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

POSTED BY: Zoriah
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 7, 2004 14:06
VIEWED: 22022
PAGE 2 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

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

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE