[Recovering_Democrat]

LOL. Who said there was? Zarqawi was IN Iraq, no one said he was working with Saddam.

I'm seriously feeling better about the elections after this crap.

Even the Democrat operatives pushing censorship--as mad as it makes me, it works to our advantage.

[PISANO]

No one in the present administration said there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam or 911 and NEVER used that as a reason to remove Saddam from power.

This is a TOTAL NON story!!!!

However one the Dims will use to bolster THEIR interminable lies about IRAQ and President Bush.

[weegee]

How about Saddam's financial ties to the families of suicide bombers in Israel?

[Names Ash Housewares]

Hmmmm, thats not quite what the media told us when Bubba was prez...



The Herald
By Ian Bruce
December 28, 1999


The world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered
sanctuary in
Iraq if his worldwide terrorist network succeeds in carrying out a
campaign of
high-profile attacks on the West over the next few weeks.


Intelligence sources say the Saudi dissident believed responsible for
the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and a US
military barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1998, is running out of options
for a safe haven.


He is now thought to have overcome his initial rejection of Saddam
Hussein, whom he regarded as an exploiter of the Islamic cause rather
than a true believer, and is considering the offer of a bolt-hole from
which he can continue to mastermind terrorism on a global scale.


A US counter-terrorist source said yesterday: "Our State Department
issued a worldwide warning on December 11. We have solid information
that many of the groups operating under bin Laden's patronage are
planning 'spectaculars' to coincide with the period leading up to and
through the millennium celebrations.


"They want to inflict maximum loss of life in return for publicity.
Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin
Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying.


CNN 1999...


"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden"
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

[Sundog]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600579/posts

Here is the translation of the Iraqi document explaining the contact with Osama.

[MissyMa]

Ping

[slowhand520]

I think all these "faulty intelligence claims by the administration" reports that keep coming out are homogeneous now. After 3 years of perennial negative coverage I really doubt this will have any effect on Bush. I believe there is Iraq war reporting fatigue and I hope he addresses this on Monday night.

[beethovenfan]

The link is this: they are all Muslims, and they all want to
kill all infidels. It's the fundamental doctrine of I-SLAM.

[Defiant]

Notice how they wait til Zarqawi is dead to make this claim? If we still had a chance to capture him and get him to talk, they would be more circumspect in their claims.

Saddam set up an al-Qaida camp in North Iraq, in the no-fly zone, so he could keep control of that area brutally without having to do the dirty work. What do these idiots say about that?

[airborne]

Don't be too sure.

Our Freeper 'veritas' is still translating.

[Positive]

"There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report..."

This kind of opinionated reporting infuriates me.

There is a logical, old axiom that goes: Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

So even if the statement "there's no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaida" is a direct quote from the Senate report, it is not necessarily true.

Why doesn't the Senate declare that there is no evidence that Osammy bin laden is still alive? Would that be either accurate or meaningful.

[ChadGore]

Hello?

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-09-07T180146Z_01_L07918606_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ-QAEDA-MUHAJIR.xml

---

Al Jazeera airs audio of new Iraq al Qaeda leader

Thu Sep 7, 2006 7:02 PM BST

| | RSS

[] []

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda's new leader called on Muslims to unify ranks with insurgents in Iraq, according to an audio tape aired by Al Jazeera television on Thursday.

"Place your hands in our hands ... our enemy has unified his ranks, now is the time to unite," said the speaker, identified by Al Jazeera as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

Muhajir, also believed to use the name Abu Ayyub al-Masri, became the group's leader after the killing of his predecessor Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a U.S. air strike in June. He has vowed to avenge Zarqawi's killing.

Al Qaeda makes up about five percent of Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency but its suicide bombers have been responsible for some of the worst violence, often killing over 100 people in a single attack.

Iraq's south is dominated by Shi'ites who took power in the country after the 2003 U.S.-led war while central and northern cities are chiefly Sunni areas, where insurgents have been active against the Shi'ite-led government and U.S.-led forces.

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved. | Learn more about Reuters

[ChadGore]

This is a real person.

He's in a real place. (Iraq)

He names his group of terrorists what ever he wants.

Al Qaeda in Iraq is a reality.

[ChadGore]

This was a real person.

He was in a real place. (Iraq)

He names his group of terrorists what ever he wants.

Al Qaeda in Iraq is a reality.

[tobyhill]

Senate Intelligence Committee Determines Zarqawi Only Pretending To Be Al-Qaeda.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.

Can anyone come up with a good reason why we are supposed to believe anything that comes out of the CIA?

Elements of the CIA have clearly tried to bring W down and at best the Agency appears to be incompetent. Tie the organization in with the State Department and the DNC and it looks to me like a coup is being attempted.

Michael Frazier

[nutmeg]

ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

[OldFriend]

Same old same old misrepresentations and lies. Just heard some reporterette add that the administration has ALWAYS insisted that there was a connection between Iraq and Al qaeda.

[Stultis]

The declassified document released Friday by the intelligence committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.

No surprise there. Just another element of the CIA's (and the State Department's) venal, willful and years long smear campaign against the I.N.C. (and Chalibi). All this part of the CIA's (and the State Department's) venal, willful and years long subversion of their legal obligation to build up the I.N.C. under the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

Had the CIA (and the State Department) made a sincere effort to actually implement the provisions of this act -- the intent of which was repeatedly reaffirmed by Congress in the face of CIA (and State Department) recalcitrance and subversion -- we would have had:

1. A credible Iraqi "government in exile" that could have assumed sovereignty within days of Saddam's overthrow, and

2. Thousands Iraqi soldiers participating the liberation of Iraq.

The effect these things would have had on subsequent events is now obvious. Indeed full implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act might have made the war unnecessary in the first place. (The buildup of a "Free Iraq" army and government in the "No Fly" zones might conceivably have lead to mass exodus and internal collapse within Saddam's Iraq. It certainly would have weakened Saddam and limited his options.)

The CIA, and The State Department, have the blood of thousands of American soldiers on their hands.

[NurdlyPeon]

Why did we go into Iraq? How come nobody ever points out the fact that if we had just gone into Afghanistan alone, we would have had an "insurgency" problem about three times bigger than what we have now in Iraq? As we pretty much know, most of the "insurgency" in Iraq is made up of foreign nationalist, financed by regimes (Iran, Syrian) who are deathly afraid of a successful democracy being established in the Middle East. If we had just gone into Afghanistan, we would have had "insurgents" from Iran, Syria, and Iraq. In that case, we would have lost Afghanistan, which would have made us look pathetically weak in the Arab world. Additionally, Iraq and Iran would move closer to being allies (me again my brother, my brother and I against our cousin). As far as I am concerned, Afghanistan and Iraq are the same war. Doing one without doing the other would have been a pointless waste of time, and would have left us in a worse position. For me, that's the bottom line on why we are in Iraq.