The reason for dismantling his regime at $3T should be looked elsewhere.
Saddam forgot to write it down I bet.
Saddam had to be dealt with eventually, I just never believed it was as early as Bush wanted.
It is kind of a shame that the US has to go through this prerequisite of proving a link, proving WMD, when Saddam has demonstrated time and time again that he was a murderous dictator who simply needed to go away.
This isn’t news. Even when they find the link everybody on the other side of the aisle will say it was forged or phony. Why even spend the time looking? We know they communicate, we just don’t know how operational the communications had been but it is a mute point.
Interesting. Thanks for posting. More commentary here...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1983672/posts
Hussein was in blatant violation of several tens of U.N. directives, and should have been taken care of by the U.N.
Seeing that they are a ball-less, spine-less outfit, we did the next best thing.
Iran is also now in direct violation of U.N. sanctions.
Did they get this from the same people who said Iran does not have any type of Nuclear capabilities in preparation and are not a threat?
Give me a BREAK!
Saddam was gutted and he gave money to anyone he thought would attack the U.S. or anyone connected with the U.S.
Judas A. Priest the Media is our ENEMY WITHIN.
After Afghanistan fell to the coalition al-Zarqawi and other members of al-Qaeda fled to Iraq. From Iraq they planned the assassination of U.S. Diplomat Foley in Jordan. They carried out the assassination and fled back to Iraq. This was October of 2002 -- pre Iraq War.
Al-Qaeda was definitely set up in Iraq prior to the war. What that report tries to confuse the reader with is al-Qaeda operating with Saddam vs. just being in Iraq pre-war.
“The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims,” the president said.
Bush lied and lots of folks died.
Not too many people dispute that AQ has an active presence in Iraq in the post-invasion period...
The only reason AQ still has any presence in a few provinces is that they are attracted by American soldiers. Most of the remaining population is willing to tolerat AQ's killing of occupation forces. After our troops leave, Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds will find the AQ presence unacceptable and soon thereafter AQ will be expelled from Iraq.
Now we know for sure That President Clinton was wrong when he used that as an excuse to attack Iraq, Afghanistan and the Sudan without the consent of Congress or the UN.
The reason for dismantling his regime at $3T should be looked elsewhere.
The question should be, who's next?
just remember: Salman Pak
So Bush was right. Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism. Nice to finally see it in print.
Maybe Sadaam should ask for a do-over....
The source article healine reads,” Iraq had no link to al-Qaida.”
The text says, “... shows no evidence of operational ties between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda.”
There is a huge dufference in those two statements.
Then, there is this:
According to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by The Weekly Standard,”Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda.”
http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/saddamalqaeda.htm
What’s a body to believe?
To this day, the Czechs still stand by their claim that Mohammed Atta met with Al-Ani, the Iraqi foreign minister, not long before 9/11; that Atta's presence cannot be accounted for during that time; and more than one witness has said he personally escorted al-Qaeda leaders IN Iraq around before 9/11.