IAP Political Forum

So much for the "Saddam wasn't tied to terroism" screech from liberals.

This report destroys the last argument against the preemptive war in Iraq.

But don't expect them to agnkowledge it. Our media has so far completely ignored it.

Will they be sending any apologies to Bush for five long years of lies? Don't hold your breath.

These are just some highlights. Details in the link or download the full report:

"Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp?pg=2
Saddam's Dangerous Friends
What a Pentagon review of 600,000 Iraqi documents tells us.

Throughout the early and mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein actively supported an influential terrorist group headed by the man who is now al Qaeda's second-in-command, according to an exhaustive study issued last week by the Pentagon. "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."

"Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda--as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision."

In 1993, as Osama bin Laden's fighters battled Americans in Somalia, Saddam Hussein personally ordered the formation of an Iraqi terrorist group to join the battle there.

For more than two decades, the Iraqi regime trained non-Iraqi jihadists in training camps throughout Iraq.

According to a 1993 internal Iraqi intelligence memo, the regime was supporting a secret Islamic Palestinian organization dedicated to "armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests."

In the 1990s, Iraq's military intelligence directorate trained and equipped "Sudanese fighters."

In 1998, the Iraqi regime offered "financial and moral support" to a new group of jihadists in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.

In 2002, the year before the war began, the Iraqi regime hosted in Iraq a series of 13 conferences for non-Iraqi jihadist groups.

That same year, a branch of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) issued hundreds of Iraqi passports for known terrorists.

Between the year 2000 and 2002 explosive materials were transported to embassies outside Iraq for special work, upon the approval of the Director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. The responsibility for these materials is in the hands of heads of stations. Some of these materials were transported in the political mail carriers [Diplomatic Pouch]. Some of these materials were transported by car in booby-trapped briefcases.

Another captured Iraqi document from early 1993 "reports on contact with a large number of terrorist groups in the region, including those that maintained an office or liaison in Iraq."

More recently, captured "annual reports" of the IIS reveal support for terrorist organizations in the months leading up the U.S. invasion in March 2003. According to the Pentagon study, "the IIS hosted thirteen conferences in 2002 for a number of Palestinian and other organizations, including delegations from the Islamic Jihad Movement and the Director General for the Popular Movement for the Liberation of al-Ahwaz."

Again, at precisely the same time Zawahiri was "joining with bin Laden," the spring of 1993, he was being funded by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. As Zawahiri's jihadists trained in al Qaeda camps in Sudan, his representative to Iraq was planning "commando operations" against the Egyptian government with the IIS.

A separate memo reveals that the Army of Muhammad has requested assistance from Iraq. The study authors summarize the response by writing, "the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established. The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that 'this organization is an offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization.

In another instance, the new Pentagon study makes reference to captured documents detailing the Iraqi relationship with Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law.

Ron,  Without taking sides, let me get this straight.  You are using on a report that was written by a dept. under the President to verify alleged lies made by their boss, and you don't see any conflict of interest there?

I don't really think of the nationreview as a unbiased source either....can you cross reference this with any other sources?

And to the best of my knowledge any screeching was that he wasn't behind 9/11 like it was sold. 

Excuse me, but these conclusions are based upon captured Iraqi documents.

Why don't you read the report and decide for yourself. Afraid of what you will find?

Of course. BTW, The Weekly Standard is not the National Review.

Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10230/iraqi_perspectives_project.html

Download it and read it for yourself. There is a reason you haven't heard of it before even though the report is a month old.

The fact that our media has ignored this report is all the proof needed to confirm it's veracity. They refuse to report it.

No one in the Bush Administration ever said Saddam was behind 9/11.

Why don't you read the report yourself. It's available to anyone who can type.

I responded to your post with a link to the report from the Council on Foreign Relations and it was flagged for spam.

I have no idea why. The report is easily found on the internet. Download it and read it for yourself.

  Goodness, no!  Well then, I'm convinced.  They would of had to of had a typewritter and a copy machine to to pull off a deception of that magnatude.  Your a funny guy, Ron.


  Yup Ron, there you have it....Proof positive again!  And, you've just made the same claim as every "Conspiracy Theorist" you've ever stamped your foot at.  Be carefull, or soon it might start to feel like your hands are steel and the Reynolds Wrap is a magnet. And once you put on that hat your life size Condolliza Rice poster hanging on the ceiling of your bedroom wont be smiling any more. 

Are you suggesting our Government made up the 600,000 pages of documents? What a hoot!!

Even with the facts staring you right in the face you still believe the lies. Truly pathetic.


No conspiracy needed. You can read the report yourself. We both know why you won't.

liberals simply refuse to admit they have been fooled for five long years.

All I have staring me in the face Ron, is your cronic underestimation of what our Government is capable of.
     Is it because you wont be able to "deal" with the ramifications of the truth?   What?     I say this because I've noted from past posts that you believe that our Government craps roses....Well Ron, let me be the last to tell you....you are sorely mistaken and tragically mis-informed ......on a multitude of issues.

