Posted on 03/22/2006 12:11:46 PM PST by Trust but Verify
I'm arguing with a bunch of liberals about their assertion that Bush concocted the links between Saddam and AQ. They, of course, continue to insist Bush linked Saddam to 9-11. now they have thrown out the contents fo the DSM. Can someone give me the Reader's digest condensed version?
The thing about the Downing Street memo is that its another person's characterization of the U.S. position. It's not the U.S. (and certainly not Bush himself) saying what we actually thought. It's someone else making their own guesstimate.
Never argue with a fanatic. You'll never convince them and you'll have wasted valuable time on this earth.
Why? You really think you are going to change hearts and minds?
Arguing with these buffoons is idiotic.
My suggestion??
Don't even try----I think we could find a HUGH stockpile of WMDS...and letters written from Saddam to Bin Ladin..
and the left would STILL insist that Bush lied.
I saw Chrissy Matthews spewing that line "Bush SAID that Saddam had something to do with 9/11"...which we all know he never has said..and he even had Stephen Hayes of Weekly Standard on his show..TELLING Chris that he is wrong...
But, Chris won't back down from perpetuating that myth..and so if I were you...I wouldn't even try.
Absolutely, after hours of debate I am sure the nutcases will simply realize that they are nutcases....
Dearly Beloved,
We have gathered here today to pay our last respects to the latest attempt of the Sore Losers to smear our President, George W. Bush.
If you recall, just days before the November 2004 election, Dan Rather and his minions at the C-BS network tried to foist upon the American public "fake but accurate" documents about the Presidents service in the Air National Guard. The documents were proven to be forgeries and the attempt to take down a sitting President backfired.
Recently the so-called "Downing Street Memos" have surfaced, purporting that the President "fixed" the facts to support the Iraq war effort.
It has been a main contention of the President's enemies that he lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction(WMD's) to get us into a war.
However, what has been conveniently forgotten is that the belief that Saddam Hussien had WMD's was widely held BEFORE PRESIDENT BUSH TOOK OFFICE IN JANUARY 2001.
A brief look at news articles from CNN.com provide sufficient proof:
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/01/iraq/
"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 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/
"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 http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/
So you see, my dear friends, since the belief that Saddam had WMD's goes all the way back to the Clinton Administration, President Bush did not lie, "fix" or fabricate the WMD issue.
So as we say good bye to another dear fabricaton of the Left, let us now with strong resolve push forward to the bright future that is before us, proving to the world the true liberating power of democracy.
Feel free to stop by the casket on your way out.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1433740/posts
The so called Downing Street Memo - which was presumed to be authentic when Bush administration critics began touting it last month as evidence the president committed impeachable crimes - is actually a manually recreated copy - with the source of the memo now admitting he retyped the document before destroying the originals.
British reporter Michael Smith, who broke the memo story in the London Times on May 1, revealed to the Associated Press over the weekend that he "he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals."
Smith's admission means there's now no independent way to determine the accuracy of the Downing Street Memo, i.e., whether he made any typos or transcription errors that could have changed the memo's meaning.
The revelation has conjured up memories of the CBS News forged document scandal last year
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1426620/posts
Downing Street Memo...
FAKE BUT ACCURATE
The eight memos - all labeled "secret" or "confidential" - were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times. Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
As for Iraq/Al Qaeda connections...
Recent findings based on newly released documents:
Saddam Regime Document: Iraqi Intelligence met with Bin Laden in 1995 (Translation)
Newly released document links Saddam to al-Qaida
From my files:
In in 1998, an Arab intelligence officer, who knows Saddam personally, predicted in Newsweek: "Very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis." The Arab official said these terror operations would be run under "false flags" --spook-speak for front groups--including bin Laden's organization.
Then there were the predictions by an Iraqi with ties to Iraqi intelligence, Naeem Abd Mulhalhal, in Qusay's own newspaper several weeks before the attacks that stated bin Laden would “demolish the Pentagon after he destroys the White House and ”bin Laden would strike America “on the arm that is already hurting.” (referencing a second IRAQI sponsored attack on the World Trade Center). Another reference to New York was “[bin Laden] will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra everytime he hears his songs.” (e.g., “New York, New York”) which identified New York, New York as a target. Mulhalhal also stated, “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer." which references an airplane attack.
