CDIH

Full Version: george running out of reasons
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
no al qaeda link to iraq

first it was about WMDs. none there.

then it was about al qaeda. nope again.

i guess it really was a humanitarian effort.
Nope. It was for oil.
Quote:The report also found that there was no "convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11" other than the limited support provided by the Taliban when bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan.
Galt Wrote:Nope. It was for oil.
it would be nice if georgie would just say that. at least i could finallly believe something that he said. much like galt though, he will continue to massage facts in an attempt to dodge having to admit that he was wrong.



3:18 dow stilll down, HDI still up
If GW were more like me, everyone on the board would love him and pity you
:-(
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearing...._15.pdf">http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearing...._15.pdf</a><!-- m -->

This one's good too...

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearing...._16.pdf">http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearing...._16.pdf</a><!-- m -->

I can't help but wonder though, exactly how do you spell Osama Bin Laden? Usama Bin Laden? Usama Bin Ladin?

Seems they couldn't decide either because it's spelled both Bin Ladin and Bin Laden at random throughout the report.



Edited By Kid Afrika on 1087415402
Like Quadaffi.

I don't think names translate, and so names are always phonetic
i must have seen quadaffi spelled 10 different ways in the papers.
So then we agree.
I agree with your concept, but shouldn't the same paper spell it the same way throughout the entire article?

Especially when you're talking about a gov't commission investigating terrorism?
this is news?
yes it is.
More "massaging of the facts" and "specious" arguments from me
Quote:
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.
The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden.

Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration's defense by saying there had been such contacts.
In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.
The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.
The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.
To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.
Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission.
He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."
He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, " 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?"
I like how the fact that Clinton was an idiot is supposed to make Bush less of an idiot
That's not the point. The point is that people are saying Bush just made it up after the fact as an excuse to take over this country for its oil (which could have been done 10 years ago, and wasn't).

When it's not true. Not only have people been believing that there was a connection for a while, there is evidence that showed there had at least been communication between the two camps.
I think Bush would have 'liberated' Iraq whether or not 9/11 ever happened.
Really going out on a limb there, aren't you?
Well, i think there are still many people who believe Iraq has ties to Al Queda, regardless of the lack of evidence and clear fundamental religious differences.