Even accepting Saddam's indirect support of terrorist activities, does this justify America's invasion and occupation of Iraq? Saddam's guilt does not change the fact that this was a reckless war that aggravated the world community and motivated future terrorists.

The people we pay to make those judgments said yes. Could they have been wrong? Absolutely.

I don't think anyone's gonna be surprised that Hussein funded terrorist orginizations... but you'd be convieniently ignorant to roll over the fact that we've done it in the past and continue to do it now...

The report cautions it's readers to understand that Suddam Hussein and Al Quida never actually ventured on anything together:

"Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a 'de facto' link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust."

The same could be said about Saudi Arabian and Pakistani terrorist orginizations. No doubt all these groups shared very similar goals... yet detail is only paid to the similarities between Hussein and Al Quida? How convienient. I guess the similar goals between Musharraf (a US "ally") and whatever group succeeded in killing Bhutto are not good enough to make a stink about?

Either way, as the article goes on it becomes more concerned with the relationship of different terrorist orginizations and has very little on Iraq's direct dealing with Al Quida, which as the report already states, were virtually independent of each other.

Also, what I find strange about this whole thing is that if the Bush Administration was right this whole time... why aren't they shouting it from the roof tops? I refuse to believe that Bush would let his entire legacy (Iraq, basically) pass by because of laziness.

 That is a lie Ron Mars. Ron Mars you are a liar.
Dick Cheney;
Rumsfeld;
 

Speaking of trusting the Pentagon sources, there is a great documentary on PBS that shows the huge rifts between CIA and Pentagon over what should be done in Iraq and how the war in Afghanistan should be fought. Cheney sided with Rumsfeld and the Pentagon because their intel gave the impression that Iraq was a threat, while CIA only wanted to focus on Afghanistan because they had no intel showing Iraq to be a threat to the US.

I've only seen the documentary on around 2 or 3 in the morning EST so I'm not sure the name of it, but it is interesting and seemed fairly unbiased.

Unless you are prepared to show the IPP report is made from thin air none of your last post has meaning.

We have had five long years of lies from our media, Democrats and liberals. It's time to fess up and admit that.

.... would be an incredible admission for Democrats, liberals and selected media outlets.

Also, it would be completely different from the lies they have spoken, printed, believed and repeated over the last five years.


This argument is light-years away from what we "knew" about Saddam's terrorist connections just a few months ago.

Your above points are debateable at best. None of it refutes the IPP report detailing Saddam's ties to international terrorists organizations to include those with known members of al-Qaeda.

I don't think ANYone has said Suddam never requested the services of any terrorist organization. The issue here was whether the terrorist organization was Al Quida, and if so, did he have the means to give them a nuclear weapon.

It wasn't and he didn't.


But NOT Al Quida specifically.

According to Democrats, liberals and selected media outlets this would be incredible news and they should be stunned to find out about Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda affiliated organizations. It would mean they have had it completely wrong for five long years and owe Bush quite an apology for the false accusations that have been made against him. It's time they fess up and admit that.


This is irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not ignoring our past dealings with Saddam, why are you ignoring Saddam's direct ties to al-Qaeda terrorist organizations. We have been told for many years they existed only in Bush' lies. Remember?


The Saudi Arabian and Pakistani governments have not declared war against the US and killed 3,000 American citizens on 9/11. Musharraf is not funding the al-Qaeda terrorist in his country. His Government isn't running terrorists training camps within their country, holding terrorist "conferences" and passing out illegal passports to known terrorists. His embassies aren't full of weapons to be used in terrorist attacks.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan cannot be used as an analogy to al-Qaeda.


Why? He refuses to talk about every other lie told about him. From "stealing an election" to "outing a covert CIA agent" Bush has steadily refused to respond to these hoaxes. I believe it's a mistake and one of his greatest weaknesses.

You don't say! Differences between the elected officials in Government, the Pentagon and the CIA. Astonishing!!

Of course you realize this isn't the first time that's ever happened.

Now, about Saddam's ties to known al-Qaeda terrorist organizations ....... any comments about that?

You know that isn't true. Saddam had ties to international terrorist organizations including those he knew were affiliates of al-Qaeda. He had every intention of resuming WMD activities and continuing with those I have detailed here numerous times. You know, or should know by now, what Saddam's intentions were once UN sanctions were lifted. We now know he had direct ties or funded and armed al-Qaeda terrorist organizations in the Philipines, Africa and Egypt. These facts are indisputable and yet still have no bearing on your opinions.


Yes Abraxas, he had specific links to al-Qaeda terrorist organizations in Egypt, Africa and the Phillipines.

The IPP reports states these facts quite clearly. How could you have possibly missed that unless it's intentional?

No, Suddam did NOT have ties to Al Quida. Didn't you read your own report?

He had ties to people that either later became part of Al Quida or with people that were members of several groups, one of which may have been Al Quida. Suddam NEVER worked with Al Quida directly.

Again, I'll quote it for you:

""Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a 'de facto' link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust.""


I'm not even talking about Suddam here. I'm talking about Latin America, mostly.

And again... SUDDAM WAS NEVER DIRECTLY TIED TO AL QUIDA. Again, for those in the back:

""Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a 'de facto' link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust.""


The comparison I was drawing was NOT between Al Quida and Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, but rather IRAQ and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - all countries that blatantly fund, organize and even shelter terrorist orginizations. If Iraq's ties to terrorism are legitimate reasons for invasion and occupation, and we ARE running a war on terrorism, where is the hard line approach to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

In the intrest of being fair, at the least, shouldn't we sever ties with these countries in question?


Well, the election of 2000 and Plamegate will be nothing but footnotes in Bush's legacy... but Iraq will be the centerpiece. Don't you think he'd be doing everything he could to protect himself, especially if the truth is on his side for once?

You must have missed the part about funding, training and arming al-Qaeda terrorists in Africa, Egypt and the Phillipines.

You also missed the part about Saddam's having a policy of state sponsored terrorism as a declared foreign policy. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan do not.

"Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."

"Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda--as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision."



The 2000 elections and Plamegame were but two of the lies made up about Bush. You don't still believe that nonsense do you?

You don't still believe the Texas ANG hoax, the lies about firing US attorneys, the lies about Bush going after Administration critics, the lies about stealing Iraq's oil, the lies about tons of "stolen" explosives under US noses, the lies about 600,000 dead Iraqi's ... etc etc.

All of these were deliberate lies told by people who knew they were lying and the Bush Administration never fought back against them. Why is that so difficult for you to see and understand? You seem to think because he lets history expose these lies for what they are that must mean they are true.

Bush is willing to let history determine his legacy. I believe it's a big mistake as the people who will write his history believe these lies and much more.

Lies from liberals must be confronted. Bush has failed to do that.

More from the IPP report. This is word for word from Volume I, II. State Relationships with Terrorist Groups

Under Saddam, the Iraqi regime used its paramilitary Fedayeen Saddam
training camps to train terrorists for use inside and outside Iraq. In 1999, the
top ten graduates of each Fedayeen Saddam class were specifically chosen for assignment
to London, from there to be ready to conduct operations anywhere in
Europe.

Iraq was a long-standing supporter of international terrorism. The existence
of a memorandum (Extract 10) from the lIS to Saddam, written a decade
before OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, provides detailed evidence of that support.
Several of the organizations listed in this memorandum were designated as international
terrorist organizations by the US Department of State.

Extract 10
We list herein the organizations that our agency [IIS] cooperates with and
have relations with various elements in many parts of the Arab world and
who also have the expertise to carry out assignments indicated in the above
directive [the cited directive has not been discovered yet]....

Islamic Jihad Organization [Egyptian Islamic Jihad]

In a meeting in the Sudan we agreed to renew our relations with the Islamic
Jihad Organization in Egypt. Our information on the group is as follows:
- It was established in 1979.
- Its goal is to apply the Islamic shari' a law and establish Islamic
rule.
- It is considered one of the most brutal Egyptian organizations. It
carried out numerous successful operations, including the assassination
of Sadat.
- We have previously met with the organization's representative and
we agreed on a plan to carry out commando operations against the
Egyptian regime.

EIJ was founded by OBL's pal Al-Zawahiri. Does that name sound familiar?

Al-Zawahiri is a physician and the founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ). This organization opposes the secular Egyptian Government and seeks its overthrow through violent means. In approximately 1998, the EIJ led by Al-Zawahiri merged with Al Qaeda.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/teralzawahiri.htm

Actually, that just says Suddam supported groups that worked with Al Quida - groups that all may have had the same goals in Africa... but none of them say he directly supported Al Quida. In fact, they didn't really even trust each other.


I never said I did, but tiny details like this won't make or break the way history judges President Bush.

That's what I said. What *I* believe is irrelevent.


Because Iraq is Bush's legacy. Everything else is insugnificant.

You'd think he'd at least want to get the story straight on that, don't you?


So Hussein still never worked directly with Al Quida? That's what *I* said and what the IPP report has said... but what you fail to understand.

Saddam funded and armed terrorist organizations he knew were al-Qaeda affiliates. One of them is run by OBL's brother-in-law. No amount of spinning or claims of "insignificance" will ever change that. It is many on the left who cannot appreciate the magnitude of this revelation.

I have been reading and listening to lefties say Bush lied about Saddam's known links to international terrorist organizations for years now (Same goes for WMD's and the "war for oil"). This is so important because for years we have been told the exact opposite by Democrats, liberals and media outlets.

