Dubious Link Between Atta and Saddam (forged document)

[bountyhunter]

I had always thought that Saddam WAS a terrorist and supported terrorists. I guess I was wrong.

Now, you degenrate to semantics. Our government initially described Saddam as an "ally". More accurately, in a briefing to Reagan, it was stated: " He's a bully and a thug, but he's OUR thug." It was believed he was a bought-and-paid for enforcer who would be loyal to US interests as long as we continued to allow him unrestricted access to US weapons. That strategy didn't turn out so well.

Is he a terrorist? Not in the usual definition. he's a murderer, but so are (were) most leaders of countries the US had as allies starting with Josef Stalin and going through to Batista, Duvalia, Marcos, the Shah of Iran, Dong Xiao Ping, and just about any leader you can think of. If murdering unwanted people in a country qulaifies one as a terrorist, that list suddenly grew in length by about 1000X.

As to whether he "supported terrorism"? Again, you have to define it. Clearly he did not like the US, but as to any actual active missions, the only one I have knowledge of is a hit on Geroge Bush I..... and that was personal. Hussein thought the US was out to kill him (can't imagine wherre he got that idea?). We know that Hussein did nmot support Al Qaeda because OBL's mission was to depose Hussein. As to whether or not Hussein supported Hezbollah or others, I doubt it for one logical reason: Hussein only looked out for himself, and what would make him richer. There is no upside to him getting involved in supporting terrorism.

 

[fix]

And, the use of troops in Afghanistan to try to apprehend OBL was definitely a (failed) attempt to get those responsible, but at least it was a bona fide attempt.

Last time I checked, the effort was ongoing. When we pack up and come home without catching or killing him, then you can call it a failure. Until then, you're just setting yourself up to look like a fool when they finally catch him and parade his ugly mug in front of the camera.

 

[Cactus]

Originally posted by bountyhunter:
The war in Iraq was a done deal (according to people inside the admin) at least 18 months before it was launched. Some say it was a done deal before GWB raised his right hand at the inauguration.

Really??? Do you care to cite sources for your assertions? I know Teddy Kennedy said that after meeting with his foreign policy advisors Johnny Walker and Jack Daniels, but how about a reliable source. Or are you just taking lessons from Howard Dean and Jim McDermott; throw out enough absurd claims and hopefully some will stick!

President Bush stated after 9-11 that the U.S. would fight terrorists and the nations that supported and sheltered them. Iraq and Saddam Hussain have been declaired terrorist supporters by every U.S. Administration since Ronald Reagan's. Saddam Hussain had been financing and providing shelter for terrorists, no one contests that fact. So, where exactly is President Bush lying?

You are very quick to use the CIA's saying there was no connection between Saddam and 9-11 (they actually said that they have been UNABLE TO FIND a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. That is very different than saying there is no connection.) yet you also are quick to point out how "wrong" the CIA was about weapons of mass destruction. So, what are they; all wise or all bumbling?

 

[w4rma]

The war in Iraq was a done deal (according to people inside the admin) at least 18 months before it was launched.

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11

(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.
…
Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

“Go massive,†the notes quote him as saying. “Sweep it all up. Things related and not.†(Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld hours after 9/11 attack)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

Bush 'skewed facts to justify attack on Iraq'

A growing number of US national security professionals are accusing the Bush Administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq.

A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terror groups.

This team, self-mockingly called the cabal, “cherry-picked the intelligence stream†in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defence Intelligence Agency, which coordinates military intelligence.
…
The INC, which brought together groups opposed to Saddam, worked closely with the Pentagon to build a case against Iraq. “There are current intelligence officials who believe it is a scandal,†Mr Cannistraro said.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/31/1054177765483.html

 

[ojibweindian]

Who really cares?

Saddam is toast, and we're sending millitants to "Allah" every day. That's good enough for me.

 

[Cactus]

Originally posted by w4rma:
That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

Ah, the infamous "un-named source". There is as much evidence to support this article as there is to support the London article citing the connection between Saddam and Atta.

Even if they DID start planning an attack on Iraq, so what? This is what the Defense Department is paid to do. Putting together a contingency plan is far different than saying war with Iraq was a "done deal" as asserted by bountyhunter. We had all sorts of contingency plans for going to war with the Soviets, yet we never did!

Originally posted by w4rma:
A growing number of US national security professionals are accusing the Bush Administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq.

Now it's a "rush to war"? I thought you just said that we had decided to attack and had been planning it for 18 months?


I must admit that I'm enjoying watching the lefties going insane.
After eight years of watching Clinton drive many conservatives nuts, it's nice to see the worm turn. It's looking more and more like 48 states to me!

 

[El Tejon]

Cactus, I hope that plans to restart the offensive in Iraq were made in March of '91. As well, I hope that plans to invade Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia already exist somewhere in C ring.

 

[bountyhunter]

Now it's a "rush to war"? I thought you just said that we had decided to attack and had been planning it for 18 months?

No, I never said "WE" decided anything. I said that Bush had decided at least 18 months before that there was going to be an invasion. That's the reason intel was selectively ignored, "shaped", or fabricated to dovetail into that end destination even though the actual sources (like Ambassador Wilson and the chief intelligence analyst Greg Thielmann) were saying there was no credible evidence supporting the WMD assertions being made to support a war.

The admin knew of the eventual attack for that long, the stampede to war started after he went public and started screaming:

"There is no time!"

"We must act now!"

