scary to me at the moment.

STANDING8

Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:26 AM

yeah i hate the american spin. im from the US but when i check for news online everyday. i ALWAYS go to BBC news first, cause i want no spinning. then i will proceed to check out the NY times and then cnn.

on a side note: im curious to see FARENHEIT 9/11.

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
What a huge difference: compare the major US headlines slant to the International ones.

I have been quite busy with summer session (not to mention no inet 2 weeks :() and haven't had time to pay attention to the news lately so thanks for the update.

But, I do remember this from when I lived in the states. I found it disgusting what drivel was (and still is) put out by the US media. You just made me remember. It's something that is bitter sweet.

On the one hand I don't want to know these things because it is so very sad. But, on the other hand, I need to keep these things in mind if I'm going to have an informed opinion about such matters.

The very sad thing is that this happens with pretty much everything news worthy. When will they read the writing on the wall

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

JCOBB

Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:57 AM

Perhaps its just me, but I don't know if this is "breaking" news persay. I mean, I supported the conflict, but I went into it knowing there wasn't a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, that wasn't my main concern regarding Iraq, nor for that matter was WMD's nessecarily.

I don't care, I'm still free.

QUICKSAND

Thursday, June 17, 2004 6:09 AM

This isn't news to anyone that's .... been.... reading.... the.... NEWS!!!!

Not only was there no credible link between Saddam and Al Qaeda... there was NEVER any kind of link at ALL!!!

Every single 9/11 terrorist, except two, were from Saudi Arabia. The other two were from Egypt. This isn't news, the New York Times had this YEARS ago.

Liberal Media, my Big Fat Ass. Don't forgot to VOTE!!!!!

ZORIAH

Thursday, June 17, 2004 8:57 AM

I guess to me it was breaking news because the 9/11 non partisan blue ribbon commission are the ones who came to this conclusion.

I was hoping that general joe public might actually see this and get a clue.

So what are the legitimate valid reasons for invading Iraq that Bush and the administration have put forward that haven't been discredited?

MILORADELL

Thursday, June 17, 2004 12:30 PM

Quote:
So what are the legitimate valid reasons for invading Iraq that Bush and the administration have put forward that haven't been discredited?

Ummmm...that Bush & CO are empire building? I don't think THAT's been discredited.

ROFLMAO!!!! It's either that, or cry.

edit - oops. Bush & Co. haven't actually said that themselves. My mistake

****
"History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind."

Edward Gibbon

JONTHEBROWNCOAT

Thursday, June 17, 2004 1:12 PM

How about UN resolution 1441? Apparently the UN did not have the will to enforece it and Bush stepped up to the bat to take action.

France and Russia had a lot of oil deals in Iraq and now there is some interesting dirt coming on out on the UN and how corrupt the organization is, looks like everybody was getting a kickback for the Oil for Food deal that was cut.

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JontheBrowncoat:
How about UN resolution 1441? Apparently the UN did not have the will to enforece it and Bush stepped up to the bat to take action.

As far as I know, all 1441 said was that if Iraq didn't quite doing "bad things" then they would suffer severe consequences.

The problem is (and here is where the argument starts) is who decides when enough is enough? Who knows even if that enough is going on (we all knew that the enough Bush & Co put forth for going in was bs ie no proof to begin with)? And who decides what those severe consequences are?

There are a whole lot of other questions to ask when it comes to all this but pretty much all (if not all) of them end up being bad for Bush (the answers anyway). The *facts* state that it is this way now (the rest of the world knew before this all happened).

But this is just starting that same old tired debate that has been fought in many other threads. So, back on topic.

ZOZORIAH
This *is* news. Another body in the US has stated what has been stated time and time again. ie The reasons stated to go into Iraq were unfounded. This is just another nail in the coffin of the Bush Admin. It's becoming more and more difficult to deny such things

Let's just hope enough Americans figure it out before they go to vote

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

JCOBB

Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
I guess to me it was breaking news because the 9/11 non partisan blue ribbon commission are the ones who came to this conclusion.

I was hoping that general joe public might actually see this and get a clue.

So what are the legitimate valid reasons for invading Iraq that Bush and the administration have put forward that haven't been discredited?

Well, the reasons are there if you care to look for them, (at least they are more blatantly obvious to me then the reasons, granted still valid, put forth for the Serbian conflict). From absolute atrocities committed throughout Saddam's reign, (I don't think that anyone is disputing thaT) to the gas attacks (Bloody Friday) at Halabja and the persection of the Kurds. What confuses me is that there was (apparently?) wide support for taking out Milosevic for his crimes against humanity, and yet, at least in Europe, the support for taking out Saddam was nearly nonexistant. Not to point fingers, but might that be because several European nations had exceptionally beneficial arrangements worked out with Iraq? Hell, I know that France sold Saddam some of their Mirage aircraft, and Super-Frelon and Alouette helicopters, (this is in the mid to late 80's) nevermind the threats that were made by a state sponsored Iraqi Newspaper that would disrupt trade between some French companies and Iraq if they voted "Yes," to military action in Iraq.

Anyways, the French aren't a terribly evil force or anything, just seems to be a little odd that some of the biggest detractors from a war were set up to benefit from keeping a dictator in power. (The US has often benefitted from this, so I don't know if we can throw stones in glass hosues.)

I don't care, I'm still free.

HERO

Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:00 PM

I agree. There was never a connection between the Saddam regime and any form of terror.

Now if he had paid the families of suicide bombers or harbored terrorist groups, or allowed known Al Qaeda terrorists to get hospital care in Baghdad and then end up getting picked up coalition troops after the war, or gassed, raped, murdered, mutilated, cancelled Firefly, to his own people, or had his intelligence service work with Al Qaeda operatives including one or more the 9/11 hijackers, or used the Oil for Food program as a mechanism to systematically corrupt the entire UN, or fired at Coalition planes in the no fly zone he agreed to respect as a condition to ending the 1991 hostilites, or any myriad of other bad acts.

But he didn't do any of those things because we all live in Fantasyland. And in Fantasyland Saddam and Bin Ladden could rape Jessica Lynch live on national TV and somehow Bush would be responsible. The Fantasylanders would argue that the FCC should never have allowed this to be broadcast.

Bush should resign, because if he hadn't stolen Florida by contesting a recount of Democratic votes by Democratic vote counters then the evildoers could have bribed Gore into submission and there'd be no terror war to steal Iraq's oil, which somehow we didn't even get.

Fantasyland, where Clinton didn't have sex, Hillary is dedicated to serving her country and not herself, Gore won the election, France is a world power, John Kerry is a war hero, and Bin Ladden and Saddam are misunderstood men of peace.

You can have it, I prefer the real world, but not reality TV.

JEC
ALD

GHOULMAN

Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:20 PM

Thanks for the post Zoriah.

The silence regarding the US Empire is precisely the same insanity that begat the Vietnam "conflict". Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead already and the killing will not stop. American soldiers are once again going out into bullsheit patrols and "pacification" missions which only get them slaughtered.

2 Million Vietnam Soldiers were killed in the 10 years the USA made war there. The USA only stopped when the truth about the reasons for the "conflict" came to light. The reason? No one wanted to loose. Not Truman, Ike, JFK, or LBJ. They let the death continue for thier own gain. Why?

A conspiracy of silence. Do a search for "the Pentagon Papers" if you want to know the truth about that war.

Americans need to take back thier governement from the rich elite who are perpetuating such insanity. Good frellin' luck since the US President clearly stated "you're either with us, or against us".

Well, count me against.

JCOBB

Thursday, June 17, 2004 5:04 PM

I think you forgot to mention the evil zionist plot to take over the nation through the usage of the media and the AIDs virus, which is tied into the alien conspiracy to control the northern hemisphere by using mind control on the leaders of the known world!

I got my tin foil hat Ghoulman, (its the only way to block the signals) do you have yours?

By the way, comparing the current situation in Iraq to Vietnam is exceptionally uninformed, in my opinion anyways. The only similarities I can see would be the use of guerilla warfare, and perhaps some vague notion that the "freedom" fighters over there could be compared to the Vietcong by their ability to blend in with the populice. Other then that the two aren't even remotely similar.

I don't care, I'm still free.

MINDSEYE

Thursday, June 17, 2004 6:45 PM

"We have examined the allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9. Based on the evidence available—including
investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting—we do not believe
that such a meeting occurred."

This is the only statement regarding Iraq in "Staff Statement No. 16" released by the 911 commission"

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/staff_statement_16.pd
f

This brief snip from the statement does not, IMHO, prove or disprove any possible involvement of Iraq in 911. It just states that they do not think "Atta" met with an Iraqi intel-operative. Read the statement and make up you own mind. Don't rely on a reporters opinion.

Freedom - Peace - Serenity

Kell

SUCCATASH

Thursday, June 17, 2004 6:50 PM

You can prove that something happened, but how do you prove that something didn't happen?