Bush tried to tell everyone that Saddam did indeed have close working relationships with many international terrorits, including known al-Qaeda affiliates, and virtually every liberal in the country called him a liar. They still do even after this report.

Why should he tell us what's going on? He gets called a liar for his troubles. He's pressing on with what he believes is right and letting history decide his legacy. Facts like these will not be forgotten.

"In another instance, the new Pentagon study makes reference to captured documents detailing the Iraqi relationship with Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law... In a memo from Ambassador Salah Samarmad to the Secondary Policy Directorate of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, we learn that the Iraqi regime had been funding and equipping Abu Sayyaf, which had been responsible for a series of high-profile kidnappings. The Iraqi operative informs Baghdad that such support had been suspended. "The kidnappers were formerly (from the previous year) receiving money and purchasing combat weapons. From now on we (IIS) are not giving them this opportunity and are not on speaking terms with them." That support would resume soon enough, and shortly before the war a high-ranking Iraqi diplomat named Hisham Hussein would be expelled from the Philippines after his cell phone number appeared on an Abu Sayyaf cell phone used to detonate a bomb.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp?pg=1

Hi, Ron! How are You? :) So...what's it like in 2003? Is it like I remember it? Is "Hey Ya!" by Outkast still a number one hit on the charts? "Yeah! Shake it like a Poloroid pit-cha!" Are the neo-cons still running the White House? Say Hi to Rummy for me! Hey, lemme catch you up! Wild news from 2007! They stopped making Poloroid film! And here in 2008, the Democrats control Congress and there is a black man that might be president! OMG!!! Bush is about as popular as Carter. You remember 1980, right? It's amazing isn't it? Jeez, progress.

By the way! They caught Saddam Husein and killed him, and things still suck in Iraq. WHO KNEW!!!

Not sure what this has to do with the topic. Nice rant though.

It may give you some comfort to know I understand why you have to believe this stuff.

Yeah, I have to believe it is 2008 and the only way I can believe you are still desperately trying to make the case that the invasion was a good idea, is that you suffered from a brain injury in 2003, which keeps you in that year, when all of the horseshit you keep flogging wasn't utterly disproven and debunked. It is so laughable the way you pretend you are so knowledgeable and everyone else is crazy, with the smug arrogance of the neo-cons in 2003. Newsflash: It is not just liberals who think the war was a stupid catastrophy anymore.

But you go ahead, looney tune, don't let me interrupt.

Ron can correct me if I'm wrong but he is not so much trying to make the case that it was a 'good idea' as much as dispelling the myth that we went in because of 'lies.'

Two completely different things.

Well, one follows from the other. The old argument from 2003, IF he has connections to Al Qaeda, THEN we had to invade. Then the neo-cons move information around in a big shell game so they can hope to make the impression that they didn't screw up totally with a bunch of lies they told to themselves. Yeah, the lies are proven a long time ago, too. It's just Bush believed them, like you and Ron.

I mean the article is a joke:

"This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a 'de facto' link between the organizations."

So Saddam had "the appearance of and, in some way, a 'de facto' link." The appearance in some way? A de facto link, like, say, not an actual one? Sounds solid!

"At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust."

So, if they worked together, it was only by accident and "defacto" and they really didn't like each other. Sounds like bullshit to me. IN other words NO LINK. And all this from the original, formerly high-riding neo-con bullshit machine, The Weekly Standard. They sure proved reliable. It was the sort of lying that was going around the White House in 2003: if it fits the argument in any way, it is good, if it contradicts, the argument it is bad. It is still lying if you are lying to yourself.

Bush's war has killed a thousand more Americans than Osama. And for this?

"Debating" bullshit gives the impression to the bullshitter that his bullshit may have some merit. That's why I never bother with FreeinTX.

If you remember, there wasn't a ton of debate at the time that Saddam was acting...well, similar to Iran is today. If only we had the benefit of hindsight.

Then again, if Saddam was still running things, who knows...we'll NEVER know...

Yes, we do know. HE WAS NO THREAT. Period.

You PERCIEVE that there "wasn't a ton of debate" because you were watching the MSM, you know those screeching liberals. They drowned out all debate with propaganda issued directly by the White House. Case in Point: Judith Miller's articles for the NYT in which she repeated near verbatim the claims of WMD DIRECTLY, as we know now, from the office of Dick Cheney. To anyone who looked at the available information AT THE TIME, in 2003, it was absolutely clear that the war was sheer lunacy. How do I know this? Because there is not a single thing that has happened since, that I and anyone else who was paying attention to the facts at the time did not see coming from the very beginning. The insurgency, the chaos, the fact that there were no WMD? It was a no-brainer. Anyone who lived on a foreign shore knew it and thought Americans had gone insane because it was obvious to every one else but us, because of our supposedly liberal media would have no debate.

So, yes, if you watched the MSM, you thought it was pretty certain. Some folks let their country go to ruin waving flags all the way, while people like me fought it at every step and were called anti-american. Who was the real patriot? ME. Which is what Obama is talking about with the lapel pin. Wearing a flag gives people the impression that that's all they have to do. Watch TV and wear a pin. Democracy and caring about your country is work, not just a bumpersticker.

I too was against going into Iraq. We elect officials to make decisions based on a billion times more knowledge you and I will EVER see.

With all due respect, if you were against invading Iraq, I would think you would be against military action in almost every circumstance. Iran and Iraq are not too dissimilar and Obama is already talking about potential need to deal with them.

I didn't need a billion times more knowledge. I needed what was readily available to anyone who was looking. You think I would be against military action in almost every circumstance because of your own need to fit "liberals" into a cliche. Virtually everyone I know who was for the war in Afghanistan was against the war in Iraq. I was for the war in Bosnia. In retrospect the Gulf war was a mistake and at the time I knew it was totally avoidable. But I supported it when we were in the fight.

I'll go ahead continue printing the truth of Saddam's dealings with international terrorists, including know al-Qaeda affiliates.

You can keep up the BS and worn out slogans. What choice do you have? Admitting the truth is not something you seem prepared to do.

Still waiting for you to print the truth of anything. It's 2008, and the Standard and you are a joke.

Those murdered by Saddam or his terrorist pals in Iraq, Israel, the Phillipines, Egypt, Africa and elsewhere would most likely disagree with you.

Saddam and his Government was directly involved with terrorist organizations all over the ME. They have killed tens of thousands of people.

Why is this fact considered irrelevant? So what if Saddam was arming and training international terrorists to be sent all over the world. Just because some of those terrorist organizations happened to be linked with al-Qaeda should have no impact on our opinions? Is that what you're trying to say?


The people who looked at the evidence did not come to those conclusions Irwin. Both Houses of Congress voted to remove Saddam based upon the evidence "at the time". The UN passed Resolution 1441 based upon the evidence "at the time". The proof of this has been posted to you several times.

Yeah, yeah, the old "The UN said it" lie. I played this shell game and won it a million times in 2003. We know Congress voted on the basis of fixed intel from the White House. We know the "the UN said it" lie is based on selected information, which when, if were to engage in this dead debate, you would switch around in a merry-go-around as I knocked down every point. Everyone has moved on.

Get over it.

Hillary Clinton said she came to her own conclusion separate and apart from information provided by the WH. Also, everyone on the Intelligence Committee was privy to the same info the WH had, not what Bush gave them.

At least on this one, you are wrong.

"Yeah, yeah,"   That pesky truth thing again. The truth on this subject is five years old now and should sound old.

"We know Congress voted on the basis of fixed intel from the White House"  They did?

"I knocked down every point"  Like Bush witholding intelligence from Congress? Knock downs like that?

" Everyone has moved on."  Except for those of us pointing out the deliberate lies being and exposing those all too willing to believe.

Okay, time to go. Have fun in 2003!

Hilary Clinton also said something about gunfire in Bosnia.

And, no, they were privy to the intelligence the White House packaged for them thru the Office of Special Plans, which was formed specifically to keep any dissenting voices out of the intel reports.

*yawn*

Was Bush sent the same packaged information as that  sent to Congress?

More late breaking BS from morons desperate to justify the largest foreign policy debacle in history, because all the orignal reasons have been proven to be worthless, or outright falsehoods.

Sorry, what has been verified is that Saddam DID not have much to do with world terrorism - what is proven (a word that you seem clueless about) is that he paid death benefits to the families of OTHER country's suicide bombers.

The truth is that Iraq, one of the most secular arab nations, was the least invovled in terrorism in the region, other than perhaps Jordan.

Syria is a more valid target, Libya, Lebannon and if you really want a terror breding ground, look no further than the people Bush holds hands and kisses.

He hired the packaged it. So the lies are his responsibility.

That's not what I asked. Was he delivered the same packaged intel that Congress received?

Is this some sort of lawyer's argument to excuse Bush because his own liars lied to him?

We know Congress' info came from the Office of Special Plans, headed by Dick Cheney. Bush was the boss. You think he wasn't involved in the process?

It's a simple question, really. It is being maintained that Bush lied. For that to be true, he had to intentionally mislead with intent to deceive. Anything short of that doesn't meet the criteria for a 'lie.'

For me, the reason I don't believe Bush 'lied' is because there is an absolute wealth of information out there about the attitudes of this country and its leaders toward Iraq...years BEFORE Bush (or his special office) showed up.

Yes, the majority of attitudes was that Saddam was no threat and an invasion would be a stupid disaster. We hear PUBLIC statements from various politicians like Clinton that there was a threat, but none of them were stupid enough to advocate it was a threat that required an invasion. We know that Bush repeatedly made claims known to be untrue, like connections to Al Qaeda. Those are lies. I'm sorry you feel so partisan that you feel you have to defend such a person.