It's all on the videotape, gentlemen. You can't re-write history that was broadcast over national television. He said it, and he said it more than once.

 

[aikidoka-mks]

Ambassador Wilson? I wouldnt cite that person as a reliable source considering how he described his little fact finding trip in an editorial that he wrote.

Mark

 

[bountyhunter]

Saddam Hussain had been financing and providing shelter for terrorists, no one contests that fact. So, where exactly is President Bush lying?

Actually, everyone with any knowledge of the subject disputes the assertion that Iraq was supporting terrorism including our CIA. Islamic fundamentalists within Saudi Arabia have been funding Al Qaeda (who attacked us on 9/11) for over a decade. They received zero support from Iraq and actually were on hostile terms with Hussein because they sought to depose his regime. That money trail behind Al qaeda to the saudis has been clearly known for at least 18 months and likely much longer. A report released by the intelligence committee on the subject had 33 pages deleted which covered the saudi Al qaeda marriage, and some patriot with a conscience leaked the fact. It became public and the saudi ambassador flew over to personally voice his outrage that the saudis would be accused in such a way..... truth hurts.

Bush is lying in many ways, but I will address the specific ones here: he says he will hold any country accountable for supporting terrorism, but he is kissing the saudi's butts and covering up the fact they have been doing nothing about the Saudi's who fund Al qaeda. The Saudi's stonewalled the Kobar towers investigation and prevented our FBI from conducting it because they knew who did it (Al Qaeda). The FBI still lists that investigation as "OPEN", because they know the stooges the Saudis beat into confessing and then executed were probably not involved. So, Bush is a liar two ways: he claims getting Saddam takes away support from those who attacked us knowing Iraq was not involved and he keeps the cover on a country (saudis) who are the direct support of Al Qaeda because they hold the oil spigot, all this in direct conflict to his statements that he will get the people supporting Al Qaeda. I consider that lying.


?[/QUOTE] You are very quick to use the CIA's saying there was no connection between Saddam and 9-11 (they actually said that they have been UNABLE TO FIND a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. ?[/QUOTE]

Considering the fact that they have been under directive to establish such a link for over two years and have failed totally, that goes an awful long way toward proving that the connection does not exist.

 

[bountyhunter]

Last time I checked, the effort was ongoing. When we pack up and come home without catching or killing him, then you can call it a failure. Until then, you're just setting yourself up to look like a fool when they finally catch him and parade his ugly mug in front of the camera.

Let's be real. We sent the entire armed forces to Afghanistan with one objective: kill OBL. Three years later, he is still loose.

You don't call that a failure?

You are needed at the White House.

As to who looks the fool if and when OBl is ever captured, we will have to see:

1) If his capture actually affects the operation of Al Qaeda

2) Are we any safer or less subject to attack afterwards

3) What is the cost we paid

Finding one guy and dragging him in front of the cameras makes great TV, but the strategic value may be a lot less than meets the eye.

 

[aikidoka-mks]

bountyhunter,

It seems to me that you just moved the goal post, I am not surprised.

Mark

 

[El Tejon]

bounty, we sent 200 SFers and ST guys to take Afghanistan and deny The Base an area of operation. It may take a while to get UBL; it took a while to get Charlamene in Haiti, but we got him (with only 2 Marines). We will get UBL. We are having trouble with the ISI right now, but that can change.

Once we have UBL after his cowardly surrender ["great lions of Arabia" Hah!], we will have a better picture of The Base. As well, once we have UBL and show him as the coward he is to the rest of the world, especially to the brain washed Allthatjazz-watching "Arab street", it will be a crushing morale blow to the rest of the thugs.

BTW, what makes you think that we are not ripping The Base, et al, up from the roots up as well as going after one of the head men?

 

[Cactus]

Originally posted by bountyhunter:
Actually, everyone with any knowledge of the subject disputes the assertion that Iraq was supporting terrorism including our CIA.

WHAT!!!!! So every administration since Ronald Reagan has been lying about Iraq being a supporter of terrorism? The published reports that Saddam was giving $25,000 to Palistinian suicide bombers was all made up? That Saddam was sheltering Abu Nidal in Baghdad was an illusion? That al Qaeda had opporatives in northern Iraq was all fabricated?

Please, give us some names of "everyone with any knowledge". Or will you once again fail to back up your silly assertions with any credible evidence.

You really need to quit getting all of your "news" from Democratic Underground!

Originally posted by bountyhunter:
As to who looks the fool if and when OBl is ever captured, we will have to see:

Finding one guy and dragging him in front of the cameras makes great TV, but the strategic value may be a lot less than meets the eye.

So then why do you call OUR Afghanistan policy a failure? If bagging UBL has no strategic value, OUR operation must be a success!

Way to set up that straw man in your mind bountyhunter. If WE capture UBL it's just a waste of money. If WE don't capture UBL the entire opperation is a failure.

 

[fallingblock]

Not the "Sydney Morning Hearld"?!

"A growing number of US national security professionals are accusing the Bush Administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq."
************************************************************

bwaaaaa-haa-haa-haa

This is not a credible source of information....it is a 'chip-wrapper' dedicated to the political left in Australia's urban heart. Think "Washington Post" then add some zealots from the left fringe.....

Have you noticed yet how they seem to parrot the views of the anti-US media around the world?

Clue: John Howard is an ally of the Bush Administration (he's also a hoplophobe of the first order ) and the SMH detests little johnny with a passion.

Geez, w4rma, take care using such sources for your beliefs, you might do yourself an injury.