The Arabic language daily newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabic also cited the cooperation between Iraq, bin Laden and Al December 1998 editorial, which predicted that “President Saddam Hussein, whose country was subjected to a four day air strike, will look for support in taking revenge on the United States and Britain by cooperating with Saudi oppositionist Osama Bin-Laden, whom the United States considers to be the most wanted person in the world.” This info is in the link provided below. How could these people have had foreknowledge without Iraq being involved?
Warning...slow loading .pdf file. This was from a lawsuit filed against Iraq after 9/11...the court ruled against Iraq.
There was also another lawsuit filed by the family of John O’Neill (a former FBI agent who captured Ramzi Yousef after the 1993 WTC bombings) after he died in the WTC on 9/11. His personal files from his years of traveling around the world investigating al-Qaeda are were used as evidence in the lawsuit. The evidence includes documents unearthed in the headquarters of the Mukhabarat (Iraq's intelligence service) and information gleaned from the interrogation of both al-Qaeda and Iraqi prisoners. (Link below). It also quotes Vincent Cannistraro, the former CIA counter-terrorism chief, who stated in October 2000 that Iraq had been wanting to carry out terrorist attacks, and that the Iraqi military had been in contact with Osama bin Laden.
We know from these IIS documents that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset. We know from IIS documents that the former Iraqi regime provided safe haven and financial support to an Iraqi who has admitted to mixing the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. We know from IIS documents that Saddam Hussein agreed to Osama bin Laden's request to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state-run television. We know from IIS documents that a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden stayed for more than two weeks at a posh Baghdad hotel as the guest of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
Abu Nidal, September 11 and Saddam The terrorist network may be closer knit than we think.
Weekly Standard: The Mother of All Connections
List of newspaper article in the 90's which mention the world's concern regarding the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam:
Son of Saddam coordinates OBL activities:
The AQ connection (excellent):
Western Nightmare:
Saddam's link to OBL:
NYT: Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate:
Document linking them:
Iraq and terrorism - no doubt about it:
A federal judge rules there are links:
Wall Street Journal on Iraq and AQ:
Iraq and Iran contact OBL:
More evidence:
Saddam's AQ connection:
Further connections:
What a court of law said about the connections:
Some miscellaneous stuff on connections:
Saddam's Ambassador to Al Qaeda: (February 2004, Weekly Standard)
Yes - it's NewsMax but loaded with interesting bullet points.
Saddam's Fingerprints on NY Bombing (Wall Street Journal, June 1993)
Colin Powell: Iraq and AQ Partners for Years (CNN, February 2003)
The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connections (September 2003, Richard Miniter)
Oil for Food Scandal Ties Iraq and Al Qaeda (June 2003)
Saddam and OBL Make a Pact (The New Yorker, February 2003):
Al Qaeda's Poison Gas (Wall Street Journal, April 2004):
Wolfowitz Says Saddam behind 9/11 Attacks:
Saddam behind first WTC attack - PBS, Laurie Mylroie:
Growing Evidence of Saddam and Al Qaeda Link, The Weekly Standard, July 2003:
Qusay Hussein Coordinated Iraq special operations with Bin Laden Terrorist Activities, Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club
The Western Nightmare: Saddam and Bin Laden vs. the Rest of the World, The Guardian Unlimited:
Saddam Link to Bin Laden, Julian Borger, The Guardian, February 1999
The Al Qaeda Connection, The Weekly Standard, July 2003
Cheney lectures Russert on Iraq/911 Link, September 2003:
No Question About It, National Review, September 2003
Iraq: A Federal Judges Point of View
Mohammed's Account links Iraq to 9/11 and OKC:
Free Republic Thread that mentions some books Freepers might be interested in on this topic:
The Proof that Saddam Worked with AQ, The Telegraph, April 2003:
Saddam's AQ Connection, The Weekly Standard, September 2003
September 11 Victims Sue Iraq:
Osama's Best Friend: The Further Connections Between Al Qaeda and Saddam, The Weekly Standard, November 2003
Terrorist Behind 9/11 Attacks Trained by Saddam, The Telegraph, December 2003
James Woolsey Links Iraq and AQ, CNN Interview, March 2004, Also see Posts #34 and #35
A Geocities Interesting Web Site with maps and connections:
Bin Laden indicted in federal court, read down to find information that Bin Laden agreed to not attack Iraq and to work cooperatively with Iraq:
Case Closed, The Weekly Standard, November 03
CBS - Lawsuit: Iraq involved in 9/11:
Exploring Iraq's Involvement in pre-9/11 Acts, The Indianapolis Star:
The Iraq/AQ Connection: Richard Minister again
Militia Defector says Baghdad trained Al Qaeda fighters in chemical weapons, July 2002
The Clinton View of Iraq/AQ Ties, The Weekly Standard, December 2003
Saddam Controlled the Camps (Iraq/AQ Ties): The London Observer, November 01
Saddam's Terror Ties that Critics Ignore, National Review, October 2003:
Tape Shows General Wesley Clark linking Iraq and AQ:
The Missing Link (What the Senate Ingelligence Report Said about Iraq/AQ Connections) Click Here
Credit to Peach for the above info.