MINDSEYE

Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

You can prove that something happened, but how do you prove that something didn't happen?

I am not trying to prove it one way or the other. I just thought it was interesting reading all the different interpretations of that “one mention of Iraq” in the “Official Statement” from the 911 commission. Sometimes it's better to get your information from the source and then make your decision on what might have/have not happened.

Freedom – Peace – Serenity

Kell

GHOULMAN

Thursday, June 17, 2004 8:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

You can prove that something happened, but how do you prove that something didn't happen?

That's how "conspiracy of silence" works.

"When they came for the gypsies, I did not speak, for I am not
a gypsy. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak, because I
wasn't a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak, for I
am not a Catholic. And when they came for me, there was no one left to
speak."

GHOULMAN

Thursday, June 17, 2004 8:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
I think you forgot to mention the evil zionist plot to take over the nation through the usage of the media and the AIDs virus, which is tied into the alien conspiracy to control the northern hemisphere by using mind control on the leaders of the known world!

I got my tin foil hat Ghoulman, (its the only way to block the signals) do you have yours?

By the way, comparing the current situation in Iraq to Vietnam is exceptionally uninformed, in my opinion anyways. The only similarities I can see would be the use of guerilla warfare, and perhaps some vague notion that the "freedom" fighters over there could be compared to the Vietcong by their ability to blend in with the populice. Other then that the two aren't even remotely similar.

I don't care, I'm still free.

You are not free. You don't live in a democracy.

The Pentagon Papers were proof of the White House complicity (over decades) in war. Notice that Dick Cheney comes from the same governement (Dick Nixen) that escalated the Vietnam war.

Same shit, different pile.

Search for "the Pentagon Papers"... there are loads of sites, many official or right from Universities.

Americans need to understand that a right wing crowd has gained complete control and will do whatever is in thier interests... NOT THE PEOPLES.

And the White House has murdered over 10,000 Iraqi citizens over it with no regard for law (Gods or even their own)... or history. I guess they figured America is watching TV.

JCOBB

Thursday, June 17, 2004 8:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

You are not free. You don't live in a democracy.

The Pentagon Papers were proof of the White House complicity (over decades) in war. Notice that Dick Cheney comes from the same governement (Dick Nixen) that escalated the Vietnam war.

Same shit, different pile.

Search for "the Pentagon Papers"... there are loads of sites, many official or right from Universities.

Americans need to understand that a right wing crowd has gained complete control and will do whatever is in thier interests... NOT THE PEOPLES.

And the White House has murdered over 10,000 Iraqi citizens over it with no regard for law (Gods or even their own)... or history. I guess they figured America is watching TV.

Erm, I do hate to rain on your parade but it was Nixon that DEescalated in Vietnam. It was Johnson and Kennedy that esclated. You are either terribly ignorant, or terribly misinformed.

And, quite frankly, I am glad I don't live in a democracy. I live in a Constitutional Republic and couldn't be more pleased about it. I don't think the average Joe is capable, (nor willing) to have direct control in the government, (though I do subscribe to the policy that the government that governs best, governs least) though that does NOT mean that our own "form" of democracy is for the complacent, (it is not). Democracy, or even our constitutional republic, is an active process, for all citizens, (or at least those that wish to be involved). This involves discussions, protesting, (if you think its nessecary) gathering with those of similar thoughts or ideals, running for office, or helping campaign for others that run for office.

Furthermore, while 10,000 Iraqi's maybe dead, (perhaps you aren't aware, but people DIE in war, its why war is so terrible) estimates of the number Saddam has killed, or led to be killed, can go as high as a million. Does that justify the deaths of 10,000 Iraqi citizens, (how many of those were combatants?) I don't think so. I find it very hard to justify death in general. Does that mean that it would've been better to appease Iraq? Perhaps had your country benefitted from Saddam.

Anyways, I hope your tin foil hat is secured around your head. Its when you sleep that they get you!

EDIT

Also, could you please explain how you equate whether or not the governmental system I current live under directly impacts my level of freedom? I can live under a benevolent dictator and have as much freedom, if not more, then any democracy could provide for me. I want to think you don't believe that democracy automatically equals freedom, but I can't help but think that is what you mean.

I don't care, I'm still free.

ZORIAH

Friday, June 18, 2004 12:51 AM

Mindseye:

Ummm, Actually - I was going from the PDF files of the preliminary commission report downloadable from the BBC News page. It is from the Staff Statement 15 - Named Overview of the Enemy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm

Page 5 of the 12 page report (which is also available here (thanks for the link): http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/staff_statement_15.pd
f)

Has actual statements in there such as "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," and "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

Maybe YOU might want to read that document and then come back to me on this, I was NOT just going by some reporter's 'opinion' and it is clear the journalists weren't just talking out of their collective asses either.

RUE

Friday, June 18, 2004 2:26 AM

As usual I read through all major documents.

Colin Powell's UN speech.
UN resolution 1441.
Bush's State of the Union Addresses.
David Kay's report.
White House and State Department official releases (available on repective websites.)
And the most recent 9/11 Commission reports.

To show you what kind of nut-case I am for facts, I read through all availble testimony at the Justice Department website on the Microsoft trial.

I've decided facts irritate a lot of people who like their opinions unadulterated.

So here are my opinions, sans pesky facts:

The spin in US media plain sucks. The UK Independent is the best English-language website I've come across, even better than the BBC. But, as easy as it is to get real news, most people in the US would rather not. It interferes with a smug self-serving mind-set.

The US actually sold Hussein the chemicals, know-how, and equipment to gas the Kurds and Iranians. (The US wasn't alone it this - other countries were also willing to make a buck selling weapons.) The US also provided post-gassing 'ground truth' so Iraq could adjust its techniques. Rumsfeld met with Hussein to reassure him that the UN resolution re: the use of CW agents wouldn't go anywhere, and wouldn't affect the good working relationship the US had with Iraq. Yup, Hussein sure was evil.

JCOBB

Friday, June 18, 2004 4:23 AM

That much is definately true. We did sell chemicals to Iraq, but that was more to help determine the course of the Iran/Iraq war, not to gas Kurds. (That was due to Saddam and Chemical Ali, not so much US involvement.)

I don't support the usage of chemical weapons, nor, in an ideal world war in general, but at the time Saddam was the lesser of two evils. (Again, not trying to defend the actions of Saddam or the US.) The facts are Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was making rather substantial, (relatively speaking) social reforms, in much the right direction. Granted, he wasn't a saint himself, but a much "better" leader, at least im my opinion, then the fundamentalists that took his place. I don't know if Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini sending thousands of young men to clear an Iraqi minefield is exactly the sign of a man who has the interest of his people in mind. Destablization in the region was inevitable under Khomeini. Under Saddam it was at least somewhat stable, and considering the still fresh memory of Vietnam I doubt America, or much of the rest of the "free" world was willing to risk troops to help the peoples of both countries, (nor nessecarily did many in the countries want to be helped).

Again, I don't support the usage of chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq conflict, but thats not to say I don't see WHY they were used. (However, the gassing of Kurds and other dissidents, done without US knowledge or consent AFAIK was an outrage.)

I don't care, I'm still free.

RUXTON

Friday, June 18, 2004 9:00 AM

Concerning Saddam's supposed gassing, it's not as clear-cut as the Bush administration would have us believe.

This link:
"britons4peace.org.uk/articles/raju2.html" (put "www" in front of it)
gives more details on the gassing, which was not as simple as we have been led to believe.

Extracts:
"...all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds...

"I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.... In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

"...the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was IRANIAN gas that killed the Kurds, NOT Iraqi gas." [Emphasis added.]

The above is from "New York Times," January 31, 2003, in a piece entitled: "A War Crime or an Act of War?" By Stephen C. Pelletiere.

.......Ruxton

JCOBB

Friday, June 18, 2004 12:42 PM

http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html

I think I might have to go with the professional historian on this one.

Though in the same breath...

http://hnn.us/articles/862.html

I don't care, I'm still free.

GHOULMAN

Friday, June 18, 2004 4:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Erm, I do hate to rain on your parade but it was Nixon that DEescalated in Vietnam. It was Johnson and Kennedy that esclated. You are either terribly ignorant, or terribly misinformed.

Yea... Nixon was innocent. Say, wasn't it the Nixon Administration that sent more and more troops to Vietnam and drafted more and more American kids to die in the jungle?

*sigh* I give you the REASON Nixon was forced to end the Vietnam war - and you use that to say I'm wrong and ignorant?

Yeaaaaa...

All I'm saying is that the current War isn't motivated by anything new. It's the same Empirical agenda the Nixon White House always had. Ask Kissinger. Ask Dick Cheney.

About the rest of what you say... I'm getting a tin-foil hat after all.

GHOULMAN

Friday, June 18, 2004 4:38 PM

Getting onto the topic... am I the only one weirded out that the US airspace is run by guys who call up NORAD and say things like; "uuuuh, yea, well, we need a little help from you guys." Really weird eh?

HERO

Friday, June 18, 2004 6:16 PM

Just wanted to note two things for the record.

1. Russia confirmed today that it had information about Iraqi sponsored terrorist operations, including plans to attack American targets both in and out of the US. Putin said that he made the info available to the US immediatly after 9/11. He still does not favor the war but states anyone who thinks there was no Iraqi-Al Qaeda link is mistaken. Note: this does not mean Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, but since our policy changed to go after all who support terror, involvement in 9/11 is not a needed pretext to justify war.

2. There is no longer a credible link between US hostage Paul M. Johnson Jr's head and his body. Makes American prisoner abuse seem less dramtic, don't it just?

H

KRYPT

Friday, June 18, 2004 6:41 PM

What happened to Mr. Johnson is tragic.

What happened (and is still happening) to civilians in Iraq is also tragic.

Krypt

JASONZZZ

Friday, June 18, 2004 7:05 PM

Zoriah:

you didn't see the frontpage splash of those items in the US papers b/c they were already old news.
Those items you listed in the US frontpage are the current news.

Besides, you are taking things quite out of context.
The 9/11 Commission's task is to look at things related to the 9/11 event. The 9/11 commission chairman clearly delineats this:

"What we found is, Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy but they were there," Commission Chairman Thomas Kean said.

"We said that there is no evidence to support the notion that al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein collaborated to produce 9/11," said Commision member James Thompson, then went on to comment that the report agreed with the administration's position that there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. and also: "They may be in possession of information about contacts beyond those that we found." Thompson said. "I don't know, that wasn't any of our business. Our business was 9/11."

No link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda for the 9/11 event[/q] is quite different than "Abolutely no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda".

JCOBB

Friday, June 18, 2004 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

Below

Quote:
Yea... Nixon was innocent. Say, wasn't it the Nixon Administration that sent more and more troops to Vietnam and drafted more and more American kids to die in the jungle?

No! Your right! It was Nixon that started the war! Singlehandly too! I mean, its not like he was elected to office in the middle of the war or anything, hell that wouldn't make sense would it? I mean, its not like he deescalated the war, and pulled out American troops and accelerated the process of Vietnamization, no, no, of course not! That might be logical! I mean, lets just forget, for a moment, the fact that Johnson and Kennedy sent in hundreds of thousands of troops into Vietnam. Lets forget that Nixon removed 520,000 troops from Vietnam in about 3 years, and accelerated training of the Southern Vietnamize armed forces so they could defend themselves without American involvement. God forbid we remember that!

Did he cut off all American troops at once, (which would have been disasterous, both considering the ongoing Cold War, and the situation in Vietnam)? Absolutely not. He's not an idiot, (though don't get me wrong, Watergate wasn't exactly the brightest thing for him to do)he wanted to leave an army capable of defending itself in Vietnam that consisted of the Vietnamize. He did this. At the time America drew out of Vietnam the South Vietnamize had a sizable, and workable military force.

Quote:
*sigh* I give you the REASON Nixon was forced to end the Vietnam war - and you use that to say I'm wrong and ignorant?

You are wrong, and, as far as I can tell, still ignorant. You seem to be under the impression that Nixon *started* Vietnam, and didn't want to end it. He ran under the platform, (though the democratic canidate did as well) of ending Vietnam. You refuse to accept *facts* because doing so would completely destabalize any argument you may have had. That is not wise. Admit you were wrong and move on, thats the way to maintain, at least my, respect.

Quote:
All I'm saying is that the current War isn't motivated by anything new. It's the same Empirical agenda the Nixon White House always had. Ask Kissinger. Ask Dick Cheney.

Yes... Because as we all know it was NIXON that started Vietnam.

Come on, you are sounding more and more like a ranting lunatic and less and less like a sane person. I don't want to be so harsh on you, but it seems you are the only one with any kind of agenda here. Maybe you just got your facts confused, and thats understandable, but do some research into it bud! I think you really need to reexamine some of your beliefs and arguments.

Quote:
About the rest of what you say... I'm getting a tin-foil hat after all.

Good to know this forum has a great sense of humor.

You are a good guy, (or gal?) I just don't agree with yah bud.

I don't care, I'm still free.

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, June 18, 2004 7:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

2. There is no longer a credible link between US hostage Paul M. Johnson Jr's head and his body. Makes American prisoner abuse seem less dramtic, don't it just?

Lowering yourself to shock value, eh

I think that people here (being as intelligent as they are) won't fall for that. So, why don't you keep this dramatic crap to yourself.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

HERO

Friday, June 18, 2004 8:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

2. There is no longer a credible link between US hostage Paul M. Johnson Jr's head and his body. Makes American prisoner abuse seem less dramtic, don't it just?

Lowering yourself to shock value, eh I think that people here (being as intelligent as they are) won't fall for that. So, why don't you keep this dramatic crap to yourself.

They chop off the head of a randomly chosen civilian. I mention the act and express disapproval. Call me an American, but I guess I'm just going to be the bad guy.

Lowering myself to shock value? Why, I'm just discussing the news of the day. Its supposed to rain tonight. Agassi won the French open. Kerry is looking for a VP. Terrorists chopped an innocent guys head off and didn't offend the flaming liberals infesting this board.

Sorry that last one wasn't really news. Here in Fantasyland chopping the heads off innocents is not offensive to anyone...at most its a unique form of culturally acceptable self expression. But prosecuting people for smoking pot, thats real terrorism.

H

KRYPT

Friday, June 18, 2004 8:49 PM

"Terrorists chopped an innocent guys head off and didn't offend the flaming liberals infesting this board."

Says who? Is there anyone here is not saddended by the death of Mr. Johnson?

Krypt

KRYPT

Friday, June 18, 2004 8:57 PM

An interesting item in my email today:

The Bush administration's continued assertion that Saddam Hussein had long established ties with al Qaeda exposes the administration's
inability to comprehend reality and focus on real al Qaeda threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In so doing, they not only misled the country; they failed in their responsibility to do everything in their power to protect the American people.

While President Bush chased phantom al Qaeda ties in Iraq, the real al Qaeda was regrouping in Afghanistan. Video evidence of new al Qaeda training camps emerged this week. If confirmed, this evidence suggests that the shift to war in Iraq was a monumental strategic error that allowed al Qaeda to regain strength and prepare for more attacks against America and its allies.

The administration's continued insistence on a credible link between al Qaeda and Iraq is dishonest and breaks faith with the solemn obligation to protect the American people.

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, June 18, 2004 11:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Lowering myself to shock value? Why, I'm just discussing the news of the day. Its supposed to rain tonight. Agassi won the French open. Kerry is looking for a VP. Terrorists chopped an innocent guys head off and didn't offend the flaming liberals infesting this board.

Perhaps you should look at the title of this thread. If you do you'll see that it's about the 9/11 thing. And I for one did see and chopping of the heads 'round then, did you? If so, I'd like a link.

Also, if you wish to discuss the chopping thing, start a new thread. I think that you'll be surprised at the lack off non-offense of the "liberals that infest this board".

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
But prosecuting people for smoking pot, thats real terrorism.

Oh you, where do you get your *crazy* ideas.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

ZORIAH

Friday, June 18, 2004 11:51 PM

I am offended by anyone getting murdered period.

I am offended by any act of terrorism, barbarism, torture, cruelty, despotism, corruption, continued systematic deception of the people....shall I go on?

To wrongs do NOT make a right.

The reasons for invading Iraq were legion, I'm just not convinced that any of them were totally credible, compelling or justified.

So the good news is that an alleged Al Qaeda leader was killed in Saudia Arabia. Can we please find Osama Bin Laden before something worse than 9/11?

RUE

Saturday, June 19, 2004 2:04 AM

I don't know what mental defect makes me think that facts actually count for something. But here goes. Regarding Iraq and al Qaeda, the 9/11 Commission actually looked at a broad time-frame and make sweeping statements about the lack of ANY connection between the two over since al Qaeda's inception, not just in regards to 9/11.

Here are extended quotes, which are much more informative that carefully culled snippets:

We have examined the allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9. Based on the evidence available — including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting — we do not believe that such a meeting occurred. The FBI ’s investigation places him in Virginia as of April 4, as evidenced by this bank surveillance camera shot of Atta withdrawing $8,000 from his account. Atta was back in Florida by April 11, if not before. Indeed, investigation has established that, on April 6, 9, 10, and 11, Atta ’s cellular telephone was used numerous times to call Florida phone numbers from cell sites within Florida.

Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan (1991 - 1996 dates added), despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan (1996 date added), but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq.

