Official Pentagon study: No credible link found between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda network (death, 9/11)

[burdell]

Originally Posted by LNTT_Vacationer

The mess? No more nightly bombings of our embassies. No more explosives going off in our buildings parking garages intended to bring the building down. No more acts of war by actually attacking our innocent warships. No more gov't sponsored assassination teams out to kill our presidents. No more killing 3,000 innocent civilians. . . .

You sound like the Clinton admin . . . . deny, deny, deny we're getting attacked every day and claim peace. Not everyone buys it. Defending your country is a virtue.

We were NEVER ATTACKED BY IRAQ in the 225 years this country existed prior to 9/11, what makes you think invading/occupying it had any influence on possible attacks in the last 7 years?

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by burdell

YES! I'd like to bet however much you'd care to lose on your personal delusions, put your $$$$$$$$$ up.

And what evidence would that be? The only evidence relevant to me in the current context would be evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat and a priotity after the 9/11 attacks. Being that Saddam is known to have been an enemy of al Qaeda overthrowing him doesn't make too much sense when we could have been focusing on al Qaeda in other countries more friendly to it.

I forgot, you only took the parts out of the 911 Commission report that met your argument. The part about al-Qaeda being in Iraq was totally ignored by you, just like the Clintons changing the US policy on Iraq.

At least you dont attempt to hide your ignorance on the information that was available when.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by burdell

We were NEVER ATTACKED BY IRAQ in the 225 years this country existed prior to 9/11, what makes you think invading/occupying it had any influence on possible attacks in the last 7 years?

You can repeat that all day long but until you find proof that Congress thought we were attacked by Iraq, and used that as rationality for voting yes, its nonsense.

[LNTT_Vacationer]

Originally Posted by burdell

We were NEVER ATTACKED BY IRAQ in the 225 years this country existed prior to 9/11, what makes you think invading/occupying it had any influence on possible attacks in the last 7 years?

That's where the enemy is?

Btw, since you appear to be hysterically screaming, Iraq did put two missiles into the USS Stark back in '87. Also, they clearly sent a team of assassins to kill an existing US president; touted how they were developing WMDs, kicked inspectors out. . . . actually, as Hillary confirmed in her own research before voting for war, there were some 23 reason's in the war resolution to attack.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by pghquest

I forgot, you only took the parts out of the 911 Commission report that met your argument. The part about al-Qaeda being in Iraq was totally ignored by you, just like the Clintons changing the US policy on Iraq.

You have very selective amnesia, you ALSO forgot YOU offerd NOTHING to support your implications that the commission EVER stated there was evidence of a collaboratiive relationship between Saddam's government and al Qaeda. Your examples of "willing to", "reportedly", "had a meeting" established NOTHING.

Originally Posted by pghquest

At least you dont attempt to hide your ignorance on the information that was available when.

As I've asked before, WHERE does the commission state UNEQUIVOCALLY that there was a collaboratiive relationship between Saddam's government and al Qaeda.? "willing to" and all the other speculation that YOU read into ARE NOT evidence.

IF you're going to allege that I'm ignorant of something it's on YOU to establish that something exists. So far you've failed.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by LNTT_Vacationer

That's where the enemy is?

There and at least 40 other countries, in most of which they're probably not opposed by the state so no answer here, keep trying.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by burdell

You have very selective amnesia, you ALSO forgot YOU offerd NOTHING to support your implications that the commission EVER stated there was evidence of a collaboratiive relationship between Saddam's government and al Qaeda. Your examples of "willing to", "reportedly", "had a meeting" established NOTHING.

As I've asked before, WHERE does the commission state UNEQUIVOCALLY that there was a collaboratiive relationship between Saddam's government and al Qaeda.? "willing to" and all the other speculation that YOU read into ARE NOT evidence.

IF you're going to allege that I'm ignorant of something it's on YOU to establish that something exists. So far you've failed.

There you go, repeating it again... hello, anyone home?

NEVER did Congress state that there was a credible link.. What part of this are you not understanding? Why do you continue to say that they didnt prove a relationship, when not one Congress member, nor I have claimed that there was a link. Saying that we didnt have a right to go to war because a recent pentagon report claimed there was no link is a flawed argument because that WAS NOT THE ARGUMENT TO ATTACK!

Not even Clinton used that as an excuse to invade.. jees.. Your own politicians admit there was no linkage but valid reasons to attack and you think its the Republicans to blame? Yeah.. ignorance is bliss.

[Coffee Mate]

Ah...This reminds me of the EOD guy I met.....busily destroying Iraqi ammo dumps to prevent them from becoming VBIED/IED materials....
They found a huge number of 105 and 155 shells that looked like normal HE shells but were in fact disguised chemical shells....filled with ????
Who knows how much of this was hidden and disguised in this fashion. The Iraqis buried entire aircraft in order to hide them....We may never know EXACTLY who had what, when....buried missiles, tanks...hidden stockpiles of this or that....
And the Al-Qaeda connection? Again....who knows. There may have been....perhaps not....We may also never know just how many people Saddam Hussein murdered....

[LNTT_Vacationer]

Originally Posted by burdell

. . . . As I've asked before, WHERE does the commission state UNEQUIVOCALLY that there was a collaboratiive relationship between Saddam's government and al Qaeda.? "willing to" and all the other speculation that YOU read into ARE NOT evidence.



IF you're going to allege that I'm ignorant of something it's on YOU to establish that something exists. So far you've failed.

Not to interject some facts but to quote just a couple lines from the official 911 Commission report (pg 84):

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.

Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. . . . . .

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by LNTT_Vacationer

Not to interject some facts but to quote just a couple lines from the official 911 Commission report (pg 84):

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.

Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. . . . . .

According to burdell, those dont matter, because it says "reportedly", and reported to. He simply picked and chose what lines of the report to choose to believe. Its ok for the Commission Report to list, but not burdell.. he's got such high standards that he needs real proof.. unless of course its an anti Republican accusation then all accusations are true... Even the fact that Clinton changed the US policy against Iraq is Bushs' fault!