Credit to joesbucks for the following links:
Dozens of links here:
Just a few of those links include:
The Clinton Justice Department's indictment against OBL in federal court which mentions the terrorist's connections to Iraq. November 4, 1998. The federal indictment:
Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate. The federal indictment against OBL working in concert with Iraq and Iran is mentioned. November 1998. The New York Times
Saddam reaching out to OBL January 1, 1999. Newsweek
ABC news reports on the Osama/Saddam connections January 14, 1999. ABC News
Western Nightmare: Saddam and OBL versus the World. Iraq recruited OBL. February 6, 1999. The Guardian
Saddam's Link to OBL February 6, 1999. The Guardian
Saddam offered asylum to bin Laden February 13, 1999. AP
And kabar submitted these two little gems showing Bin Laden supported Iraq and its struggle against the US and the West.
1996 Fatwa: "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
Yeah, I make better use of my time teaching my dog to type. I know that seems like a waste to a lot of people, but his handwriting is awful.
ping
I had this debate, and this is how I replied:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/msg/2eb1911ba6f34206
> Some guy named "C" (Richard Dearlove, the head of Britain's spy
> agency MI6) reported on his recent visit to America. "C" said George
> Bush "wanted to remove Saddam Hussein through military action" and
> that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
> This is a fancy way to say they were cooking intelligence, which, in
> even plainer language, means lying.
That bit from the memo is hearsay thrice removed. Here's the paragraph:
"[Richard Dearlove, Head of MI-6] reported on his recent talks in
Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was
now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military
action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
NRO notes that is "impressions of an aide of the impressions of
British-cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to
in the United States about what they thought the president was thinking".
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200506060801.asp
The rest of your "proof" consists of an opposition blogger's impression of
those impressions.
Here's more on that excerpt from the same article:
"This passage needs some clarification. Maybe Rycroft or Dearlove could
elaborate; by "fixed around" did they mean that intelligence was being
falsified or that intelligence and information were being gathered to
support the policy? There is nothing wrong with the latter - it is the
purpose of the intelligence community to provide the information
decision-makers need, and the marshal their resources accordingly.
"But if Dearlove meant the former, he should be called upon to substantiate
his charge. It can be weighed against the exhaustive investigation by the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on prewar intelligence assessments
in Iraq. The committee examined this very question, whether the White House
had pressured the intelligence community to reach predetermined conclusions
supporting the case for war. The investigation found no evidence that
"administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure
analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction capabilities" or that "the Vice President's visits to the
Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were
perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the
briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure
analysts to change their assessments." One would think that the Senate
investigation would have somewhat more weight than the secondhand
impressions of a foreign intelligence officer, but if Mr. Dearlove is able
to elaborate, one hopes he will.
"The memo itself notes that the British assumed that Saddam had limited WMD
capabilities - and the September 24, 2002, British white paper on the topic
spelled out exactly what Whitehall believed to be the facts. Surely, this
was not the result of pressure from the vice president or any other American
officials."
Thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.