Al Qaeda-Iraqi relationship proven beyond any doubt.

ABC World News Now | 4/27/2004

[Beckwith]

ABC World News Now. April 27, 2004

In an interview broadcast by ABC's World News Now, the leader of the Al Qaeda cell organizing the explosive and chemical attack on the Jordanian security headquarters and the American Embassy in Jordan stated that he received his training from Al-Zawahiri in Iraq, prior to the fall of Afghanistan.

[Travis McGee]

Archive ping.

[Peach]

And you quoting the UN and Europe is a joke.

You constantly condemn those who talk about how Iraq violated UN policy because you don't respect (rightly) the UN. Boy, you sure are willing to trot them out when it suits your purpose though.

The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.” [NY Times, 6/27/03]

"U.S. allies have found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.'We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda,' said Europe's top investigator. 'If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.’" [LA Times, 11/4/02]

[JohnGalt]

I corrected myself in the next post.

I have not been asked by anyone to stop doing anything, though you have a history of telling lies about me and I am citing your numerous posts suggesting I post under multiple handles.

There has never been any question that Anslar al-Islam operated in the American No Fly Zone of Northern Iraq and frequently clashed with our 'allies' the Kurds. There is absolutely nothing new in this alleged breaking news, though you are signaling to the forum that you don't know much about the situation.

Domestic and foreign intelligence services have characterized Anslar al-Islam relationship with Saddam's government to minimal to nothing and that is the only question at hand.

[JohnGalt]

No proof links Iraq, al-Qaida, Powell says

[MizSterious]

Did you even bother to read the articles in your links?? From the first one:

"Mr Bush did however repeat his belief that the former Iraqi president had ties to al-Qaeda - the group widely regarded as responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. "

It is known by more than just Chalabi that Salman Pak was used to train AlQaeda. There is even a paper trail, the same paper trail, by the way, that shows who got what in the Oil For Food scam. Perhaps Saddam didn't sit down in a cave with Osama and plot 9/11, but he provided financial support and training for them.

But knowing you, I doubt the facts will deter you.

[Peach]

I was told by two people that you post under multiple handles. If I/they were wrong, I apologize.

You have been asked to stop posting crap like this however. In your own words:

The elite that pushed the war were liberals; they used their media connections to convince the American people that they were under attack, an act of supreme anti-patriotism, to capture political support for the war. That the whole war was debt financed speaks to the leftwing nature of the entire enterprise.

Furthermore, the logic that has the United States building a nation in the Middle East is strictly leftwing and the current rationale for the war that Saddam was a bad-man is pure Clintonism. The seductive simplicity of total evil versus total good can overwhelm the obvious logical and ethical problems of building a democracy at gunpoint-- an idea that comes from the French liberal, Rousseau.

That said, the owner of the site has made it clear he does not want this debate on this site, and I respect his wishes, but I would be happy to carry on over Freep Mail.

60 posted on 04/09/2004 11:03:47 AM EDT by JohnGalt

[Peach]

You still aren't answering the fact that you constantly condemn those who use violation of UN Secuty Council resolutions as a reason for war. You condemn the UN constantly, and rightly so.

And yet here you are, using the UN and an article written about them and their "decision" that there is no linkage. Hah!

Also, using a European source as saying there is no linkage is as funny as the UN auditing themselves in the oil for food program.

[lugsoul]

ANYONE care to deal with the fact that before the war, Zarqawi's operations were in the Kurdish territory in the north of Iraq that was indisputably not under the control of Saddam's government?

C'mon, folks. A little intellectual honesty here. Or do you think we should be bombing the hell out of the Kurds?

[Peach]

That link doesn't quite say what you think it says, or didn't you read it?

The headline is typical leftist spin, but the comments contained within by both the president and Powell are quite different than what you have presented.

One example of several:

“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed,” he said.

[Shryke]

I fell like I'm debating a Young Earth Creationist when I debate with you, John: you like to move goal posts. Tell me, what type of evidence would make you recant your assertion that no AQ/SH links exist?

[Peach]

That is what Democrats do. Move the goalposts. Change the subject. Not let the facts get in the way of their opinions.

