Given the fact that Saddam’s intelligence apparatus was but an extension of the Soviet/Russian intel. apparatus, and given Saddam’s claim that he was bluffing about WMD’s to keep Iran at bay, I’m starting to wonder if his position was fed to him and cultivated by the Soviets/Russians for the express purpose of drawing in the USA. Just a thought...
Saddam had little use for religious foolishness, except when it was politically expedient, and Osama has little love for secular thugs. So naturally, they weren't exactly on the same page concerning most things.
However, there are common essential goals that both shared. The destruction of the Jewish state and the crippling of American power were both high priorities for them, particularly the defeat of the Great Satan. So even though their motives and goals were divergent, their primary enemy was the same. And as they say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They may have openly despised one another, but they surely collaborated in some way to at least discuss how they could both benefit from our loss.
Could be.
He just let 'em camp out and train unmolested.
We fixed that.
Excellent news Saddam poses no further threat to the future of Mid-East Peace, he will never reconstitute his WMD programs and he will never have the opportunity to allie with Al-Qaida because the U.S. Acted. Now Iraq is a free and Democratic state in the heart of the ME.
Further, had Bush waited and not gone after Saddam, Is there any doubt that an emboldened dictator that hated the U.S. would have eventually sought ties with Al-Qaida as he was emboldened by the success of UBL on 911? Can’t we prove that is exactly what Iran is doing now? better we tackle this one country at a time vice giving them cause to unite for a common cause...
Like say Radical Islamists United against an American President, whom they have labeled a Mrutadd and that they believe it is their RELIGIOUS duty to kill and wage war against as stated by Mohammad in the Quran... “Any man that leaves the relgion of Islam, Kill Him.
There is a big difference between “no” and “no operational”.
Saddam Hussein authorized the Iraqi Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, to pay for Al-Qaida’s meeting, in April 2001, for the final planning of their coordinated attack against the United States on September 11, 2001 (9-11). Saddam Hussein, through the Embassy, paid for all transportation costs, accommodations, food and drink, and made all the arrangements for the meeting place.
Saddam Hussein wasn't directly involved in the terrorist group's operations, but he did aid and abet - he supported! - Al-Qaida in all its activities.
define “had”.
/s
The best post mortem I can offer is that I will agree with the loons we should not have invaded Iraq. WE SHOULD HAVE INVADED IRAN INSTEAD.
Do these moronski’s remember that it was SoDamn Hinsane that paid palestinian suicide bombers in Israel $25,000 each?
“Had we let the sanctions regime collapse which was what was happening when we invaded Saddam would have restarted his WMD programs and would have continued in his ambitions to make himself the leader of a unified and hostile Arab state.”
I think it’s abundantly clear that Iraq will never be unified. If that were possible we’d have left a long time ago.
bs
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1983988/posts
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | Published June 25, 2004 | By Rowan Scarborough
Posted on 03/11/2008 12:22:16 PM PDT by newbie2008
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.
Oh good grief, not more of this crap.
I’m getting sick and tired of the endless debates over whether we were right or wrong to go to war with Iraq. None of it’s going to change the fact that our soldiers are still over there and we have an obligation to the Iraqi people to leave their country in capable hands.
Honestly, who among us gives a flip why we invaded anyway? I don’t care and I’m willing to be that the soldiers over there don’t care either. All we’re doing is wasting time and distracting ourselves from the important task that still remains.
And to the inevitable “We told you so’s” that are to come; WE DON’T CARE! And frankly, only an idiot would say the world isn’t better off with one less murderous tyrant to worry about.
Meaning that they did not act in direct concert with one another as allies. Yeah...so? That's hardly new...nor is it anything the Administration asserted.
Of course, I don’t think operational support has ever been claimed.
I’ve always thought the Saddam-to-AQ link sounded weak. Plenty of other terror support from that waste of human flesh, but there has always been zero chance that the MSM would report it.
IMHO Bush’s greatest mistake regarding Iraq, one that has wound up doing great damage to his entire presidency, was that he jacked around with the (useless and worthless) UN long enough that Saddam was able to whisk all his WMD-related materiel into Syria.
MM (in TX)
**************
Well, the Pentagon can stretch it and claim AQ wasn't in Iraq before 9/11 because Zarqawi's group went by its own name. Though Zarqawi and his group had operational ties to al Qaeda before 9/11 in Iraq and shared the same spiritual leaders, trainers, etc, Zarqawi had not yet "formally" sworn the oath of allegiance to bin Laden, and did not do so until after the invasion. I suppose since he forgot to notarize a written copy of his oath and file it down at the county courthouse, some could claim that lack of evidence of a pre-9/11 al Qaeda oath is proof of his innocence, no matter how well-established his relationship to bin Laden and AQ beforehand, and no matter his involvement with the pre-invasion London ricin plot or the even earlier 1999 Millennium Plot, etc.
Zarqawi's one thing but I'm not sure how they can explain away Zawahiri.
The phrase "for all practical purposes" tends to go over the heads of too many people these days.
Here are the FReeper videos we posted pointing out evidence of links between Saddam including WMD, Terrorist Training Camps along with incompetent journalism and fraud committed by the media and Democrats to cover this evidence.
People need to watch these before believing propoganda the left wants to distribute and disseminate about no links between Saddam, terrorism and Al Qaeda.
The behavior of the left has been treasonous and if they are upset about hearing it from me than I’m begging them to sue me for slander.
Salman Pak: Saddam’s Al Qaeda Connection (more details)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cSSKsUOVjE
The Failure of The 911 Commission and the disinformation from Scott Ritter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-Un1otZ37Y
Saddam’s WMD based on captured Iraqi documents
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCdJ5HoxILQ
al Qaeda video documents Hussein era training in Northern Iraq
http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2007/07/al_qaeda_video_documents_husse_1/
Saddam had no operational ties remaining to AQ: Pentagon
There - fixed :-)