Irrelevant. Saddam violated the 1991 Cease Fire agreement, and we knew he was trying to obtain WMDs. That is the bottom line, he didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. This is "The War on Terror", not the "War on Al-Qaeda."
That headline is an out and out lie. Freakin MSM publishishing a Dims opinion as fact.....again.
A little something called Salman Pak training camp, made with Saddam's full knowledge and approval...
And meetings between same madman and AQ leaders.
OMGosh!! This is so over!!
I hate liberals. All they do is b!tch b!tch b!tch!!!!
No you aren't wrong.
The case was made...and, IMHO, was realistic..that there was enough of a "link" between Saddam and al-queda, that Saddam could have given WMDs to al-queda to use against us.
Don't forget there were murals on walls in Iraq with pictures of the planes going into the WTC...and Saddam was the only ME dictator that openly was cheering for the terrorists.
He scammed the Oil for food Program...and there was al-queda in Iraq....why would anyone question his intentions to hook up with them, IF WE HAD LEFT HIM ALONE.
Libs seem to be the only ones who can't get it through their heads that there was no major connection (or maybe there was, but the Bush admin. never made such claims).
I'm confused ... they are complaining it intelligence was underplayed instead of overplayed ??
There was a link between Saddam and Al-Queda and between Saddam and other islamic terrorists. Hell he built and operated Salman-Pak. The left and their MSM propogandists like to take claims for that linkage and turn it into us saying that Saddam was involved in 911. Nobody in the administration has ever said that...but the left turns a denial of Saddam's involvement in 911 into a terrorist free veriosn of Saddam. A typical anti-aAmerican leftist lie.
No, but it was implied by talking about 9/11 in one sentence, and then bringing up Saddam in the next. But so what. Saddam should have been taken out in 1990. The arab world would have hated us, but they hate us now. Bush Sr. was trying to be nice and decided to pull back, and what did it get him? One term in the White House. Bottom line is if you got a chance to shape the world arena while in office, you go for it regardless of the misplaced perceived consequences because deep in your heart of hearts, you are right. Bush Jr. was right. He just needs to stop craw-daddin and stick it in their eye and give the commanders what they need in the field. Listening to Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld on a lean force was a mistake. but the past is the past.
Carl Lenin (D) is highly disturbing.
Absolutely NOT!!!!
There was mention of the possibly that Saddam could reconstitute his nuke program that was currently defunct at the time, and/or manufacture bio-chem weapons that he might sell to AQ in the future, but there was no mention of a direct linkage....not once, not ever.
This myth has been perpetrated by the Dem's since the beginning, and they are dragging it back out not, to begin the long awaited impeachment process to be lead by Teddy and the Wisconsin Dufus.
It is friggin amazing to me that this recycled garbage still gets traction in the media. Good ole Paul Harvey was talking it up on his show this morning, and it will once again make the MSM rounds.
Oh well, if Levin says so then it must be true......./s/
Go look up Hillary's speech on the floor of the Senate in October of 2002; she mentioned Al Qaeda!
Late last night there was an AP story that specifically stated that the DOD IG found that there was no deliberate attempt to lie or anything serious, only some errors in judgment. I guess Levin takes the same report and reads it totally opposite.
I continually point to the Beirut Conference in 2001 prior to 9/11 in which all the major terrorist organizations, to include Al Qaeda, and major terror sponsoring nations got together for a powwow.
If I recall that was reported by Newsweek.
Here's a 3 Star speaking of an Al Qaeda/Iraq connection. I've got dozens of these links.
http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/09/3star_general_reveals_addition/
As always, our problem has been the decision of the White House never to fight to prove their point. They've always simply rolled over to the media and the libs.
FYI, the autopsy on Anna Nicole has started.
uh...wait is this the Dog Chapman thread? Man, I'm lost!
The investigation found that the "contention that the CIA had underplayed the likelihood of an al-Qaida connection, was inappropriate but not illegal", and that "former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had not engaged in illegal activities through the creation of special offices to review intelligence".
So, the bottom line is he did nothing wrong - "inappropriate", perhaps, but not wrong, much less illegal. For his part, Feith strongly denies the allegation:
"The policy office has been smeared for years by allegations that its pre-Iraq-war work was somehow 'unlawful' or 'unauthorized' and that some information it gave to congressional committees was deceptive or misleading," Feith said.
"Feith called "bizarre" the inspector general's conclusion that some intelligence activities by the Office of Special Plans, which was created while Feith served as the undersecretary of defense for policy — the top policy position under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld — were inappropriate but not unauthorized."
A far cry from the implication purposely created in the headline, isn't it? Oh, and there is one little lie embedded in the story, which I won't let pass:
"The 2004 report from the Sept. 11 commission found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror organization before the U.S. invasion."
Sorry - WRONG - that's not what the commission found. The commission found no connection between Saddam and Osama with regard to the attacks of 9/11 ONLY. The many connections between Saddam, his military intelligence network, and al-Qaida operatives are well-documented and easy to research (unless you are a moonbat reported with a left-wing agenda and no interest in the truth).