Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Saddam and al-Qaeda, Pre-War; A New Report Says ....
Topic Started: Sep 8 2006, 08:45 AM (607 Views)
Jack Frost
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Published on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 by the Boston Globe
Cheney Link of Iraq, 9/11 Challenged
by Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.


But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

Democrats sharply attacked him for exaggerating the threat Iraq posed before the war.

"There is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11," Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat running for president, said in an interview last night. "There was no such relationship."

A senior foreign policy adviser to Howard Dean, the Democratic front-runner, said it is "totally inappropriate for the vice president to continue making these allegations without bringing forward" any proof.

Cheney and his representatives declined to comment on the vice president's statements. But the comments also surprised some in the intelligence community who are already simmering over the way the administration utilized intelligence reports to strengthen the case for the war last winter.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney's "willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding."

In particular, current intelligence officials reiterated yesterday that a reported Prague visit in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent had been discounted by the CIA, which sent former agency Director James R. Woolsey to investigate the claim. Woolsey did not find any evidence to confirm the report, officials said, and President Bush did not include it in the case for war in his State of the Union address last January.

But Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying: "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

Multiple intelligence officials said that the Prague meeting, purported to be between Atta and senior Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, was dismissed almost immediately after it was reported by Czech officials in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and has since been discredited further.

The CIA reported to Congress last year that it could not substantiate the claim, while American records indicate Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time, the officials said yesterday. Indeed, two intelligence officials said yesterday that Ani himself, now in US custody, has also refuted the report. The Czech government has also distanced itself from its original claim.

A senior defense official with access to high-level intelligence reports expressed confusion yesterday over the vice president's decision to reair charges that have been dropped by almost everyone else. "There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like this," the official said, speaking on condition he not be named.

Nonetheless, 69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States, according to a recent Washington Post poll. And Democratic senators have charged that the White House is fanning the misperception by mentioning Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks in ways that suggest a link.

Bush administration officials insisted yesterday that they are learning more about various Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda. They said there is evidence suggesting a meeting took place between the head of Iraqi intelligence and Osama bin Laden in Sudan in the mid-1990s; another purported meeting was said to take place in Afghanistan, and during it Iraqi officials offered to provide chemical and biological weapons training, according to officials who have read transcripts of interrogations with Al Qaeda detainees.

But there is no evidence proving the Iraqi regime knew about or took part in the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush officials said.

Former senator Max Cleland, who is a member of the national commission investigating the attacks, said yesterday that classified documents he has reviewed on the subject weaken, rather than strengthen, administration assertions that Hussein's regime may have been allied with Al Qaeda.

"The vice president trying to justify some connection is ludicrous," he said.

Nonetheless, Cheney, in the "Meet the Press" interview Sunday, insisted that the United States is learning more about the links between Al Qaeda and Hussein.

"We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," Cheney said, "that it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems."

The claims are based on a prewar allegation by a "senior terrorist operative," who said he overheard an Al Qaeda agent speak of a mission to seek biological or chemical weapons training in Iraq, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to the United Nations in February.

But intelligence specialists told the Globe last August that they have never confirmed that the training took place, or identified where it could have taken place. "The general public just doesn't have any independent way of weighing what is said," Cannistraro, the former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said. "If you repeat it enough times . . . then people become convinced it's the truth."



jf
Quote:
 
Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
What are you trying to prove with all of this?
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Frost
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Ben
Sep 9 2006, 01:20 AM
You're not going to find an administration official lying flat-out about Iraq. You will find some rather unfortunate predictions about what the war would hold that some claim can't count as lies because they were predicting the future - I disagree, but fine. You will also find clear intimations intended to make the link in the American peoples' heads as amply evidenced by JF. Call it whatever you want but it was a definite strategy on the part of Rove & Co. and it worked.

It's way after midnight and I'm getting up in the morning. goodnight.

Ben is correct.

JB is operating with a very literal and specific meaning of the word "lies."

When I say that W lied about the 9/11 Iraq connection I include in that all the inuendo, intentional deception, uncorrected rumors and so forth that came from the White House.

The fact is, W wanted the American people to think that there was a connection.

jf
Quote:
 
Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Cheney on Meet The Press - Dec. 9, 2001.

Quote:
 
TIM RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.


Is that one of the "mind melds"?

I think the Administration wanted to use any reason that it could to go into Iraq. They also manipulated public opinion on the reason for invading Iraq, how easy and inexpensive it would be, how we would be greeted as liberators, and other nonsense in order to make it more popular.

I also think the stated reasons for going to Iraq have absolutely nothing to do with the real reason - namely, having a forward base of operations in the Mideast.

Am I glad Saddam is gone? - yes.
Were we lied to and manipulated leading up to the war? - yes.
Should we end it all and come home? - no.
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Frost
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Phlebas
Sep 9 2006, 09:57 AM
Am I glad Saddam is gone? - yes.
Were we lied to and manipulated leading up to the war? - yes.
Should we end it all and come home? - no.

I am not going to disagree.

Let me add one...

Knowing what you know now, should we gave gone in the first place?

jf
Quote:
 
Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Jack Frost
Sep 9 2006, 06:00 AM
Phlebas
Sep 9 2006, 09:57 AM
Am I glad Saddam is gone? - yes.
Were we lied to and manipulated leading up to the war? - yes.
Should we end it all and come home? - no.

I am not going to disagree.

Let me add one...

Knowing what you know now, should we gave gone in the first place?

jf

We should have, but we should have done it a different way - more along the lines of what Bush Sr. did in developing a coalition of countries.

Bush Jr. is too weak, small minded and incompetent to have done it the right way.
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Jack Frost
Sep 9 2006, 08:51 AM
Ben
Sep 9 2006, 01:20 AM
You're not going to find an administration official lying flat-out about Iraq. You will find some rather unfortunate predictions about what the war would hold that some claim can't count as lies because they were predicting the future - I disagree, but fine. You will also find clear intimations intended to make the link in the American peoples' heads as amply evidenced by JF. Call it whatever you want but it was a definite strategy on the part of Rove & Co. and it worked.

It's way after midnight and I'm getting up in the morning. goodnight.

Ben is correct.

JB is operating with a very literal and specific meaning of the word "lies."

When I say that W lied about the 9/11 Iraq connection I include in that all the inuendo, intentional deception, uncorrected rumors and so forth that came from the White House.

The fact is, W wanted the American people to think that there was a connection.

jf

The fact is at the present time we do not KNOW Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 because, as of the present time, there is no evidence to support such a connection. Failed attempts to get the Administration to say there was no connection do not amount to a lie.

Jack, I have been asking for years for someone, anyone to present me with a clear example of a deliberate falsehood (lie) given by the Administration. So far, all attempts, including yours, have fallen well short. Saying the Administration put a "spin" on things to sell the American people on its policies would be accurate. It is also no different than what any Administration or, for that matter, any politician has done since time immemorial. That is what politicians (and used car salesmen) do. It still is not lying until it amounts to a deliberate falsehood. Clinton's presidency is littered with examples of clear deliberate falsehoods. I have yet to see an example of one by Bush.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Phlebas
Sep 9 2006, 09:03 AM
Jack Frost
Sep 9 2006, 06:00 AM
Phlebas
Sep 9 2006, 09:57 AM
Am I glad Saddam is gone? - yes.
Were we lied to and manipulated leading up to the war? - yes.
Should we end it all and come home? - no.

I am not going to disagree.

Let me add one...

Knowing what you know now, should we gave gone in the first place?

jf

We should have, but we should have done it a different way - more along the lines of what Bush Sr. did in developing a coalition of countries.

Bush Jr. is too weak, small minded and incompetent to have done it the right way.

It never would have happened under the circumstances you propose. We could not even get the French, Russians and Germans to agree that Saddam was in defiance of 1441 after 14 months of trying. The "coalition of countries" you describe was not on the radar screen as long as half the members needed were lining their pockets with Iraqi oil money.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jack Frost
Sep 8 2006, 08:31 PM
Rick, maybe Larry IS right about you!

There is no OR here. The White House lied as part of a calculated move to get us into Iraq.

How can you suggest they may have merely been living in some fantasy land? I will never let W off that easily.

jf

How can I say they were living in some fantasyland? Because that is exactly what I believe to be the case.

They lived in a fantasyland of Hussein having WMD's.

They lived in a fantasyland of Hussein having links to Al Quaeda.

They lived in a fantasyland of Hussein being an immediate threat to the US.

They lived in a fantasyland of the US being welcomed into Iraq with dancing and flowers.

They lived in a fantasyland of Iraq oil revenues paying for the war and reconstruction.

They lived in a fantasyland that Iraq could be subdued and transformed with minimal American troops.

They lived in a fantasyland that they did not need to provide American troops with adequate equipment, armor or supplies.

They lived in a fantasy land that the coalition they put together through deals and pressure was a real coalition that would stay together.

They lived in a fantasyland that once the invasion was complete and successful, the occupation and reconstruction was best done by the military not the diplomats.

They lived in a fantasyland that they could ignore the social structure, social conditions and social cultural mores of Iraq in planning for its reconstruction.

They lived in the fantasyland that the Americans who would be responsible for working with the Iraqi people need not be trained and understand the Iraqi society.

They lived in the fantasyland that once the US military was established in Iraq it would be the dominant force in the Middle East and that the peoples of the area would not turn to and support the strengthening of and elevate to world stature a regional Muslim power such as Iran to represent their interests, not to the US.
They lived in a fantasyland of invading and occupying Iraq would be accepted and supported by the Muslim world.

They lived in a fantasyland that they could impose a democracy on a country which had no history of it and where the people's identity was not defined by a national government, but by religious and regional sectarianism.

They lived in a fantasyland that they could invade and occupy a country and be out of there in 18 months.

They lived in a fantasyland that the world can be changed by force of arms.

They lived in a fantasyland that terrorism could be stopped or even significantly slowed by a military campaign against Iraq.

They lived in a fantasyland that they could turn away from the pursuit of the terrorists in their stronghold in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the terrorist would just go away.

They lived in a fantasyland that the world would come to respect the US if it exercised its military muscle.

They lived in a fantasyland that our enemies would be in fear of the US if it flexed its military muscle and not challenge us.

They lived in a fantasyland that the president could undo the Constitution and that such claims would be upheld.

They lived in a fantasyland that because the US is the last remaining superpower it could do what it wanted and this would not cause countervailing centers of power to be created to stop the US.

They lived in the fantasyland that the US's greatest strength was its military, not it economy, not its values, not its force of moral strength.

They lived in a fantasyland that one significant terrorist act against the US was an act of war, not an act of terrorism.

They lived in a fantasyland that they could define the situation as an epic and historic clash of cultures and that the Western world would rally around the concept and move to rein in Islam.

They lived in a fantasyland that they did not have to look to the long range defeat of the terrorists within Islam itself by focusing on turning the Muslim people against the terrorists who claimed to be acting on their behalf.

I could go on and on, Jack, but there is no need to.

I have come to the conclusion that Bush and his buddies did not lie per se -- because they were true believers. As such, they would breach no counter opinion, accept as valid any counter intelligence, listen to advice contrary to what they wanted to hear, believed those who did not agree with them were anti-American. They had no doubts as to the truth of their own fantasyland and were not willing to and did not include into their thinking processes anything that did not support their own version of the truth.

They had the truth, not ideas, not values, not opinions. No, in their minds they had THE TRUTH! Others did not. Any who disagreed were not worth listening to because they were completely and totally right. As such, they discounted and/or rejected those who presented data, intelligence and/or other information that was contrary to what they already know to be the truth.

As for letting Bush off lightly? The retribution for his failures and massive mistakes has already begun.

His is and will be seen as a failed Presidency, brought down by military adventurism and a total misreading of geopolitics and the position and role of the US in the world.

Iraq is a debacle and the longer they keep us there, the worse it will get until the US leaves as it did in Vietnam with all the damage to the US that Vietnam caused. And they will be blamed for it.

Afghanistan which they once saw as a success is turning into another failure. The US's image and influence in that part of the world will be further diminished. They will be blamed for this.

They have lost support and respect throughout the world and cannot achieve any further international gains.

They have little to no credibility throughout the world and cannot even muster support for their actions against Iran for its nuclear program, which the world generally recognizes as a danger to be dealt with -- but by the EU and Russia, not by a mistrusted US.

The American people have turned against them and they are dragging their party down, eliminating any of their hopes for establishing a long-time GOP majority.

Domestically, they have three primary victories. First, through their tax cuts, "reform" of the bankruptcy laws and similar fiscal policies, they have dramatically shifted the wealth from the middle class to the upper classes. This will be undone over time and they will have no lasting legacy.

Second, No Child Left Behind. This is already being unraveled and will be eliminated quickly by changes that will make it unrecognizable to thsoe who drafted it.

Third, the realignment of the Supreme Court. The Justices that Bush has appointed will, within five to ten years, be seen by the right, who the appointments were supposed to appease, as too liberal and as unacceptable.

Outside of those three, they have had no significant domestic successes.

Bush's Presidency is over, Jack -- and has been for a year or so. He has become and will remain basically irrelevant in the national discourse and national debate. He will be able to have some impact on it, but in the end, he is and will continue to be irrelevant because the people and the politicians, even in his own party, have rejected him as a leader.

There is no reason to let him off, Jack. He has been hoisted on his own petard. He will stay there until he is out of office and then, once he is no longer in a position to impact the propaganda about what he has done and there is no longer partisan reasons to justify and rationalize his actions, history will judge him as it has judged other failed Presidencies. It will not be pretty.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Rick Zimmer
Sep 9 2006, 09:32 AM
How can I say they were living in some fantasyland?  Because that is exactly what I believe to be the case.

They lived in a fantasyland of Hussein having WMD's.

Sen. Feingold: "Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow access to inspection sites had to be answered." ("Political Reaction," Wisconsin State Journal, 12/17/98)

1998!

Quote:
 
They lived in a fantasyland of Hussein being an immediate threat to the US.


DNC Chairman Howard Dean: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. ... f Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're clearly going to have to do something about it." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/29/02)

(for the record, Rick, I'd like to see where Bush/Cheney ever used the phrase "immediate threat.")

Rep. Pelosi: "addam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 11/17/02)


Now, I may be (and I'm sure that you think this) naive, but I really don't understand how all the Democrats said the same things 3 years ago. How it is that under a Democratic president, regime change in Iraq became national policy. If Bush is delusional and living in a fantasyland, then these people were as well.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
George K
Sep 9 2006, 07:48 AM
Rick Zimmer
Sep 9 2006, 09:32 AM
How can I say they were living in some fantasyland?  Because that is exactly what I believe to be the case.

They lived in a fantasyland of Hussein having WMD's.

Sen. Feingold: "Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow access to inspection sites had to be answered." ("Political Reaction," Wisconsin State Journal, 12/17/98)

1998!

Quote:
 
They lived in a fantasyland of Hussein being an immediate threat to the US.


DNC Chairman Howard Dean: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. ... f Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're clearly going to have to do something about it." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/29/02)

(for the record, Rick, I'd like to see where Bush/Cheney ever used the phrase "immediate threat.")

Rep. Pelosi: "addam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 11/17/02)


Now, I may be (and I'm sure that you think this) naive, but I really don't understand how all the Democrats said the same things 3 years ago. How it is that under a Democratic president, regime change in Iraq became national policy. If Bush is delusional and living in a fantasyland, then these people were as well.

George,

You can pick and choose anyone of those in my list and you can find examples to counter it. Put it all together -- see it as a whole -- and it can't be.

I know all of you who support Bush like to pull out a quote here or a quote there indicating the Democrats and others also believed certain thngs.

But 1) they were not privy to the intelligence Bush had available to him nor were they in a position to seek more accurate intelligence when contradictions arose; 2) they were not planning an invasion and occupation which placed a greater responsibility on Bush to consider any and all intelligence and data and 3) simply because regime change was a national priority, it did not have to be done in the way it was done -- the method and the resulting morass is the result if Bush's miscalculation and bad decisionmaking. He had lots of options, and he chose this one.

Because of this, he is and will be justifiably judged harshly by his contemporaries and by history.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
You liberals get a whiff of a report released by the Democrats and you think it's gospel. The report you're basing all your "Aha! We've got them on the run" BS on is as flawed and agenda driven as any document to ever come out of Washington. It isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
But 1) they were not privy to the intelligence Bush had available to him nor were they in a position to seek more accurate intelligence when contradictions arose;


This is completely incorrect.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Frost
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
JB, I guess we are arguing about the difference between a deliberate lie and a deliberate deception....

jf
Quote:
 
Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
No, we are not. When I say "spin" I am referring to presenting those facts which best make your case. You may call that "deliberate deception" if you like but it is a long way from "lying".
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Frost
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
- White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."

- President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."

- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."

- President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."

- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."

- President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."

- Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

- President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."

- President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."

- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."

- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."

- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."

- Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."

- President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."

- President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."

- President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."

- President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."

- President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."

- President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."

- President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."

- President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."

- President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."

- President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."

- Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02



jf
Quote:
 
Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
I can post an equally long list of Democrats saying the same things at the time so what is your point?
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Hey Jack:

You forgot this gem:
Quote:
 
Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the past nor imagined the future.

So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering.

This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower confrontation has ended; on every continent democracy is securing for more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by bit the information age is chipping away at the barriers economic, political and social that once kept people locked in and freedom and prosperity locked out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

I want the American people to understand first the past how did this crisis come about?

