Skip to comments.
Saddam had “no operational ties” to AQ: Pentagon
Hot Air ^
| March 11, 2008
| by Ed Morrissey
Posted on 03/11/2008 5:56:52 AM PDT by jdm
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-206 next last
To: jdm
Maybe Sadaam should ask for a do-over....
41
posted on
03/11/2008 6:35:52 AM PDT
by
Mygirlsmom
("My advice: Quit supporting the party that is symbolized by an ass." Ted Nugent)
To: Jet Jaguar
She didn't. She is tried and true a fascist/communist supporter.
Hard to believe... I didn't think anyone that dumb could operate a computer, or even breathe.
42
posted on
03/11/2008 6:36:14 AM PDT
by
TexasGunLover
("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
To: jdm
The source article healine reads,” Iraq had no link to al-Qaida.”
The text says, “... shows no evidence of operational ties between Saddam Husseins 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?
43
posted on
03/11/2008 6:36:38 AM PDT
by
Beckwith
(Dhimmicrats and the liberal media have chosen sides -- Islamofascism)
To: DTA
He was an enemy of AQ. Rubbish. Prove it.
44
posted on
03/11/2008 6:36:54 AM PDT
by
SolidWood
(All conservative effort into retaking Congress!)
To: MurryMom
Hi there, MurryMom.
The therapy isn’t working, I see.
45
posted on
03/11/2008 6:41:18 AM PDT
by
Bahbah
To: DTA
Saddam was a thug
LOL you call a man who used biological chemicals on women and children a thug???????????????????????
46
posted on
03/11/2008 6:42:37 AM PDT
by
angcat
(Indian name "She who yells too much")
To: MurryMom
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. Well just duh. Strange now isn't it that AQ would be attracted to killing US in any provinces on this globe. Think maybe that was a known to use their turf as the place to draw in a bunch of deranged killers. Or maybe you think it was unfair for US policy to be drawing a line in their sand pit.
The idea is not to expel them to another place but to rid this world of them once and for all. Here I thought the left was alll about saving things, why would you want them expelled to rebirth their barbaric slaughtering of innocence someplace else?
47
posted on
03/11/2008 6:44:30 AM PDT
by
Just mythoughts
(Isa.3:4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.)
To: DTA
48
posted on
03/11/2008 6:44:48 AM PDT
by
mewzilla
(In politics the middle way is none at all. John Adams)
To: MurryMom
Glad to see that you have not let facts get in the way of your beliefs...stop by more often...I promise that we will lock up all pointy and sharp things so you will not hurt yourself.
49
posted on
03/11/2008 6:46:00 AM PDT
by
crazyhorse691
(The faithful will keep their heads down, their powder dry and hammer at the enemies flanks.)
To: mewzilla
Yep, Saddam had no WMD nor did he have the capacity to make them. /s
50
posted on
03/11/2008 6:51:28 AM PDT
by
tobyhill
(The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
To: jdm
.. and the analysis shows no evidence of operational ties between Saddam Husseins regime and al-Qaeda.
The operation procedure of any dictator is oral communication and no written documents concerning sensitive matters. Saddam was a dictator and the WMD a sensitive matter! Is any reason Saddam kick out from Iraq the UN inspectors?
51
posted on
03/11/2008 6:52:57 AM PDT
by
SeeSalt
To: SeeSalt
The clear operational ties are also that both were Sunni, both hated America, both hated Israel, both hated Shiites and both wanted to kill them all.
52
posted on
03/11/2008 6:58:48 AM PDT
by
tobyhill
(The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
To: jdm
If an accurate description of the report language, this information will end up as part of the DNC campaign materials to be used against McCain. Before that, Obama will use it against Hillary.
53
posted on
03/11/2008 7:06:19 AM PDT
by
Truth29
To: jdm
The problem with military and intelligence jargon, when released publicly, is that people think it means things it doesn't. "Operational ties" means AQ did not have an office in Saddam's HQ; they didn't call Saddam every time they planned a bombing; and they didn't have a place on the line-and-staff chart of the Iraqi government. It does
not mean that they didn't receive intelligence, aid, support, money, advice, weapons, and all sorts of other help from Saddam, especially under the table.
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.
54
posted on
03/11/2008 7:08:03 AM PDT
by
LS
(CNN is the Amtrak of News)
To: Slapshot68
Saddam violated all 17 points of the cease fire from 1991 Persian Gulf War. That should have been enough to depose this guy, but not for liberals who hate America. He also violated his agreements on weapons inspectors and UN oversight over his oil for palace program.
To: jdm
This is old news. We have known for years that this was hyped up to scare nervous Nellie conservatives into supporting a Wilsonian war.
To: jdm
The argument which the Pentagon report addresses is whether AQ existed in Iraq before we invaded, or whether they entered Iraq as a consequence of the invasion I'm glad GWB has us playing as a "visitor" in their ballpark. I'd hate to have to play as the "home" team in this war. IMO
57
posted on
03/11/2008 7:12:22 AM PDT
by
IllumiNaughtyByNature
(Senator McCain, what did GWB promise you back in 2000? And you believed him? BWAHAAAAA!)
To: pnh102
The anti-US left (AKA dims) will use this as an excuse to divert attention away from their problems with the hildabeast vs. obama hussein.
They will, I predict, use this to initiate a new round of impeachment rhetoric against President Bush and, by association, John McCain.
58
posted on
03/11/2008 7:14:28 AM PDT
by
pfflier
To: LS
The Czechs may stand by it but the U.S. government long ago rejected the Atta story. I remember that at the time this fairy tale was used to quite effectively to scare conservatives into believing that the war somehow related to national defense rather than the truth that it was a Wilsonisan crusade.
To: pfflier
They will, I predict, use this to initiate a new round of impeachment rhetoric against President Bush and, by association, John McCain. The way McCain has been campaigning for Obama as of late, I wouldn't be surprised if he immediately resigned his Senate seat, cuffed himself, and walked all the way to prison on his own.
60
posted on
03/11/2008 7:17:28 AM PDT
by
pnh102
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-206 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson