"We support the troops but not the mission"

[Pale Rider]

Insults do precious little to further the tone of discussion and are not tolerated.

That's no insult rajiv. Grow a spine.

The mods let people know what is and isn't tolerated, not you. Give it a rest.

[Gunny]

You haven't substantiated those claims.

I'm not doing homework for information that is so readily available all over the net when it would be wasted on a useless mind.

That he supported terrorists/terrorist organizations is FACT. If you choose to ignore the facts on this as you apparently do anything that shows your anti-US propaganda fro what it is, that's on YOU.

[Rahul]

Neither does labeling of facts as right wing just because they don't jibe with your POV.

It is unclear as to what you mean by "don't jibe with your POV". Perhaps you could elaborate and be specific here.

I'm not doing homework for information that is so readily available all over the net when it would be wasted on a useless mind.

So in other words, you have no proof. Got it.

I
That he supported terrorists/terrorist organizations is FACT. If you choose to ignore the facts on this as you apparently do anything that shows your anti-US propaganda fro what it is, that's on YOU.

I disagree.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/10/...rt-conclusion/

On Sept. 11, 2001, Bush articulated the so-called Bush Doctrine: “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” Declassified portions of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Phase II report released Friday make definitively clear that Iraq never qualified for inclusion in the Doctrine.

Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist acts. Key portions of the new Intel Committee report indicate that Bush attacked an Iraqi regime that not only lacked an operational relationship with al Qaeda, but was hostile toward the terrorist network. By making the strategic mistake of attacking Iraq, Bush’s policy accomplished the goals of the al Qaeda network. Here’s what the report says:

[Bin] Ladin generally opposed collaboration [with Baghdad]. (p. 65)

According to debriefs of multiple detainees — including Saddam Hussein and former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz — and capture documents, Saddam did not trust al-Qa’ida or any other radical Islamist group and did not want to cooperate with them. (p. 67)

Aziz underscored Saddam’s distrust of Islamic extremists like bin Ladin, stating that when the Iraqi regime started to see evidence that Wahabists had come to Iraq, “the Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq and threatening offenders with execution.” (p. 67)

Another senior Iraqi official stated that Saddam did not like bin Ladin because he called Saddam an “unbeliever.” (p.73)

Conclusion 1: … Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa’ida to provide material or operational support. Debriefings of key leaders of the former Iraqi regime indicate that Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al Qa’ida in particular… Debriefings also indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qa’ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin. (p. 105)

Conclusion 5:… Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. (p. 109)

As I have repeatedly stated, the truth is out there for those who care to find it.

[OCA]

It is unclear as to what you mean by "don't jibe with your POV". Perhaps you could elaborate and be specific here.

You are being purposely obtuse.

[Gunny]

It is unclear as to what you mean by "don't jibe with your POV". Perhaps you could elaborate and be specific here.



So in other words, you have no proof. Got it.



I disagree.



As I have repeatedly stated, the truth is out there for those who care to find it.

Sure is, and you obviously don't.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...ade/sect5.html

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialRe...20041004a.html

The overwhelming amount of evidence does not support your twisted stance; which, is nothing but crap from other anti-American losers such as yourself.

Your attempt to play semantics is at about 1st grade level. My statement has from the beginning been that Saddam supported terrorism/terrorist organizations, not solely nor specifically bin Laden. So you can call that littel dishonest attempt EXPOSED.

[Rahul]

Your attempt to play semantics is at about 1st grade level.

I don't play games with you.

My statement has from the beginning been that Saddam supported terrorism/terrorist organizations, not solely nor specifically bin Laden. So you can call that littel dishonest attempt EXPOSED.

Your statement is dishonest and I have exposed the truth in my last post. How sad it must be for you not to be able to get it.

[Gaffer]

I don't play games with you.



Your statement is dishonest and I have exposed the truth in my last post. How sad it must be for you not to be able to get it.

Gunny's statement were facts backed with sources. Your statements are leftwing blogger opinions. And your own jihadi agenda.

islam

[SassyLady]

Raul,

Just for fun, why don't you visit this website and see if it changes your POV about the connection between Saddam & world wide terrorism.

Be patient and read the entire article - even the source list........because then you can follow the source list for even more evidence.


http://www.husseinandterror.com/

If you still believe there was no connection after reading this presentation, then there is nothing left to debate with you.

[SassyLady]

Raul,

Here's another one - from the WSJ.

The Paper Trail
Newly released documents provide more evidence of Saddam's terror ties.

BY LAURIE MYLROIE
Sunday, April 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

After substantial prodding--including from The Wall Street Journal--the U.S. government has finally begun to release its captured Iraqi documents and is posting them at the Web site of the Army's Foreign Military Studies Office. This material will take considerable time to absorb and analyze, but it may yet contribute significantly to our understanding of the nature of the threat Saddam Hussein posed.

Most dramatically, an Iraqi intelligence report, apparently written in early 1997, describes Iraqi efforts to establish ties with various elements in the Saudi opposition, including Osama bin Laden. Until 1996, the Saudi renegade was based in Sudan, then ruled by Hassan Turabi's National Islamic Front. One of Iraq's few allies, Sudan served as an intermediary between Baghdad and bin Laden, as well as other Islamic radicals. On Feb. 19, 1995, an Iraqi intelligence agent met with bin Laden in Khartoum. Bin Laden asked for two things: to carry out joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia and to broadcast the speeches of a radical Saudi cleric. Iraq agreed to the latter, but apparently not the former, at least as far as the author of this report knew. Notably, the report also states, "We are working at the present time to activate this relationship through new channels."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008174

[Gaffer]

Raul,

Here's another one - from the WSJ.



http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008174

There's more of this stuff coming out all the time.

The libs and the media just refuse to accept it.

There's still tons of material that hasn't even been gone through yet just because of the sheer volume. Plus the interpreting of the arabic writing, which the islamist supporters all tell us can't be interpreted properly.

I bet it will eventually be shown saddam DID have WMD's and that they were removed by the russians to syria and to other destinations from there.

[Gunny]

I don't play games with you.



Your statement is dishonest and I have exposed the truth in my last post. How sad it must be for you not to be able to get it.

You are either dumber than a red brick, or you are a liar. Doesn't matter much which to me.

There is NOTHING dishonest about my statement and you have provided absolutely NOTHING to disprove anything in any of the links I have provided.

You lose. End of story.

[SassyLady]

You are either dumber than a red brick, or you are a liar. Doesn't matter much which to me.

There is NOTHING dishonest about my statement and you have provided absolutely NOTHING to disprove anything in any of the links I have provided.

You lose. End of story.

AMEN

[Rahul]

You are either dumber than a red brick, or you are a liar. Doesn't matter much which to me.

I don't believe you. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't keep insulting me as you do.

There is NOTHING dishonest about my statement and you have provided absolutely NOTHING to disprove anything in any of the links I have provided.

You lose. End of story.

I don't lose anything. Further, I have shown you articles disproving your fallacious theories. You are wrong on this as well as a great many things.

There's more of this stuff coming out all the time.

The libs and the media just refuse to accept it.

We don't accept biased sources.

I bet it will eventually be shown saddam DID have WMD's and that they were removed by the russians to syria and to other destinations from there.

Nonsense. Saddam Hussein had NO WMD's and wasn't even producing them.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.


In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
The Iraq Survey Group report, released Wednesday, is 1,200 to 1,500 pages long.

The massive report does say, however, that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future.

"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report says.

Duelfer, testifying at a Senate hearing on the report, said his account attempts to describe Iraq's weapons programs "not in isolation but in the context of the aims and objectives of the regime that created and used them."

"I also have insisted that the report include as much basic data as reasonable and that it be unclassified, since the tragedy that has been Iraq has exacted such a huge cost for so many for so long," Duelfer said.

The report was released nearly two years ago to the day that President Bush strode onto a stage in Cincinnati and told the audience that Saddam Hussein's Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "is seeking nuclear weapons."