There are quite a few quotes that disagree with you.


I would be interest to see your evidence supporting this claim.


It feels like you want me to just accept what you are saying at face value and move on.

Well, I have no clue who is telling the truth, but... the Pentagon was controlled by Rumsfeld who has worked with Cheney for over 30 years. Cheney had already had a bias against CIA from before he became the Vice-President and favored the advice of Rumsfeld. Bush, well he is just a puppet, someone who does as he's told, and everyone knows that Cheney has a heavy hand in the white house. So I think that the CIA reports were ignored, and we went into Iraq based on faulty Pentagon sources.

The Pentagons main source Ahmed Chalabi is anything but reputable and is said to only look to further his own agenda.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2291649.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2291649.stm)

This piece talks about how there was talk that he might be Hussein's successor. He was the one of the Pentagon's main sources of intelligence and he has been shown to be completely corrupt, of course he would say anything to get the US to get rid of Saddam.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iraqi_National_Congress (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iraqi_National_Congress) It seems to me that the war was planned, was already decided on, and then the search for any intel from anyone, no matter how reliable, began.

Yes, quotes fed to you in the MSM as the majority, and by politicians, who knew it wasn't politically safe to tell the truth publically about Saddam. Yet, around the world the consensus was that the US had gone insane because the claims were just ridiculous.

George Bush Sr. Rejected invasion.

Bill Clinton, approached by the neo-cons, rejected invasion.

Your opinions are directly issued by the Republican party through FOX. You pretend to be just asking questions, but you elected Bush twice and until he started to look bad, were in the habit of defending everything he does. Now you want to split hairs over whether he was lying.

Shameful...


Bush's Al Qaeda/Saddam lie: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html

No question? That is a lie.

These were quotes about Iraq from the late 90s...ie: pre- 9/11.


Really? Seems like the UN still had sanctions on Iraq. Maybe I'm remembering that wrong.


Indeed.


Alan Colmes (no right wing nut) poo-poos your claim that FOX is somehow a tool of the Republican party.


This is a bit mangled. What are you saying?


Your contention is Saddam had zero dealings with AQ? Just so I'm clear...

Saddam was NO threat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLrjGq-V700)

 Well wadaya know...It seem these two folks were going against the conventional wisdom at the time...

Osama bin Laden hated Saddam. Period. Anyone familliar with the mideast knew that.

Alan colmes? LOL! The only "liberal" on FOX? The token liberal. Yeah, he's going to challenge the only people who will pay his check. The very fact you think FOX is not conservative biased shows you bark thier party line.

You want to lawyer Bush out of being a liar by asking, metaphorically, "It depends on what your definition of is is."

He's a liar and an incompetant, who has screwed this country good. Good luck with all your BS.

Not your best rebut.

Ooooh! Devastating. Not.

The UN has sanctions on a lot of countries we haven't invaded.

Are you backtracking now to the position that Saddam was a threat (nuclear, biological, chemical) but contained?

Would you like to point out where backtracking went on?

OK...simple question.

Was Saddam a threat to the US and the world during the 90s and early 2000s? What is your position?

Well, if Suddam DID have direct ties to Al Quida (which even the Pentagon report says didn't exist) and we went in to Iraq to stop Al Quida's network of terrorism... it ain't going so well.

In fact, a GAO report says Al Quida once again has the means to strike the U.S..

"The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas"

... and that's just the title...

The report can be found HERE (http://www.hcfa.house.gov/110/GAO041708.pdf) - where you will find things like this:

- "In particular, the unclassified versions of the 2007 NIE and 2008 Annual Threat Assessment state that al Qaeda has regenerated its attack capability and secured a safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA."

- "The United States has not met its national security goals to destroy the terrorist threat and close the safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA region."

- "No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the FATA has been developed..."

- "The United States has not met its national security goals to destroy the terrorist threat and close the safe haven in the FATA, despite more than $10.5 billion in U.S. support to Pakistan since 2002."

- "Pakistan provides al Qaeda with many of the same advantages it had when it was based across the border in Afghanistan. According to the assessment, the safe haven in the FATA serves as a staging area for al Qaeda’s attacks in support of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Further, it serves as a location for training new terrorist operatives for attacks in Pakistan, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and the United States. U.S. government officials in Washington and Pakistan also acknowledge that al Qaeda has established a safe haven near Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. For example, State’s April 2007 Country Reports on Terrorism states that Pakistan remains a major source of Islamic extremism and a safe haven for some top terrorist leaders, including those of al Qaeda."

- "The NIE stated that, in the past 2 years, al Qaeda’s central leadership regenerated the core operational capabilities needed to conduct attacks against the United States. It also found that al Qaeda’s central leadership, based in the border area of Pakistan, is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the United States."

... and that's only the half of it.

So, even if we all pretend that Bush was justified in invading Iraq because of it's INderect ties to Al Quida... you have to realize that it's done nothing to make this nation safer. Nothing. In fact, it may have very well inspired an entire generation of young, militant Muslims.

Heck'uv'a job, sir...







I'm so sick I might very well throw up...

So you are pushing for TOUGHER measures.

Me too. Total agreement. Let's slowing more out of Iraq and bust Pakistan in the chops.

I don't know what I'm pushing for anymore.

Bush has tied us in such a knot, I don't even want to think about what we have to do.

One thing we have to STOP doing is trusting Pakistan. One thing we have to STOP doing is relying on Al Maliki and the Iraqi parliment to fix their country. One thing we have to STOP doing is pretending like we're going to be there forever no matter the cost. One thing we have to STOP doing is fighting proxy enemies. One thing we have to STOP doing is trusting in the leadership of our Commander and Chief.

Beyond that... I don't have a clue what we should actually DO.


... is your answer to everything violence?

Why don't we STOP trusting Musharaef? Why don't we actually HELP THEM have a safe and free election?

Let's start small before we start invading everything, K?

NO. Never. Not in the least. Not to the US. It doesn't matter what politician you quote says he was not. How is a contained threat a threat? Politicians of every party for years made political points by acting like he was a threat to us. Saddam was a joke. The UN sanctions were only related to WMD and the issue of continued inspections. At a certain point he decided, being ambigous about having  WMD was the best strategy...against Iran.

In 1980, he had a modern army and he thought the backward Iranian army would be a pushover. But the Iranians had masses of numbers, suicidal numbers, which they sent in swarms over the Iraqi military. Iraq was losing. The US could not allow this. It was decided that WMD would be the only way to stop the swarms. The Reagan Administrations arranged to sucure WMD through second and third parties. The WMD held off the Iranians. In 1988, the war ended in stalemate.

From that point on, he wanted WMD as a deterrent to another war with Iran. WE beat his ass in Kuwait, but we didn't wipe out half-a-million Iraqi soldiers. HE wanted WMD because of IRAN. We weren't even on his radar. After the Gulf War, he was forced to give up his WMD. But he wanted to keep it unclear whether he had them or not because they were his only deterrent to Iran.

There was no threat ever, except to Iran. We gave Iran a great gift. We wiped out their mortal enemy.

Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Gen. Wesely Clark, David Kay, the French and Germans are in on the "Big Lie" as well?

As time goes by it becomes increasing clear who the real liars are; the pathetic liberals in America.

Bill Clinton:
In fact, two of the three specific gripes in bin Laden’s 1998 “kill all Americans” fatwa dealt with Iraq and America’s “continuing aggression against the Iraqi people.”
Just a week before that fatwa, President Clinton had piqued bin Laden by warning of “the very kind of threat Iraq poses now—a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists.”


Opening Remarks of David Kay to the Senate Armed Services Committee Testimony:
DAVID KAY: .... Sen. [Edward] Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction.
I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD.
The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.


Hillary Clinton:
"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security.
This much is undisputed. The open questions are: What should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?"


Gen. Wesley Clark:
CLARK: Thank you, sir. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat .... I'm sure he has a rationale for what he's doing, but we don't always know it. He does retain his chemical and biological capabilities to some extend and he is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we. Saddam might use these weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his other neighbors.

Stephen Hayes's book, "The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America"

According to the Clinton Justice Department's spring 1998 indictment of bin Laden, "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq." (Page 114.)

In what the CIA nicknamed "Operation Dogmeat," two Iraqi students who lived in the Philippines tried to demolish U.S. Information Service headquarters in Manila. Iraqi diplomat Muwufak al Ani met with the bombers five times before the attack. His car even took them near their target on January 19, 1991. Their bomb exploded prematurely, killing Ahmed J. Ahmed, but his accomplice, Abdul Kadham Saad, survived and was whisked to a Manila hospital. Saad, carrying documents bearing two distinct identities, asked staffers to alert the Iraqi embassy, then recited its phone number. (Page 39.)

Around this time, according to former high-level CIA counterterrorist Stanley Bedlington, Hussein paired Iraqi intelligence operatives with members of the Arab Liberation Front to execute attacks. "The Iraqis had given them all passports," he said, "but they were all in numerical sequence." These tell-tale passport numbers helped friendly governments nab these terror teams. (Page 41.)

President George Herbert Walker Bush ignored information that Hussein "was offering state payment to terrorists," then-Senator Al Gore (D., Tennessee) declared on October 15, 1992. Gore also listed more than a dozen examples of Iraq-sponsored terrorism and said "an estimated 1,400 terrorists were operating openly out of Iraq." (Page 41.)

"In 1992, elements of al Qaeda came to Baghdad and met with Saddam Hussein," Abu Aman Amaleeki, a 20-year veteran of Iraqi intelligence, said on ABC's Nightline on September 26, 2002. Speaking from a Kurdish prison, he added: "And among them was Ayman al Zawahiri," bin Laden's chief deputy. "I was present when Ayman al Zawahiri visited Baghdad." (Page 43.)

Former Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) Deputy Director Faruq Hijazi, reports a reliable foreign spy agency, supplied blank Yemeni passports to al Qaeda in 1992. (Page 66.)

Mohammed Salameh, a 1993 World Trade Center attacker, called Baghdad 46 times in the two months before bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yasin flew from Baghdad to New Jersey to join the plot. Salameh's June 1992 phone bill totaled $1,401, which prompted his disconnection for non-payment. After the blast — which killed six individuals and injured 1,042 — Yasin fled to Baghdad, where records and multiple press accounts show he received safe haven and Baathist cash. (Pages 11 and 50.)

Based on a 20-page IIS document discovered in Baghdad, the Defense Intelligence Agency reports that "Alleged conspirators employed by IIS are wanted in connection with the [June 25, 1996] Khobar Towers bombing and the assassination attempt in 1993 of former President Bush." (Page 180.)

In an October 27, 2003 memo, Defense Undersecretary Douglas J. Feith explained Hussein's bonus pay for terrorists: "Iraq increased support to Palestinian groups after major terrorist attacks and...the change in Iraqi relations with al Qaeda after the [1998 east African] embassy bombings followed this pattern." A top Philippine terrorist also said Iraq's payments to the al Qaeda-tied Abu Sayyaf grew after successful assaults. (Page 120.)

ABC News reported on January 14, 1999, that it "has learned that in December [1998] an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden."

Hijazi "went to Afghanistan in December with the knowledge of the Taliban and met with Osama bin Laden," former CIA counterterrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro told National Public Radio's Mike Shuster on February 18, 1999. "It's known through a variety of intelligence reports that the U.S. has, but it's also known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama's entourage let it be known that the meeting had taken place." (Page 124.)

On January 5, 2000, Malaysian intelligence photographed September 11 hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar being escorted through Kuala Lumpur's airport by VIP facilitator Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi recommended to Malaysian Airlines by Baghdad's embassy there. The pair soon were photographed again at al Qaeda's three-day planning summit for the October 2000 U.S.S. Cole and 9/11 attacks. Three separate documents recently unearthed in Iraq identify an Ahmed Hikmat Shakir as a lieutenant colonel in Uday Hussein's elite Saddam Fedayeen. (Page 4)

Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani is the former Iraqi diplomat suspected of meeting September 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta in Prague on April 8, 2001, and possibly June 2, 2000, the day before Atta flew from Prague to Newark, New Jersey. Top secret Pentagon records cite a Czech intelligence report that al Ani "ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office." During the summer of 2000, $99,455 was wired from financial institutions in the United Arab Emirates to Atta's Sun Trust bank account in Florida.(Page 129.)

After evacuating an al Qaeda training camp he ran in Afghanistan as U.S. troops approached, Ansar al-Islam founder Abu Musab al Zarqawi eventually had his leg amputated and replaced with a prosthesis around late May 2002. He was treated in Baghdad's Olympic Hospital, an elite facility whose director was the late Uday Hussein, son of the deposed tyrant. Zarqawi is implicated in ongoing attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and is believed to have sawed off American businessman Nick Berg's head. (Page 167.)

U.S troops inspecting an al-Qaeda-affiliated Ansar al-Islam camp in Iraq discovered, Hayes reports, "several hundred passports belonging to suspected Ansar and al Qaeda fighters, dozens of them bearing visas issued by the Iraqi regime." A passport found on one dead terrorist listed his visit's purpose as "jihad." (Page 172.)

Great post!!!

The truth hurts, it can even make a person physically sick, but the truth is the truth.

We fund Pakistan, then Pakistan protects terrorists.

So who is funding and protecting these scumbags?

Why the US government with taxpayer dollars of course. Just like has been going on for decades.

Can't have a war on terror without terrorists, so the US government makes sure we don't run out of terrorists.

Welcome to the real world.

Quote all the politicians you like. "It doesn't matter what politician you quote says he was not. How is a contained threat a threat? Politicians of every party for years made political points by acting like he was a threat to us. Saddam was a joke. The UN sanctions were only related to WMD and the issue of continued inspections. At a certain point he decided, being ambigous about having  WMD was the best strategy...against Iran."

We gave the weapons, we took the weapons. The only threat was to Iran...a threat we could use right now...

You people still don't get it.

What happened to the "Bush Lied" BS we have heard for five long years?

It has been demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that in fact Bush did not lie about WMD's or Saddams ties to al-Qaeda.

We know who the liars are now; American liberals!  They just can't bring themselves to admit it.