ZORIAH

Saturday, June 19, 2004 2:41 AM

Yes Rue, statement 15 is all about the history of Al Qaeda going back decades, they looked at possible links to Saddam in the 90's and found nothing. And I have no doubt they examined ALL of the available evidence regarding Al Qaeda's formation, operation, sponsors and connections dating back to its inception. Unless Cheney is still withholding something, which is possible.

Of course now they are jumping to say - oh but um it was only in regard to 9/11 absolutely, specifically, cos gee the government is pissed that we worded it that way in the statements.

Proving attempts at contact is one thing, proving established co-operation and collaboration as implied by the Bush government is another entirely.

RUE

Saturday, June 19, 2004 3:38 AM

And here is more stuff regarding Reagan's and Bush the First's cozy relationship with Iraq (even after knowing Iraq gassed the Kurds)

"September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war."
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php (1)

'Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982.' (3)

"November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians." (1)

In December 19-20 1983 Ronald Reagan sent Rumsfeld as an envoy to Iraq, carrying a hand-written letter stating the US wished to resume diplomatic relations. Rumsfeld met with Hussein personally during that time.

On March 5, 1984 the US State Department issued a report stating it had evidence Iraq had used chemical weapons. On March 7, the International Committee of the Red Cross issued a statement saying that injuries to soldiers were consistent with chemical weapons. http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html (2)
Around that time the UN sent investigators into Iran to investigate the use of chemical weapons.

On March 23, the UN released a report indicating evidence Hussein was using CW. 'Commenting on the UN report, US Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick was quoted by The New York Times as saying, “We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular.”''The Saddam in Rumsfeld’s Closet' by Jeremy Scahill http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm (3)

'[during a return visit to Iraq] March 24th, ... U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination.”' Later 'The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, “American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.” (3)

"Rumsfeld went to Baghdad ... to assure Hussein that while President Reagan was on record publicly decrying their use of chemical weapons, that in no way ''intended to imply a shift in policy, and the U.S. desire 'to improve bilateral relations, at a pace of Iraq's choosing, remained undiminished.''' http://wilmingtonjournal.blackpressusa.com/News/article/article.asp?Ne
wsID=36687&sID=4 (4)

On March 30, 1984 the UN Security Council issued a statement condemning the use of chemical weapons.

"July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops." (1)

"March, 1986. **The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons."** (1)

Iraq purchased military helicopters of various US manufacture. Other purchases and assistance over a long time frame:

"Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified ... the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean firm, Cardoen, to send cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave" attacks.

A congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under license from the commerce department."
The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html (5)

"Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq." (1)

'In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times ... they “believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs.”

**In response to the

SCOTTI

Saturday, June 19, 2004 3:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

But he didn't do any of those things because we all live in Fantasyland. And in Fantasyland Saddam and Bin Ladden could rape Jessica Lynch live on national TV and somehow Bush would be responsible. The Fantasylanders would argue that the FCC should never have allowed this to be broadcast.

Hero, you are ... well... my hero! Thanks for putting this in terms that simpletons might be able to understand... but I doubt it.

==============================================
Mal: You are very much lacking in imagination.
Zoe: I imagine that's so, sir.

JCOBB

Saturday, June 19, 2004 6:52 AM

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf

Yeah, the US were the MAIN suppliers of arms to Iraq. Much as it may seem by what you supplied the US had very little to do with the number of arms supplied to Iraq, and I am still not sure we did the wrong thing, (though I think chemical weapons was definately the wrong thing to do). Iran wasn't all puppies and sunflowers.

And even then the conventional weapons bought from the US, (all helicoptors) were bought for conventional usage, then pressed into service by the airforce. (Source: http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPRTS_73-02.pdf)

Check out the military contributions for military usage of the other countries, bud. Furthermore, France and Germany also exported equipment used in the manufacture of chemical weapons to Iraq. (Things that governments are supposed to "know" about.)

http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/whoarmediraq.pdf

Here is a far more neutral article in my opinion.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1230-04.htm

I don't care, I'm still free.

RUE

Sunday, June 20, 2004 12:57 AM

Well, at least we seem to have put to rest some proposals:

1) that al Qaeda, international terrorism, and WMD were reasons to invade Iraq (even you agree)

2) that Hussein was so evil the US just had to invade! Which falls apart in light of US support of same, such as giving billions of dollars of credit; providing intelligence; selling dual-use supplies and equipment; stonewalling UN action re: Iraq's CBW against Iran and the Kurds; etc (BTW, the notion the UN was idle 'forcing' the US to take action, goes in the same dust-bin.)

3) that while it was OK for the US to help Iraq's dictator Hussein against Iran's dictator Khomeini (all in a good cause - to protect the US mid-east oil supply) other countries were nasty and evil for having financial interests in Iraq

4) that the 'perhaps million' killed by Hussein get to be counted on the outrage meter, but the hundreds of thousands directly killed by the US (US Gulf War I and II), the millions killed in the Iraq/Iran war with US assistance and agreement (originally called the Gulf War), and the half-million to million who died as a result of sanctions, don't (selectively parsing outrage doesn't cut it)

5) that the US stands for democracy (the US described by you as a Constitutional Republic and Bush, the Lesser, as a benevolent dictator)

6) that the US didn't know about Iraq gassing the Kurds in Halabja and elsewhere, and so its continued support for Hussein was an innocent mistake

Out of the various proposals you've made, that leaves ... Well, what does that leave?

Other countries as well as the US had financial interests in Iraq which made sense of supporting Hussein against Iran, despite his well-known evil ways. And so other countries as well as the US sold conventional and unconventional arms and supplies to Iraq. And the US continued diplomatic and financial relations, providing billions in credit, selling questionable items etc up to 1992.

But how does moral outrage over Hussein's evil dictatorship now get retrofitted onto history?

The true threshold to the most recent war was the oil contracts (1993 - 2003). Other countries got them, the US and Britain didn't. Not one. Considering Iraq has the world's largest known oil reserves, it was a big deal.

JCOBB

Monday, June 21, 2004 1:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Below

Quote:
that Hussein was so evil the US just had to invade! Which falls apart in light of US support of same, such as giving billions of dollars of...

I don't know why you think that falls into the dustbin... Just because someone is the lesser of two evils, doesn't mean they aren't still evil. I think you are missing the point, either wittingly or unwittingly.

Quote:
that while it was OK for the US to help Iraq's dictator Hussein against Iran's dictator Khomeini (all in a good cause - to protect the US mid-east oil supply) other countries were nasty and evil for having financial interests in Iraq

Erm...

No, that is the most RIDICULOUS thing I have ever heard.

Come to think of it, build a time machine and go back to Iran in the early 80's, hell, go there now. I am sure you will absolutely LOVE what that Ayatollah has done with the place.

Quote:
4) that the 'perhaps million' killed by Hussein get to be counted on the outrage meter, but the hundreds of thousands directly killed by the US (US Gulf War I and II), the millions killed in the Iraq/Iran war with US assistance and agreement (originally called the Gulf War), and the half-million to million who died as a result of sanctions, don't (selectively parsing outrage doesn't cut it)

Please provide credible sources for these numbers, including the number of dead noncombatants, and the supposed link to US involvement in these deaths, which as far as providing intel is comprised of can be very sticky to determine. Furthermore, where do you get hundreds of thousands killed in the first Gulf War? (Sanctions deaths are an interesting thing to be appalled at, perhaps you would WANT to give money/arms to Saddam? Maybe you think he's a good guy, who knows what crazy things you believe.)

From Wikipedia.

Gulf War casualty numbers are controversial. Coalition military deaths seem to be around 378, with US forces suffering 148 battle-related and 145 non-battle-related deaths (included in the 378). The UK suffered 47 deaths. The largest single loss of Coalition forces happened on February 25, 1991 when an Iraqi Scud missile hit an American military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia killing 28 U.S. Army Reservists from Pennsylvania. The number of coalition wounded seems to have been less than 1,000. Iraqi casualty numbers are highly disputed. Some claim as low as 1,500 military killed, some 200,000. Many scholars believe a number around 25,000 to 75,000. The number of military wounded is equally unknown. 71,000 Iraqis were taken as prisoners of war by US troops. Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths range from just 100 persons to 200,000 excess deaths as a result of the war.

Yes, if you want to take Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf word, I am sure you can total the number of deaths to 400,000.

But lets not be competely insane and go with the logical 25,000 or so.

Quote:
that the US stands for democracy (the US described by you as a Constitutional Republic and Bush, the Lesser, as a benevolent dictator)

Okay, you have me in stitches. I think you must have a selective reading problem here bud. Furthermore I don't think you know the terms you are using. We are a Constitutional Republic, which is a form of Democracy. Furthermore, I never described Bush as a benevolent dictator, I said that being in a democracy did not equal freedom. If you want to ACTUALLY read, (I know, a novel concept) I said that a benevolent dicatorship can provide as much, if not more freedom, then any democracy can provide. I suggest that you actually try READING in the future. Might save you some trouble.