And I want them to understand what we must do to protect the national interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.

And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.

Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.

By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal matters involved.

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution.

The inspection system works. The inspection system has worked in the face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. The people who have done that work deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout the world.

It has worked. That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within 15 days within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War, if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is by far our preference.

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

I ask all of you to remember the record here what he promised to do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf War, what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in 1995, what the inspectors have done against all odds. We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven confidence in the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for it so hard. And that's why the United States should insist upon it.

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

Now we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf, and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our force posture would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand and our friends and neighbors in Canada.

That list is growing, not because anyone wants military action, but because there are people in this world who believe the United Nations resolutions should mean something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved, because they remember the past, and because they can imagine what the future will be depending on what we do now.

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.

Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.

And he will know that the international community continues to have a will to act if and when he threatens again. Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's activities with all the means at our disposal. If he seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared to strike him again.

The economic sanctions will remain in place until Saddam complies fully with all U.N. resolutions.

Consider this already these sanctions have denied him $110 billion. Imagine how much stronger his armed forces would be today, how many more weapons of mass destruction operations he would have hidden around the country if he had been able to spend even a small fraction of that amount for a military rebuilding.

We will continue to enforce a no-fly zone from the southern suburbs of Baghdad to the Kuwait border and in northern Iraq, making it more difficult for Iraq to walk over Kuwait again or threaten the Kurds in the north.

Now, let me say to all of you here as all of you know the weightiest decision any president ever has to make is to send our troops into harm's way. And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes, it's the only answer.

You are the best prepared, best equipped, best trained fighting force in the world. And should it prove necessary for me to exercise the option of force, your commanders will do everything they can to protect the safety of all the men and women under their command.

No military action, however, is risk-free. I know that the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well.

Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires constant vigilance. We have seen that constant vigilance pays off. But it requires constant vigilance. Since the Gulf War, we have pushed back every time Saddam has posed a threat.

When Baghdad plotted to assassinate former President Bush, we struck hard at Iraq's intelligence headquarters.

When Saddam threatened another invasion by amassing his troops in Kuwait along the Kuwaiti border in 1994, we immediately deployed our troops, our ships, our planes, and Saddam backed down.

When Saddam forcefully occupied Irbil in northern Iraq, we broadened our control over Iraq's skies by extending the no-fly zone.

But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N. weapons inspection system itself. Yes, he has tried to thwart it in every conceivable way, but the discipline, determination, year-in-year-out effort of these weapons inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.

But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more 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, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era. That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our allies to imagine.

If we look at the past and imagine that future, we will act as one together. And we still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.

Thank you very much.


Wanna guess who gave that speech?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, 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 Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
JBryan
Sep 9 2006, 10:29 AM
I can post an equally long list of Democrats saying the same things at the time so what is your point?

Bush took us to war and now we are stuck in a sinkhole.

Others were far more prudent and understood the limitations, even while setting policy to control, limit and eventually get rid of Hussein.

That's the point.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Just amazing what you find when you look at the actual report, not just the talking points provided to us by the press:

These conclusions, numbers 4 and 8, appear on pages 54 through 58:
Quote:
 
Although Iraq no longer had a large scale BW production capability after 1996, Iraq did retain an inherent dual-use BW capability. Iraq retained technical B W know-how through scientists who were involved in the pre- 199 1 B W program, as well as civilian facilities and equipment that could be bent to a BW purpose. Iraq also retained some BW-related seed stocks until after Operation Iraqi Freedom; and conducted BW-applicable research after 1996, but the ISG judged that the research was not conducted for the purposes of a BW program.

The ISG assessed that Iraq could have re-established an “elementary” BW program within a few weeks to months, but would have faced great difficulty in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability. In addition, the ISG found no evidence that Iraq had plans after 1996 for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. The ISG found undeclared covert laboratories used by the Iraqi Intelligence Service for research in BW agents until the mid-l 990s. While uncertain of the laboratories’ purpose, the ISG noted that the work probably included development of poisons for assassination. The ISG found no “conclusive links” between these labs and a BW effort despite speculation and rumor of a possible BW role. Thus, while the Intelligence Community correctly identified many Iraqi dual-use BW capabilities, it incorrectly judged that they represented an active BW program.