[LexBaird]

Should be: The President has made clear there is no link between Saddam and 9.11.

Actually, you should write: The President has made clear there is no direct link that has been uncovered between Saddam and 9.11.

You cannot prove a negative statement, and lack of evidence should never be mistaken for proof of lack.

There have been plenty of circumstantial links: AQ people in contact with Iraqi regime officials, the Salman Pak airliner assault course, Saddam's documented financial support of other radical terrorist groups who have close ties to AQ, etc. But there has been no eyewitness or documentary evidence that the 19 hijackers are directly linked to Iraq. Yet.

But, so what? This isn't a military effort to eliminate just AQ, but to eliminate the state-sponsored support base for all radical terrorists. Iraq was clearly one of these support bases.

[Peach]

An AQ terrorist stating he received WMD training in Iraq and you want to pretend Saddam didn't know about it because of WHERE you think in Iraq the training occurred.

ooookay.

So now the goal post has been moved to the AQ terrorists have to have been provided training in downtown Baghdad or something.

Like much of anything went on in that country that Saddam didn't know about.

Like he didn't know about Salmon Pak. Right.

[MizSterious]

"What he has said is there is no link between Iraq and 9/11."

I'm in danger of sounding terribly Clintonian myself, but I note that the President always parses his words carefully on this particular subject. There might be an exact quote somewhere that states that "there is no link," but the ones I've read and heard say there is no evidence of a link. Might be that I'm a bit too picky, but frequently I notice him saying, often in the next breath, that he does believe there is an Iraqi-AlQaeda link.

We know, of course, that Saddam hosted a few AQ leaders--and left a paper trail stating just that, and detailing the visits: which hotels, etc., and if memory serves, I believe some mention was made of payments to them.

Of course, these are incovenient facts for some.

[Peach]

I don't think you or the president is parsing words.

As we can see, even "so called conservatives" aren't satisifed with the information that HAS come to date showing a linkage between Iraq and AQ so we can imagine how the hostile press would handle it.

We're never going to have a videotape and so from the preponderance of the evidence, which is good enough in a court of law, I'll stake my claim that the links between AQ and Iraq are legitimate and that certainly Iraq knew the attacks on 9/11 were coming as evidenced by:

Less than two months before 9/11/01, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper “Al-Nasiriya” carried a column headlined, “American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin.” (July 21, 2001)

In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the US “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”

The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the US “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” – an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, “New York, New York”.

[JohnGalt]

I was pinged to this thread in the same fashion as dirtboy pinged me to his thread on which you pulled my post. I am perfectly content to not debate left/right questions as the owner of the site has stated on the homepage that he does not want that debate here. I was not asked by anybody directly to cease and desist, I did so on my own.

However, when I am invited to a thread where certain posters are challenging the administration's position, trumpeting one liners from ABC news as their raison d'etre or posting the ruling of a leftwing judge from NY, I have an opportunity to correct the tinfoil hatters and square them with the very serious situation our countrymen have found ourselves in Iraq. I have friends in Iraq who I care for deeply and wish to see back state's side ASAP, and I have no intention of supporting any policy but getting them home ASAP, mission accomplished.

I have stated for the record on this thread the Administration's position on links between AQ, Iraq, and 9.11 of which you are large proponent of. You can loath my presence on this thread all you wish, but I offered the courtesy of a response to an interested party who can now hone his message to answer critics out in the real world, which is why I assume he pinged me in the first place.

[JohnGalt]

I agree with the Administration's assessment of the relationship, not with the treasonous fellows who made otherwise rational people fall for the discredited nonsense from Chalabi. Who's side are you on?

[JohnGalt]

Salman Pak tinfoil theories came only from Chalabi's since discredited people. One even said that the interpretor Chalabi supplied to translate his statements lied about what he said. On this you send men to war? Come on.

[Peach]

Oh, yes. Your links. You obviously don't read them because the "hysterical" headlines don't quite match up with the content within the articles.

In some cases, they say the direct opposite.

I'm surprised you fell for headlines like that.

[Shryke]

According to your link in post 84, Powell, although stating he has see nothing concrete, believes that SH/AQ links exist. This is your position?