Quote:
6) that the US didn't know about Iraq gassing the Kurds in Halabja and elsewhere, and so its continued support for Hussein was an innocent mistake

Yeah, I definately said that.

Sounds to me like you need to look more at France. Perhaps the fact that they armed Iraq with more conventional weapons in 1990 ALONE, (even after all he had done,

GHOULMAN

Monday, June 21, 2004 4:12 PM

Wow, this thread is full of the sort of lies and bullsheit that I've come to expect from neocon Americans.

I suppose the thing to remember here is that the rest of us in the world aren't brainwashed by American media liars, nor are we so foolish as to think the USA has ever done anything but install dictators, kill citizens, and generally impose thier inhuman foreign policy on the rest of the world like the Empire it is. After all, can you give me one country the USA has helped? EVER? Well, I can site bombings, killings, dictators created, and Iran/Contra till the cows come home. You see, many in the world are beginning to see a pattern with the USA and the world is not amused.

As I said before (sorry if I was so OT there Zoriah), I wanted to forward the opinion that the American motivation for a War against Islam is the same as Cold War motivations... and the results are the same: Iraq will have American troops dieing there for 10 years at least (come back in a year to see if Ghoulman is right!).

The Pentagon Papers... someone please look it up since jcobb refuses too. What a jerk!

Nice little site from the Vets in the USA. Check it out. Vietnam History.
http://www.vva.org/about_the_war.htm

Oh, and of course Nixon excalated the Vietnam Conflict, (btw it's not called a "war" because the US didn't want to call it that. Tell that to a Veteran and watch the responce). Nixon DID excalate the number of troops too. However, he did drop the number of American soldiers (but still exculated the number of Allied troops in Vietnam) in 1969 while still insisting to Kissinger that "we should just nuke em!" - that's an actual quote btw. So I'm right of course, but liars like to pick on one detail to "prove" you're wrong. It's an underhanded lie and a common tacktic of the legions of Limbaugh liars out on the Media cyberwaves.

Getting to the real topic - the American Media is a liars dream!

Take the Putin announcement. Putin says "he" had passed information to the White House that a top Iraqi Officer was an Al Quada member. At the same time, Bubba Clintons' book has come out (a memoir). Now, Billy Boys book is no big thing but the Neocons all over CNN constantly spun the Clinton book into a greedy push for book money and that Clinton was a terrible President and liar because of the Monica thing.

Yea, big hairy deal! What shitters they are on Meet the Press!

While at the same time. the Putin thing is presented as pure truth. Well, any fool can see that Putin might have gotten this from the recent G8 meeting in Georgia State from Dick Cheney himself. Further, presenting this after the 9/11 Commission is OVER (done! finished!) just shows it's propoganda for the American Media. They will repeat this (soon to be disproved) bullsheit over and over like it's truth.

But it isn't.

So Clinton is demonized for writing a book (what a horrid thing for an ex-President to do eh!) while information about Putins' lie (which he got from the White House in my opinion) will be repeated and repeated for the rest of the year as truth... but it's not.

America is the matrix. TAKE THE RED PILL!!!

JCOBB

Monday, June 21, 2004 4:34 PM

Wow...

I think my IQ dropped 20 points, (and I don't have that much to lose, bud ) just by reading your posts.

I wonder, if you keep lying to yourself, do you actually start to believe your lies? I guess you are evidence enough of that, Ghoulman.

Nixon didn't start Vietnam, he did end it. What happened in the middle all were very valid steps twords a pullout, but, of course, we wouldn't want to recognize that.

Keep lying to yourself, bud, its much easier that way apparently.

(Oh, by the by, I recognize I am influenced by the media I listen to, you, obviously are not. I think that is the ma jor difference. You can watch any media and you will get a slant, I don't think you recognize that, and that is the root of your problems, I would wadger.)

I don't care, I'm still free.

GHOULMAN

Monday, June 21, 2004 7:29 PM

^^^ I never said that about Nixon... why does jcobb put words into my mouth?

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 3:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

SNIP!
Quote:
Besides, you are taking things quite out of context.
The 9/11 Commission's task is to look at things related to the 9/11 event. The 9/11 commission chairman clearly delineats this:

"What we found is, Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy but they were there," Commission Chairman Thomas Kean said.

"We said that there is no evidence to support the notion that al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein collaborated to produce 9/11," said Commision member James Thompson, then went on to comment that the report agreed with the administration's position that there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. and also: "They may be in possession of information about contacts beyond those that we found." Thompson said. "I don't know, that wasn't any of our business. Our business was 9/11."

No link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda for the 9/11 event is quite different than "Abolutely no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda".

There isn't a link at all according tooooo... the CIA!
------------------
CIA: No Iraqi officer link in al-Qaida meeting
White House official denies commissioner's statement that tied Saddam's Fedayeen unit to al-Qaid
By Knut Royce
Washington Bureau

June 22, 2004
Link to full article...
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia223863038jun22,
0,6059318.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

WASHINGTON -- The CIA concluded "a long time ago" that an al-Qaida associate who met with two of the Sept. 11 hijackers in Malaysia was not an officer in Saddam Hussein's army, as alleged Sunday by a Republican member of the 9/11 commission.

Commissioner John Lehman, who was Navy secretary under Ronald Reagan, said "new ... documents" indicated that "at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen," an elite army unit, "was a very prominent member of al-Qaida."

Lehman's remarks on NBC's "Meet the Press" lent support to the Bush administration's insistence that there were strong ties between Hussein and al-Qaida.

The administration official said the CIA and U.S. Army obtained the lists of members of the Fedayeen shortly after the invasion of Iraq last year. Some, he said, had names "similar to" Ahmad Hikmat Shakir. But, he said, the CIA had concluded "a long time ago" that none were the al-Qaida associate. He would not say whether the al-Qaida associate is in U.S. custody. Other sources said he was not.
-------------------------

And so it goes in the USA.

I guess the Russian liar, er, President (Putin) will have to retract his statement about this? How long did this take to be discredited? Five days? Will it be repeated all this week on CNN? Yes, because CNN lies (ask David Letterman! lol!).

btw, I have a direct example of what I refered too earlier as a "conspiracy of silence" from Dick Nixons' ole pal... Dick Cheney.

The article above mentioned Dick Cheney saying this: His comments were made after Vice President Dick Cheney, the administration's strongest advocate of an alleged link between Hussein and al-Qaida, said in an interview Friday that he, Cheney, "probably" saw intelligence not reviewed by the Sept. 11 commission.

... problably? Well, it's a yes or no question Dick... choose one!

But he doesn't. See, he knows damn well there is no link with Saddam and Al Queda at all. Yet, he floats the notion that he knows there is... but is silent about it. So the American people are left to guess. In comes the Right Wing Conspiracy (I'm starting to like that phrase!) to repeat this lie over and over on Bill O'Reilly.

That's how a "conspiracy of silence" works. You just keep silent about the truth.

GTMAN8503

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 4:17 PM

Actually, the CIA determined that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. In a CIA letter to the Select Committee on Intelligence dated October 9, 2002, John McLaughlin wrote (For former CIA Director George Tenet), "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade...We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."

Whether or not the information that that conclusion was based on was accurate is another matter entirely, but the CIA did believe that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the war.

Also, the 9-11 commission stated that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda on the 9-11 attack. The commission did not say that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. In fact, they said exactly the opposite--that there were links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Whether or not this was justification for war is, again, a seperate issue, but these are the facts. Its disheartening to see every single news outlet with the exception of FOX misrepresenting what happened.

HERO

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 4:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
That's how a "conspiracy of silence" works. You just keep silent about the truth.

Maybe. But the left has a "conspiracy of screamers". It works by spouting lies at every turn and drowing out the truth.

Then there's the moderates with their "conspiracy of talking but not saying anything". They don't shout down the truth or keep silent, they just speak in a normal tone.

There's also MTV and the "conspiracy of music" they use music to promote a radical social agenda of corporate liberalism. Meaning exploiting liberalism for very conservative corporate profit. How else do you explain boy bands and Britney Spears? Its sure not talent.

Then there's the British and the "conspiracy of reality TV". Yep they all started there and now they are after us all.

Oh, don't forget McDonalds and the "conspiracy of the $.99 chicken sandwhich". Movie theaters and the "conspiracy of showing trailors for upcoming films before the feature presentation".

I could go on, but I think I'm being followed...

H

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 5:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Then there's the British and the "conspiracy of reality TV". Yep they all started there and now they are after us all.