"The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time," Bush said in the speech delivered October 7, 2002. "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

Speaking on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, Bush maintained Wednesday that the war was the right thing to do and that Iraq stood out as a place where terrorists might get weapons of mass destruction.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take," Bush said.

But Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, seized on the report as political ammunition against the Bush administration.

"Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war," Rockefeller said in a press release.

"The report does further document Saddam's attempts to deceive the world and get out from under the sanctions, but the fact remains, the sanctions combined with inspections were working and Saddam was restrained."

But British Prime Minister Tony Blair had just the opposite take on the information in the report, saying it demonstrated the U.N. sanctions were not working and Saddam was "doing his best" to get around them.

He said the report made clear that there was "every intention" on Saddam's part to develop WMD and he "never had any intention of complying with U.N. resolutions."

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Wednesday, panel Chairman John Warner, R-Virginia, called the findings "significant."

"While the ISG has not found stockpiles of WMD, the ISG and other coalition elements have developed a body of fact that shows that Saddam Hussein had, first, the strategic intention to continue to pursue WMD capabilities; two, created ambiguity about his WMD capabilities that he used to extract concessions in the international world of disclosure and discussion and negotiation.

"He used it as a bargaining tactic and as a strategic deterrent against his neighbors and others."

"As we speak, over 1,700 individuals -- military and civilian -- are in Iraq and Qatar, continuing to search for facts about Iraq's WMD programs," Warner said.

But Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the committee, said 1,750 experts have visited 1,200 potential WMD sites and have come up empty-handed.

"It is important to emphasize that central fact because the administration's case for going to war against Iraq rested on the twin arguments that Saddam Hussein had existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that he might give weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda to attack us -- as al Qaeda had attacked us on 9/11," Levin said.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, asked Duelfer about the future likelihood of finding weapons of mass destruction, to which Duelfer replied, "The chance of finding a significant stockpile is less than 5 percent."

Based in part on interviews with Saddam, the report concludes that the deposed Iraqi president wanted to acquire weapons of mass destruction because he believed they kept the United States from going all the way to Baghdad during the first Gulf War and stopped an Iranian ground offensive during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, senior administration officials said.

U.S. officials said the Duelfer report is "comprehensive," but they are not calling it a "final report" because there are still some loose ends to tie up.

One outstanding issue, an official said, is whether Iraq shipped any stockpiles of weapons outside of the country. Another issue, he said, is mobile biological weapons labs, a matter on which he said "there is still useful work to do."

Duelfer said Wednesday his teams found no evidence of a mobile biological weapons capability.

The U.S. official said he believes Saddam decided to give up his weapons in 1991, but tried to conceal his nuclear and biological programs for as long as possible. Then in 1995, when his son-in-law Hussain Kamal defected with information about the programs, he gave those up, too.

Iraq's nuclear program, which in 1991 was well-advanced, "was decaying" by 2001, the official said, to the point where Iraq was -- if it even could restart the program -- "many years from a bomb."

Perhaps you should read the articles being quoted for a change.

[Pale Rider]

I don't believe you. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't keep insulting me as you do.



I don't lose anything. Further, I have shown you articles disproving your fallacious theories. You are wrong on this as well as a great many things.



We don't accept biased sources.




Nonsense. Saddam Hussein had NO WMD's and wasn't even producing them.



Perhaps you should read the articles being quoted for a change.

Yup... you're dumber than a red brick... and ya know what? The "ONLY" thing you have "EXPOSED" here, is your hatred and anti-America agenda.

So... with that... I think I'll go have a nice, big, fat, juicy STEAK.

[stephanie]

I don't believe you. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't keep insulting me as you do.



I don't lose anything. Further, I have shown you articles disproving your fallacious theories. You are wrong on this as well as a great many things.



We don't accept biased sources.




Nonsense. Saddam Hussein had NO Wmds and wasn't even producing them.



Perhaps you should read the articles being quoted for a change.

Well.....these people below......are damned biased....I guess..
All they and you all right now.......is bending the truth...OR??
For their own Political gain...




"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 Bill 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 Bill 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: -- Democratic Senators 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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