Pages 71 and 71:
Quote:
 
The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the CIA “reasonably
assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-
Qa’ida throughout the 1990s but that these contacts did not add up to an
established formal relationship.” The Committee concluded that the CIA
reasonably noted limitations on the available reporting on contacts and in most
cases was only able to confirm a meeting had taken place, not what occurred at the
meeting.

Based on detainees and other information, the Intelligence Community
has provided details on three contacts between Iraqi officials and al-Qa’ida
members. Information from the FBI and the DIA indicates that one meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and al-Qa’ida took place in Sudan in 1995.
In two additional cases, an al-Qa’ida representative unsuccessfully attempted to
meet with senior Iraqi leaders in Baghdad. Each of these three contacts were
initiated by al-Qa’ida. Details of these reported contacts are described below.


Page 73:
Quote:
 
A captured document states that bin Ladin asked Hijazi in the 1995
meeting to dedicate targeted broadcasting of sermons by Shaikh Sulayman al-
Udah and to conduct joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia. The
document is handwritten, from an unknown source, and without official stamps or
markings. Although the Iraq Survey Group reported that handwritten records in
Iraq were common,19’the lack of formal document characteristics or signatures
precludes a comparison with documents known to be authentic to determine signs
of forgery. Nonetheless, the DIA assesses that the document is authentic based on
an analysis of its content. The document describes Iraqi Intelligence Service
contacts with Saudi oppositionists, including bin Ladin. The document does not
indicate that Saddam agreed to joint operations with bin Ladin, but notes that
Saddam “agreed to dedicate programs for targeted broadcasting.”
The document
also states that “through dialogue and agreements we will leave the door open to
further develop the relationship and cooperation between both sides.“
1


Page 113
Quote:
 
As reflected in the previous sections of this report, the October 2002
NIE on Iraq ‘s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction assessed
that Iraq was continuing its WMD efforts and that Iraq had chemical and
biological weapons. Analysis in the NIE focused on the capabilities of these
programs, rather than on presenting a comprehensive assessment of the regime’s
intent in acquiring these WMD. The NIE did discuss briefly Saddam’s desire for
WMD as well as under what circumstances the Intelligence Community believed
Saddam would use WMD’

(the NIE is the same agency that gave us the "Bin-Laden wants to strike US" document that everyone has their underwear in a knot about. So, we should have believed them in August of 2001, but not in October 2002?)
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Quote:
 
QUOTE (JBryan @ Sep 9 2006, 10:29 AM)
Quote:
 
I can post an equally long list of Democrats saying the same things at the time so what is your point?


Bush took us to war and now we are stuck in a sinkhole.

Others were far more prudent and understood the limitations, even while setting policy to control, limit and eventually get rid of Hussein.

That's the point.


Wrong. Bush and Congress took us to war. A majority of Democrats voted in favor. Many of them were saying things perfect for my equally long list.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
JBryan
Sep 9 2006, 11:25 AM
Quote:
 
QUOTE (JBryan @ Sep 9 2006, 10:29 AM)
Quote:
 
I can post an equally long list of Democrats saying the same things at the time so what is your point?


Bush took us to war and now we are stuck in a sinkhole.

Others were far more prudent and understood the limitations, even while setting policy to control, limit and eventually get rid of Hussein.

That's the point.


Wrong. Bush and Congress took us to war. A majority of Democrats voted in favor. Many of them were saying things perfect for my equally long list.

Wrong.

The Congress authorized the use of force.

Bush alone decided how that force would be used.

He had many options. The one he chose was invasion, occupation and quagmire.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
What is your point, Rick? Are you trying to say that all these Democrats who were making statements exactly like what was quoted above by the Bush Administration get a complete pass because they merely "authorized" war? That this distinction makes Bush a liar but them truthful? Do you realize how silly this sounds?
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Sep 9 2006, 11:36 AM
JBryan
Sep 9 2006, 11:25 AM
Quote:
 
QUOTE (JBryan @ Sep 9 2006, 10:29 AM)
Quote:
 
I can post an equally long list of Democrats saying the same things at the time so what is your point?


Bush took us to war and now we are stuck in a sinkhole.

Others were far more prudent and understood the limitations, even while setting policy to control, limit and eventually get rid of Hussein.

That's the point.


Wrong. Bush and Congress took us to war. A majority of Democrats voted in favor. Many of them were saying things perfect for my equally long list.

Wrong.

The Congress authorized the use of force.

Bush alone decided how that force would be used.

He had many options. The one he chose was invasion, occupation and quagmire.

What an interesting and illuminating quibble, Rick. :rolleyes:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3