Actually, the Brits didn't start it. They copied some other country network (somewhere else in Europe) that locked there employees in for the weekend and filmed it. Actually the Brits got sued for that. I don't have any time to waste re-getting that link for you. You can do that yourself.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 5:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by gtman8503:
Actually, the CIA determined that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. In a CIA letter to the Select Committee on Intelligence dated October 9, 2002, John McLaughlin wrote (For former CIA Director George Tenet), "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade...We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."

Whether or not the information that that conclusion was based on was accurate is another matter entirely, but the CIA did believe that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the war.

Also, the 9-11 commission stated that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda on the 9-11 attack. The commission did not say that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. In fact, they said exactly the opposite--that there were links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Whether or not this was justification for war is, again, a seperate issue, but these are the facts. Its disheartening to see every single news outlet with the exception of FOX misrepresenting what happened.

Contacts != links. One can talk to someone else without there being a link between them. All this proves is that Al Qaeda was persistent. And since Al Qaeda never obtained those WMD, it would seems as though those contacts never produced anything.

Perhaps you should stop watching FOX "news" and start looking to credible news agencies such as the BBC. After all, FOX "news" would *never* be considered a news agency in the rest of the world. We consider it comedy and a quite dark one at that.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

JCOBB

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ I never said that about Nixon... why does jcobb put words into my mouth?

...

So, let me ask you something.

Did Nixon increasingly decrease the number of troops stationed in Vietnam during his presidency?

Did JFK and Johnson continually put in troops into Vietnam?

Did Nixon want to pull out without creating an international incident and leaving South Vietnam hanging?

You betcha.

So, another question, how do you feel about how "we" handled Serbia and Milosevic? That was a war in which people died, and I think we can all agree that Milosevic was no where near as "bad" a person as Saddam.

I don't care, I'm still free.

JASONZZZ

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 6:24 PM

We need to just kill this threat, since the title is one big fat falsehood:

"9/11 Commission finds no Credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam" as a statement is completely untrue.

I vote, kill this thread and start a new one.

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 9:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by gtman8503:
Actually, the CIA determined that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. In a CIA letter to the Select Committee on Intelligence dated October 9, 2002,

Yea, but I posted the LATEST news from the CIA. You give me old news? That makes sense how? Thanx for posting good info (even if that guy you mention is lieing, info it be!) but it's made mote by the latest info - as all things are right?

That's my only gripe about your post though.

...

Quote:
October 9, 2002, John McLaughlin wrote (For former CIA Director George Tenet), "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade...We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."

Whether or not the information that that conclusion was based on was accurate is another matter entirely, but the CIA did believe that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the war.

Also, the 9-11 commission stated that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda on the 9-11 attack. The commission did not say that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. In fact, they said exactly the opposite--that there were links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Whether or not this was justification for war is, again, a seperate issue, but these are the facts. Its disheartening to see every single news outlet with the exception of FOX misrepresenting what happened.

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 9:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ I never said that about Nixon... why does jcobb put words into my mouth?

...

So, let me ask you something.

Did Nixon increasingly decrease the number of troops stationed in Vietnam during his presidency?

Did JFK and Johnson continually put in troops into Vietnam?

Did Nixon want to pull out without creating an international incident and leaving South Vietnam hanging?

You betcha.

So, another question, how do you feel about how "we" handled Serbia and Milosevic? That was a war in which people died, and I think we can all agree that Milosevic was no where near as "bad" a person as Saddam.

I don't care, I'm still free.

Hey, if you can't argue the points then give up.

Attacking me only makes a fool out of you. People CAN read ya know.

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 9:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

We need to just kill this threat, since the title is one big fat falsehood:

"9/11 Commission finds no Credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam" as a statement is completely untrue.

I vote, kill this thread and start a new one.

Best troll ever? Hm.

Terrible behavior Jason. I've never seen anyone online EVER just try to kill an entire discussion. Disgusting.

So much for free speach.

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 9:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
That's how a "conspiracy of silence" works. You just keep silent about the truth.

Maybe. But the left has a "conspiracy of screamers". It works by spouting lies at every turn and drowing out the truth.

Like when the Nazis were cooking people for fun? That was a "conspiracy of silence" and was described as such then, and is still.

I love it when someone blows off anothers opinion as "nutty". Well, if you can't refute what a poster has to say try to keep yourself from being rude and obnoxious. Ok?

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 12:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

We need to just kill this threat, since the title is one big fat falsehood:

"9/11 Commission finds no Credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam" as a statement is completely untrue.

I vote, kill this thread and start a new one.

Best troll ever? Hm.

Terrible behavior Jason. I've never seen anyone online EVER just try to kill an entire discussion. Disgusting.

So much for free speach.

Are you shitting me? (and please forget the 'favourite turd' line ) This entire thread is one lengthy huge troll.

Did I toss a grenade into the room and snuck out?
No, but that would have killed a thread. Did I somehow disable this thread so that no one can post in it any longer? ahem, no.

My "suggestion" is to kill this thread since it's entire impetus to the thread is based in a title spewing falsehood. People online make suggestions to terminate threads all the time for various reasons. This has been done more than once on this board as well. I would also have suggested that you look harder if you haven't seen people shut down threads before - but I won't, since you obviously have got to be blind to have not "seen" it. why bother.

JCOBB

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 2:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ I never said that about Nixon... why does jcobb put words into my mouth?

...

So, let me ask you something.

Did Nixon increasingly decrease the number of troops stationed in Vietnam during his presidency?

Did JFK and Johnson continually put in troops into Vietnam?

Did Nixon want to pull out without creating an international incident and leaving South Vietnam hanging?

You betcha.

So, another question, how do you feel about how "we" handled Serbia and Milosevic? That was a war in which people died, and I think we can all agree that Milosevic was no where near as "bad" a person as Saddam.

I don't care, I'm still free.
Hey, if you can't argue the points then give up.

Attacking me only makes a fool out of you. People CAN read ya know.

Attacking you?

I don't see an attack in there? Though, I can't say I find your work to be the most thought provoking things I have ever heard. And as of yet you haven't adressed my questions.

Another thing, it seems to me you think everything you pull off of the media to be gospel truth (nevermind some of the dubious websites you have provided as 'sources'). Try taking the middle ground for once in your life, and being objective. I think you follow one agenda, and thats it. Try exploring others.

(Furthermore, you are dead wrong about most of what you say, so meh is all I can say.)

If I wanted to have a coversation with a brickwall I would do so.

EDIT

Furthermore, I just had a great laugh, read what you said to Jason, and then you come back and yell at me for apparently attacking you. Nevermind the other threads where you go off on your tangents.

On a totally unrelated note, (read sarcasm) is there a way to block people here? I think I would enjoy these forums more if there were people that put SOME thought into their posts.

I don't care, I'm still free.

RUE

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:00 AM

That works both ways.

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 12:14 PM

^^^ ROTFL!!!

JCOBB

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ ROTFL!!!

Brilliant comeback there bud.

You've convinced me.

I don't care, I'm still free.

JCOBB

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 11:12 PM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152l
ndzv.asp?pg=1

Don't forget to read page 2.

I don't care, I'm still free.

GHOULMAN

Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152l
ndzv.asp?pg=1

Don't forget to read page 2.

I don't care, I'm still free.

You just can't shut the fuck up can ya? Oh, and this article refers to utter lies.

http://sport-books-online.net/0060746734.html
The author of this shit book was on John Stewart last week... and to his face John Stewart called his book a "cluster fuck". Which is accurate.

... and the rest of JCOBBs links and info is all lies. He has no interest in the truth at all. Not even a little.

Jcobb is one of those types who like to highjack online threads in order to attack people who don't agree with sending American troops to die on foreign soil for greed. He likes seeing Osama Bin Laden free and threatening to WMD the USA. After all, that would let GWB and the elite, who JCOBB is protecting, have all the money and don't care how they get it... even over the dead headless bodies of Americans.

Traitor.

See how you like it.

GHOULMAN

Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Quicksand:
This isn't news to anyone that's .... been.... reading.... the.... NEWS!!!!

Not only was there no credible link between Saddam and Al Qaeda... there was NEVER any kind of link at ALL!!!

Every single 9/11 terrorist, except two, were from Saudi Arabia. The other two were from Egypt. This isn't news, the New York Times had this YEARS ago.

Liberal Media, my Big Fat Ass. Don't forgot to VOTE!!!!!

Love this post. Simple, true, and powerful.

Getting back onto the Media and thier spin... check out the latest book. And it's not by 32 year old Right Wing Movementarians like that cluster fuck posted above.

IMPERIAL HUBRIS by 'Anonymous' (Senior CIA Official)
To Claim America Losing the War on Terror
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1242638,00.html
A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands.

Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, due out next month, dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are "on the run" and that the Iraq invasion has made America safer.

In an interview with the Guardian the official, who writes as "Anonymous", described al-Qaida as a much more proficient and focused organisation than it was in 2001, and predicted that it would "inevitably" acquire weapons of mass destruction and try to use them.

