Welcome to PatsFans.com

Al Queda and Saddam links before 9-11

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by patsfan13, Jul 6, 2006.

  1. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +130 / 7 / -13

    It funny according to the Clinton admin and the 'mainstream media'. there was a working relationship between Al Queda and Saddam. The Clinton administration explictly refrenced Iraq in their 1998 indictment of OBL.

    How's actually lying and spinning and flip flopping. Ol Fritz Hollings (d-SC) even scolded the Bush administration on 9-12-2001 for not seeing that Iraqi newspapers had predicted the Al Queda attacks on the Pentagon NYC and the WH (Flingt 93) a year in advance. Interesting how the dems and the media has tried to flush all this down the memory hole.

    First up The 11/5/1998 indictment of OBL that linked Al Queda to Iraq via the NYT archive:

    Next up the London Guardian a left wing newspaper:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html

    next from the noted outpost of the vast right wing conspiracy CNN:



    From Shelia Mc Vicar (sorry original link to MP3 no linger works:

    so according to ABC and the Clinton admin, OBL was trying to help Iraq acuire uranium for WMD....

    Due to the length the post will be in 2 parts.
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +130 / 7 / -13

    Rest of the post..


    Another article from your fave Laurie from 1999 on OBL, Saddam and WMD, uses references 60 min report LOL:


    The next is from the congressional record and a speech given by 'Fritz' Hollins where points out a newspaper article that he felt showed that Saddam had knowledge of the 9-11 attack. Hopefully we can agree that Hollins isn't a dittohead.

    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S8525&position=all

    [/quote]Here is a news story from July 21,
    2001, before 9/11 of last year, in the
    Iraqi news. The name of that particular
    newspaper is Al-Nasiriya.
    Quoting from it:
    Bin Ladin has become a puzzle and a proof
    also, of the inability of the American federalism
    and the CIA to uncover the man and
    uncover his nest. The most advanced organizations
    of the world cannot find the man and
    continues to go in cycles in illusion and presuppositions.
    It refers to an exercise called ‘‘How
    Do You Bomb the White House.’’ They
    were planning it.
    Let me read this to all the colleagues
    here:
    The phenomenon of Bin Ladin is a healthy
    phenomenon in the Arab spirit. It is a decision
    and a determination that the stolen
    Arab self has come to realize after it got
    bored with promises of its rulers; After it
    disgusted itself from their abomination and
    their corruption, the man had to carry the
    book of God . . . and write on some white
    paper ‘‘If you are unable to drive off the Marines
    from the Kaaba, I will do so.’’ It seems
    that they will be going away because the
    revolutionary Bin Ladin is insisting very
    convincingly that he will strike America on
    the arm that is already hurting.
    In other words, the World Trade Towers.
    Here, over a year ahead of time in
    the open press in Iraq, they are writing
    that this man is planning not only to
    bomb the White House, but where they
    are already hurting, the World Trade
    Towers.
    I ask unanimous consent to print
    this article in the RECORD.
    There being no objection, the[/quote]

    Finally a link to Front Page mag which has linked a bunch of other mainstream media reports, here is the link:http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8887


    Too much to quote here but I couldn't resist thsi one from NPR


    Unless the Clinton WH is guilty of massive lying the connection between Al Queda and Iraq was widely known. The dispatching of Zarqwai to Oraq to work on Chems and develop the Al Queda base there makes perfect sense.
  3. Blue Collar

    Blue Collar Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +130 / 7 / -13

  5. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +130 / 7 / -13

    Well given the lack of response I can conclude we all agree that Al Queda and Saddam were working together and that The Clinton administration as Well as the Bush Administration felt Saddam had/were persuing WMD and was planning on getting them in the hands of terrorist.

    Boy that was easy.
  6. mikey

    mikey Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    You are desperate, man.

    The reason for the lack of response is that you have zero credibility. :D


    .
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2006
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +130 / 7 / -13


    Another post from Mikey with Zeroi content. The facts stand unchallenged.:bricks:
  8. gomezcat

    gomezcat It's SIR Moderator to you Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,551
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Erm, you didn't look at those videos, did you?

    As I understand it, everyone has acknowledged that Saddam WANTED to recruit Bin Laden. As I also understand it, he turned down the offers. Was Saddam bad? Definitely and I am glad to see the back of him. What worries me (and should worry everyone of all political persuasions) is that WMDs were never found, when everyone insisted that they existed. Either a lot of people were wrong or some people lied and everyone else went along with them. Neither option is overly palatable, given the cost of the war and the lives lost.
    I also have strong issues with the occupation strategy, the way that terrorists were allowed to enter Iraq and the naive sense that we would be welcome as liberators. It is disturbing that we (UK and the US) actually believed that, myself included.
    Saddam probably did have some links to terrorism but going into Iraq was never going to catch Bin Ladin.
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +130 / 7 / -13

    The contempanerous news reports cited in this thread and captured documents (which I have posted in other threads, indicate they were actively working together.

    How would your approach to the occupation differed?

    I would say that in any war I have ever studied there are numerous error and blunders, if there weren't that would be suprising.
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    This is nothing new. There's no question that in a country the size of Iraq, Al Qaeda had some low level contacts; there's no dispute that Saddam and OBL explored working together (but both had reasons for not doing so); there's no doubt that Iraqi dissident groups produced questionable claims regarding Al Qaeda and Saddam; there's no question that Republicans and Democrats used propaganda to force Saddam to comply with sanctions; there's no evidence that Saddam provided Al Qaeda with WMDs or even material support; there's no question that Congress investigated the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda and found it insignificant. Of course, you can take the scraps of news you find and piece together a new story. In fact, I suppose I could gather information about the flight schools, Bush's relationship with the Saudis, Bush's decision to let the bin Ladens flee the U.S. immeidiately after 9/11, and make the case that there was a relationship between Bush and Al Qaeda. In fact, add to that Reagan's support for the Taliban, and I could argue that Reagan and Bush were behind 9/11. Of course, I don't believe that, but one can take shards of evidence and piece together a story that suits their political perspective as you keep doing.
  11. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +130 / 7 / -13

    Actually Patters these documents say they did work together and support the captured Iraqi documents indicating they did work together.

    Direct question Did the Clinton administration lie in their indictment of BIn Laden claiming He was supported and working with Iraq?
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    I have responded to your posts time and again. I figure that if the rabidly pro-war, rabidly conservative, rabidly sycophantish Congress concluded that there were no significant relations between Saddam and Al Qaeda that view represents a majority consensus, which puts you out of the mainstream, sort of in the world of conspiracy theorists.

    You have to distinguish propaganda from truth. Certainly, under containment both political parties adopted the line that Saddam is dangerous, sympathetic to Al Qaeda, holds WMDs, etc., but I believe many of those statements had to do with putting pressure on Saddam. You cannot expect when dealing with an enemy that responsible voices will come out and say the objective truth.
  13. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +130 / 7 / -13

    If I understand you here you are saying Bush didn't delibertly lie about his contentions about WMD and terrorist ties. Correct?
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    No. Bush most likely deliberately lied as an excuse to go to war. The war has not turned out well so those lies take on extra value. It's dangerous to lie, especially when you're using those lies to put Americans in harm's way. If he lied in order to justify containment, I don't think there would be as much of an uproar.
  15. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +130 / 7 / -13

    So Bush lied Clinton was being diplomatic. :rolleyes:
  16. mikey

    mikey Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Bush and Clinton both lied.

    But there is a difference.

    2,520 American boys died because of Bush's lies.


    .
  17. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +130 / 7 / -13

    No response to the documents cited above NEM just a clumsly attempt to change the subject. You and Mikey should check out Patters, when he disagrees he does so in a coherent way. His arguments are at least somewhat plausable and reasonable. You could learn from that.

    For you and Mikey you just throw a hissy fit and threathen to hold you breath insult the person you disagree with. BFD.
  18. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,141
    Likes Received:
    305
    Ratings:
    +617 / 4 / -12

    #87 Jersey

    He has debated in a day more than you have done in all your 2600 posts.
  19. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +130 / 7 / -13


    In this thread I referenced CNN, the left wing London Guardian newspaper, ABC news, a reference to a democratic Senator's speech ion the floor of the Senate, and a NYT reprint of the Clinton administration indictment of OBL. Which of those documents are right wing biased in you opinion??????

    Indeed the point of this thread was that the link between OBL and Saddam and the intention to aquire WMD and get them to Al Queda was convemtional wisdom in the mainstream media and in the previous democratic administration. The idea that Bush 'made up' the notion of a link between OBL and Saddam is nonsense.

    Feel free to disagree with the congress decision to give the president the power to invade Iraq, and disagree with Bush for using that power, but the idea that he intentionally lied is dishonest.
  20. Blue Collar

    Blue Collar Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    You can discredit all the video's, all the pages of info, all the intel experts, generals and whoever the hell us you don't believe. It's been 3 1/2 years and at least some of us have said wmd story is bullsh--, 3 1/2 years and there nothing, other then some old sh-- from the 80's that we helped provide so we could exact revenge on iran, tell you the truth ,back then I had no problem with it. The day bush say's here the nuclear bomb's and all the other crap he told the world saddam had to go to war, I will admit I was wrong. Right now you have sh--, 400 billion and thousands of lives, and no wmd's after 3 1/2 years. Doesn't mean I am anti america, means I believe the president is full of sh--, and the lack of his claims prove it....
    Man that treble hook is lodged deep, I think you need pliers:D

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>