Click the link for more.

Remember a few post above when I said if you are for the war in Iraq you are for Osama? Well, seems a senoir CIA guy agrees with me. Seems when I say that the White House has no interest in even finding Osama... a senior CIA agent agrees that this is (at least) the same result.

And heads will role... on TV. Why? I guess CNN loves to give terrorists everything they want?

JCOBB

Thursday, June 24, 2004 11:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:

I don't care, I'm still free.

Quote:

You just can't shut the fuck up can ya? Oh, and this article refers to utter lies.

Yeah, you just love the freedom of speech. You are what the framers of the constitution feared most. A rabid, anti-freedom, (under the guise of civil liberties) zealot intent on the utter destruction of people that are "different" from you. I am certain you and the Nazi's would get along smashingly.

Pray tell, do you enjoy burning literature that you don't nessecarily agree with?

Quote:
http://sport-books-online.net/0060746734.html
The author of this shit book was on John Stewart last week... and to his face John Stewart called his book a "cluster fuck". Which is accurate.

I watched that episode, which, in turn, led me to the author. If you were capable of any form of deduction, you would realize that he was talking about the situation the country was in currently, the one discussed in the book. But, then again, that would assume that you capable of any level of actual discernment.

Quote:
... and the rest of JCOBBs links and info is all lies. He has no interest in the truth at all. Not even a little.

Says the man who adores Michael Moore as the epitome of truth and justice.

Stop it, you are making my sides hurt.

Quote:

Jcobb is one of those types who like to highjack online threads in order to attack people who don't agree with sending American troops to die on foreign soil for greed. He likes seeing Osama Bin Laden free and threatening to WMD the USA. After all, that would let GWB and the elite, who JCOBB is protecting, have all the money and don't care how they get it... even over the dead headless bodies of Americans.

...

Okay, anyone want to point out the extremist in this thread? Anyone? Come on, anyone at all? Do I have any takers?

Right'o mate. I have said, countless times, I don't care what political faction you are from, I can like liberals, libertarians, conservatives, athiests, Christians, Muslims, Jews, you name it. I can get along with most anyone. It is, apparently, you that have trouble "co-existing" with others.

You must live a terribly sad life.

Quote:
Traitor.

Well, you've convinced me! I hate my country!

Quote:
See how you like it.

Your poorly worded, inflammatory, vitriolic statements? I don't care, its the internet bud. You can say whatever you want. I honestly DON'T care if you insult me. It just doesn't bother me. I am sorry it bothers you so much, but if it does, maybe you should take some time off? You know, take a step back and reexamine your priorities? Really check that if you think this is worth getting SO angry about. Obviously, you think it is. I think you would fly into a murderous rage if anyone mentioned something contrary to your beliefs, which is why I suggest seeking help. And I am not trying to be demeaning, I am serious. If you can not take a calm, (maybe a friendly jab now and then) discussion over the internet, and it gets you this worked up, you might indeed have some serious psychiatric troubles.

I think that behind your rabid exterior, there probably lurks a good person. See if you can't let him out every now and then.

Oh, and while I am at it..

Here's something oddly funny that I noticed. The 'only' man who supposedly thinks for himself, can only quote others. I don't know what he considers that, (maybe he has fooled himself into thinking he can discern between bias and facts written).

Oh, BTW, I got a call from an unnamed source that is near Osama Bin Laden. He said that Clinton wired him fifty dollars for a cab!!!1111!!11111 AMAZING FACTUAL INFORMATION!!!!11111

I don't care, I'm still free.

QUICKSAND

Thursday, June 24, 2004 11:42 PM

Does your mom know you're using her computer?

AURAPTOR

Saturday, June 26, 2004 10:40 PM

Too far down the list, and I'm too busy to scan it all, but that is NOT what the 9-11 Commission found, and a link between al Qaida and Saddam were NEVER primary or even secondary reasons for going to war. Might I suggest UN Resolutions 1441.... aww hell, I'm TIRED OF THIS GORRAM SHIT!!!

When the PRESS is even willing to lie to us, WE ARE SCREWED.

Thank you and good night.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

JASONZZZ

Monday, June 28, 2004 5:30 AM

ooooh... Gruelman sez STFU....

here's some STFU, Gruelman.

DORAN

Thursday, July 1, 2004 7:09 AM

"That's how 'conspiracy of silence' works."

It's also what accusers of Bush are banking on.
Falsely accuse him of enough stuff and he'll never be able to prove it didn't happen ..then... whammy, sneak Hillary into the white house. :O)

DORAN

Thursday, July 1, 2004 7:14 AM

IMPERIAL HUBRIS by 'Anonymous' (UK liberal reporter pretending to be a Senior CIA Official)

DORAN

Thursday, July 1, 2004 7:20 AM

"Not only was there no credible link between Saddam and Al Qaeda... there was NEVER any kind of link at ALL!!!"

This was a big fat falsehood reported by a gungho reporter who didn't even have the official commission findings. The Commission was so embarrassed by the reporters mischaracterization that they said came out and said there are plenty of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda .. .. and that what they meant was they found no collaborative links between the two regarding 9/11.

GHOULMAN

Friday, July 2, 2004 1:04 PM

^^^Not even CNN is saying this now. So what's your excuse?

Quote:
Originally posted by Doran:

"That's how 'conspiracy of silence' works."

It's also what accusers of Bush are banking on.
Falsely accuse him of enough stuff and he'll never be able to prove it didn't happen ..then... whammy, sneak Hillary into the white house. :O)

*chuckle*... you know - it's been shown that Bush lied. All of America and btw the WORLD knows this. It's just a fact now.

So you come here... and make a fool of yourself. Jason even more so.

What giant sized asses you both are. Loosers.

JASONZZZ

Friday, July 2, 2004 7:47 PM

Ghoulman is no longer contend with just making an ass of himself. He continues and goes with direct personal commentary calling people liars and his "opponents" losers.

What a finish.

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, July 2, 2004 8:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Doran:
Falsely accuse him of enough stuff and he'll never be able to prove it didn't happen

Didn't Bush do this to Saddam? Well, no WMD found, etc. You be the judge.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

DORAN

Friday, July 2, 2004 8:24 PM

"Didn't Bush do this to Saddam? Well, no WMD found, etc. You be the judge."

Thank you. Still more Sarin found yesterday. biologicals confiscated at the Jordanian border. The more time passes the more we see Bush hasn't falsely accused Saddam.

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, July 2, 2004 8:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Doran:
"Didn't Bush do this to Saddam? Well, no WMD found, etc. You be the judge."

Thank you. Still more Sarin found yesterday. biologicals confiscated at the Jordanian border. The more time passes the more we see Bush hasn't falsely accused Saddam.

link please

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

MINDSEYE

Friday, July 2, 2004 8:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Doran:
"Didn't Bush do this to Saddam? Well, no WMD found, etc. You be the judge."

Thank you. Still more Sarin found yesterday. biologicals confiscated at the Jordanian border. The more time passes the more we see Bush hasn't falsely accused Saddam.

link please

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html

Freedom - Peace - Serenity

DORAN

Friday, July 2, 2004 9:21 PM

link please>

I think it's wonderful that ya'al finally want to do some research.. Too bad you don't spend as much time researching Moore wacko movie claims.

Here's one but it was all over the news yesterday.. The scarey part is that these ones were intercepted on the Iraqi black market aimed at terrorist. These were found by the Pols..

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html

This stuff keeps showing up a little at a time.. and every time it does mostly the left dismisses it.. but these are them.. this is the stuff that Saddam was supposed to have gotten rid of years ago.

You may be one of those folks who feel really sorry for Saddam but I am not. Here's only a partial list of Saddam's crimes.

• July 16, 1979: Shortly after Saddam seized power, fifteen top party leaders who allegedly conspired against him were executed by firing squad.

• 1980: Iraqi forces invade neighboring Iran on September 22nd, sparking eight years of war that left an estimated one million dead. Chemical attacks against Iran kill as many as 5,000.

• 1983: Government launches campaign against members of the Kurdish Barzani tribe for helping Iran launch offensive in northern Iraq. Estimated 8,000 killed, many buried in mass graves.

• 1986 through '88: Scorched-earth offensive known as Anfal that includes chemical attacks on Kurds, estimated 180,000 Kurds killed many buried in mass graves in the south.

• 1988: Chemical weapons attack against Kurdish town of Halabja, or Halabja kills an estimated 5,000 civilians on March 28 -- and this does not touch on those who lived and were disfigured and ruined for the rest of their lives.

• 1990: Saddam orders invasion of Kuwait on August 2nd.

• 1990: Iraqi forces fire Scud missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia.

• 1990: Iraqi soldiers allegedly torture summarily execute hundreds of Kuwaitis and set Kuwaiti oil wells ablaze.

• 1991: Some 60,000 people believed killed when Saddam violently crushes rebellion by Shi'ite Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north at close of Gulf War. Their bodies are found in mass graves all over the south.

• 1992: Draining of marshes in southern Iraq driving population known as "Marsh Arabs" from their homes and wiping out their way of life. Tens of thousands killed.

This alone is worth execution because of the environmental destruction. Forget what he did to the people; he destroyed the marsh! I mean, if the environmentalist wackos in this country and in Europe and around the world would be consistent, he goes to the electric chair, to the gas chamber, whatever, for this alone and the oil well fires. Of course, they got a problem with the oil well fires. They hate oil and they love the oil being depleted but they don't like the fires and that to pollute everything. Of course you know those oil well fires after the Gulf War in the early 90s? Everybody said, "It's going to cost tens years of pollution to the damage to the environment." It's all gone, got cleaned up. There's this thing called "rain," and, you know, when it falls through that all that stuff, it's magic. It's magic what happens. But anyway, forget what he did to the people. Forget what he did: gassing them and murdering them and burying them in mass graves. That is nothing. The environmental destruction alone, especially destroying the marsh! Why, he doesn't deserve to even get his day in court, if you ask me.

• 1996: Two of Saddam's sons-in-law are killed on February 20th after they return from Jordan where they fled and exposed the campaign to hide banned weapons from the United Nations.

Of course, there aren't any weapons of mass destruction. There never were any weapons of mass destruction. I mean, the whole world made up that lie, but Saddam executed a couple guys for spilling the beans on his program. That's just scratching the surface. The mass graves in

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, July 3, 2004 12:30 AM

Sorry, a link *not* Fox "news" please.

If you have respect for those guys fine, but to say that I lack respect for them is an understatement. Something outside of the US "news" media would be most appropriate.

And by the way, I stopped reading after you said,

"You may be one of those folks who feel really sorry for Saddam..."

If we are going to discuss you really are going to have to stop stuff of this sort.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

RUE

Saturday, July 3, 2004 2:50 AM

Agent France Presse (AFP)
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040702181116.ctvlrxgf.html

But the 122mm warheads, found in late June, have been found not to contain the deadly chemicals, a statement from multinational forces here said.

"Those 16 rounds were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals," it said.

Two other warheads found in mid-June were found to contain an insignificant amount of sarin gas. The armaments were left over from the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the statement said.

"Due to the deteriorated state of the rounds and small quantity of remaining agent, these rounds were determined to have limited to no impact if used by insurgents against coalition forces."

Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=557992
5&pageNumber=1
Poland said the shells found by its troops dated from the 1980s and that it had bought them through individuals who contacted officials in its military zone in south-central Iraq.

"We bought all the shells available ... Terrorists are seeking these missiles on the black market, offering a price of around $5,000 per warhead," General Marek Dukaczewski, head of army intelligence, told a news conference.

He said there was no evidence any shells had ended up in militants' hands.

Poland said its soldiers found 17 Grad rockets and two mortar shells in late June and that U.S. experts had carried out tests on the weapons.

"Tests conducted showed that there was cyclosarin in the rocket heads," said Dukaczewski.

But the U.S. military said only two of the rockets had tested positive for sarin gas, and that another 16 rockets found by the Poles had contained no chemical agents.

The reason for the discrepancy in figures was unclear.

My personal opinion - as a scientist who knows about the technology used for testing - units designed to provide early warning have too many false positives to be useful. It's possible the Polish troops were relating preliminary inaccurate results. Or, it's possible there was miscommunication between various authorities.

DORAN

Saturday, July 3, 2004 4:57 PM

"Sorry, a link *not* Fox "news" please."

Can I have another source for any of M. Moore's contrivance?

Two versions of the same story came out. One from the liberal Reuters service; Polish soldiers last month recovered munitions containing deadly nerve agent cyclosarin and other things, in Iraq, and the first story today said (paraphrasing), "Well, you know these things are from 1988. They're old, and..." It's a typical Reuters story, "...and they have nothing to do with the weapons of mass destruction. They have nothing to do with the war in Iraq. It doesn't prove anything. Blah, blah-blah, blah, blah, blah." Really? 1988, sarin gas, the rocket shells in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction. Has nothing to do with it? The second incarnation of the story is this:

"Chemical munitions..." and this is the AP. "Chemical munitions found by Polish soldiers were being pursued by terrorists. Polish troops had been searching for munitions as part of their regular mission in south-central Iraq when they were told by an informant in May that terrorists had made a bid to buy the chemical weapons, which date back to Saddam Hussein's war with Iran in the 1980s, Gen. Marek Dukaczewski told reporters in Warsaw. 'We were mortified by the information that terrorists were looking for these warheads and offered $5,000 apiece. An attack with such weapons would be hard to imagine. All of our activity was accelerated at appropriating these warheads.' Dukaczewski refused to give any further details about the terrorists or the sellers of the munitions, saying only that his troops thwarted terrorists by purchasing the 17 rockets for a Soviet-era launcher and two mortar rounds containing the nerve agent for an undisclosed sum June 23," a little over a week ago.

Moore, the democrats, Kerry and so many libs think there's no WMD, there have never been any WMD. Well, why is it that the terrorists themselves think there are WMD there in Iraq? They are there looking for it.. I hope that they don't find it first.

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 3, 2004 8:46 PM

Quote:
Moore, the democrats, Kerry and so many libs think there's no WMD, there have never been any WMD.

OF COURSE there were WMD. We sold it to them, remember? If you care to scan back into one of my posts, they deteriorate with time (except mustard gas). 10 years ought to make cylcosarin oh, about... useless.

Quote:
Well, why is it that the terrorists themselves think there are WMD there in Iraq?

Maybe they're as effing stupid as you are.

PS- I'm working on a CWA project, so I should know.

DUH!

RUE

Saturday, July 3, 2004 10:30 PM

Doran,

I think you didn't quote either story very well.

The Reuters story reported

Quote:
"the U.S. military said only two of the rockets had tested positive for sarin gas, and that another 16 rockets found by the Poles had contained no chemical agent".

That's according to the US military, not Reuters.

The parts you deleted from the AP report said:
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12194584&BRD=1817&PAG=461&de
pt_id=68561&rfi=6
"But in Iraq, the U.S. military said trace amounts of the nerve agent found in a cache of rockets dating back to the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war were so deteriorated they would have had "little to no impact if used by insurgents."
...
"Laboratory tests showed the presence in them of cyclosarin, a very toxic gas, five times stronger than sarin and five times more durable," Bieniek told Poland's TVN24 at the force's Camp Babylon headquarters.
But the U.S. military statement said: "Due to the deteriorated state of the rounds, and small quantity of remaining agent, these rounds were determined to have limited to no impact."

As to 'liberals' saying there are no WMD, here is the link to David Kay's speech to the Senate:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
"Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here."

RUE

Saturday, July 3, 2004 11:24 PM

Doran,

P.S.

The fact that you omitted the AFP story, misrepresented the Reuters one, censored the AP story then conveniently left off the url, and resorted to ad hominem attacks to make you case - should give you pause ...

How strong is your position?

HKCAVALIER

Monday, July 5, 2004 4:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:
Well, why is it that the terrorists themselves think there are WMD there in Iraq?

Maybe they're as effing stupid as you are.

LOL! Advantage Signy!

Seriously, I'm pretty sick of this idea that "the terrorists" are some kind of unified force out there making policy decisions. Or that all the people in Abu Ghraib are "terrorists" who deserve whatever they get and not just soldiers in Saddam's army or people taken on the streets because they were near a terrorist hide-out or related to a terrorist (hey, all those rich Bin Ladden folks are related to a known terrorist too, but did they get thrown in a jail and tortured? Oops). People in Saddam Hussein's army are no more responsible for his policies than any of our troops are responsible for Bush's policies. In the main, they're just more poor people ground up in the war machine.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 6, 2004 10:41 AM

I think you've seen enough of my posts to know that I rarely call names. And given my daughter's intellectual impairment terms like "stupid" "moronic" "idiot" and "retard" seldom pass my fingertips.

But my daughter, even with her limited intellectual capacity, understands that it's important to understand what's going on. She know that understanding gives her the ability to predict and survive the world. When I see people twist their wonderfully functioning brains into pretezels to rationalize away the obvious- BUSH LIED, YOU MORONS- my apologies are to morons. They are far superior to people who misuse what they have so egregiously .

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, July 6, 2004 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think you've seen enough of my posts to know that I rarely call names.

Absolutely! That's what made your comment so effing funny: the element of surprise.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 7, 2004 2:06 PM

I take it you saw Wimbledon?

I missed the Federer/Roddick match. Fortunately, someone at the lab taped it, so I get a second chance!