Yes there were connections between Saddam Hussein and 9/11

A connection is clearly shown. Myth busted.

[quote]FACTS of WAR - Yes, there were connections between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 bad guys.
Mark Levin, November 18, 2005, 11:21 a.m.

What is this baloney that there were no connections between Iraq and Osama bin Laden? Even the 9/11 Commission Report, which I believe is lacking in many respects, includes some useful findings all but ignored today by the media and war critics. Consider the following excerpts:

Page 61:
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda

Thanks for the misleading and blatantly false subject line:

Well, I guess “connections” can mean different things to different people … :unamused:

Yes, sort of like the connection between Germany and Saddam Hussein wherein German companies supplied 50 percent of Saddam’s nuclear, chemical and missile equipment and technology. Was that what you were referring to?

[quote=“Rascal”]Thanks for the misleading and blatantly false subject line:

Well, I guess “connections” can mean different things to different people … :unamused:[/quote]Rascal -
Thanks for the misleading and blatantly false comment:

As you illustrate, the use of bold empahsis can mean different things to different people. Thanks for playing… :smiley:

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Rascal”]Thanks for the misleading and blatantly false subject line:

Well, I guess “connections” can mean different things to different people … :unamused:[/quote]Rascal -
Thanks for the misleading and blatantly false comment:

As you illustrate, the use of bold empahsis can mean different things to different people. Thanks for playing… :smiley:[/quote]

Except the title of this thread, my confused cowboy, is the connection between Hussein and 911, and NOT the connection between Hussein and the 911 bad guys. These two statements are not equivalent. Rascal’s comments were entirely appropriate.

[quote=“Muzha Man”]Except the title of this thread, my confused cowboy, is the connection between Hussein and 911, and NOT the connection between Hussein and the 911 bad guys. These two statements are not equivalent. Rascal’s comments were entirely appropriate.[/quote]Mucha -
I understand your confusion. Let me explain, and you can try it yourself if you have your doubts, why the titles are slightly different.

The title block for posts is limited in the number of characters it will allow.
I always try to post articles using their original titles to avoid possible duplicate postins if someone does a title search.
In posting this article, the original title - Fact of War -Yes, there were connections between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 bad guys. - is much too long to find, in its entireity, in the title box.
Making a decision to use a title that was both attention getting and as close to the original title as possible, I elected to use the title that appears.
This is no way detracts, changes or invalidates the contents of the srticle.
And quite frankly, if this is the only bitch you have, complaining about the title posted vs. actual title, you don’t really have much of a complaint.
I have seen much greater license used in article titles and nary a bitch, moan or anal retentive whine from anyone.

I do hope this explains the situation.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
Here’s what Congress itself said in October 2002 in passing a joint resolution justifying and authorizing war against Iraq:[/quote]

I wonder if Congress would have passed that resolution if they knew then what they know now. :slight_smile:

Clear as mud.

He is right, the words of the subject line (first quote) are really as close as possible to the original title (second quote):

Too bad though that we still remain confused, in particular about the fact that TainanCowboy doesn’t seem to be able to comprehend the significant difference in the meaning of both statements.

:unamused:

Let me help explain it to you Rascal. While the connection was not necessarily direct, the support to the group as a whole can be considered as aiding and abetting the enemy. That is why Iran is suing Germany after all for the chemical weapons sales to Iraq and no other country. Germany’s behavior was viewed by the Iranian government as being a substantial source of illegal aid to said regime. I guess we could assume that Germany’s man in Iraq was in fact Saddam. Given that Germany supplied and supported Saddam to such a degree and in a way indirectly al Qaeda and through allowing them to set up and coordinate the 911 attacks, which took place mostly in Hamburg, directly, perhaps the US would also be within its rights to invade Germany? I mean in the interests of supporting international law? WE know how important this concept is to everyone right?

[quote=“Rascal”]Too bad though that we still remain confused, in particular about the fact that TainanCowboy doesn’t seem to be able to comprehend the significant difference in the meaning of both statements. :unamused:[/quote]Rascal -
Baiting and insulting is on the no-no list.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the rules.
Discuss the topic, not the person who posts the topic.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Rascal -
Baiting and insulting is on the no-no list.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the rules.
Discuss the topic, not the person who posts the topic.[/quote]
And so is backseat moderating. In particular repeated backseat moderating. :unamused:

[quote=“Rascal”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]Rascal -
Baiting and insulting is on the no-no list.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the rules.
Discuss the topic, not the person who posts the topic.[/quote]
And so is backseat moderating. In particular repeated backseat moderating. :unamused:[/quote]Dear Mods -
Please stop the :offtopic: :threadjacked:

Did this thread ever get ON topic?

:astonished:

The bad guys being the bush family who let the attacks happen I take it.

And what does osama been forgotten have to do with any of this?

He isn’t even wanted by the FBI for 9/11. The planners needed a patsy and he fitted the bill.

Next you’ll be trying to convince us that a plane really did hit the pentagon.

9/11 was an inside job.

Now the Bush junta is running scared because people are realising they are selfish shysters (who have borrowed more money than all the previous presidents put together) and they need anything to make them look like what they do is just and lawful.

Just wait for the next terror attack to happen. Then the neocons will be rubbing their hands with joy and the thought of all that gunpowder they can use.
There will be no false warning, like the scare tactics they’ve used since 9/11.
There will be no warning but they will know exactly when it will take place.
Just like in Bali in 03 and 7/7.

Forget it. Get over it. There was no link between the two.

At least go all Realpolitik on our ass and stop giving crappy reasons for being there…we want the oil…more military bases in a troubled region…something better than these tired old ideas.

The link is old but so is the talking point.

Iraq-al Qaeda links weak, say former Bush officials

[quote="By Peter H. Stone, National Journal "]
As criticism over the Bush administration’s use of prewar intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction continues, a new wave of accusations seems ready to break - this time, over complaints that in its efforts to sell the war, the White House also hyped claims about the links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Three former Bush administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues have told National Journal that the prewar evidence tying al Qaeda to Iraq was tenuous, exaggerated, and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies. The Bush alumni, as well as other intelligence veterans and some members of Congress, say they see parallels between how the administration painted the Qaeda connection to Iraq and the way that the White House often portrayed intelligence about weapons of mass destruction as being definitive or rock solid.

“Our conclusion was that Saddam would certainly not provide weapons of mass destruction or WMD knowledge to al Qaeda because they were mortal enemies,” said Greg Thielmann, who worked at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research on weapons intelligence until last fall. “Saddam would have seen al Qaeda as a threat, and al Qaeda would have opposed Saddam as the kind of secular government they hated.”

Other Bush veterans concur that the evidence linking Al Qaeda to Iraq was overblown.

“Anyone who followed al Qaeda for a living would not have considered Iraq to be in the top tier of countries to be worried about,” said Roger Cressey, who left the administration last fall after working on counterterrorism issues at the National Security Council and as a top aide to cyberterrorism czar Richard Clarke. “I’d argue that Iraq would be in the third tier.” By contrast, Cressey said, Iran would rate in “the top tier.”[/quote]

[quote=“jdsmith”]Did this thread ever get ON topic?

:astonished:[/quote]

Well said. There should be a special bin for the likes of these:
Meaningless Gibberish, Sec. IIIc. Sheer Invective Desk .Supervague Vapid comments that are indistinguishable from that of some of the finest (sik) Propaganda Direktors that truffles can buy!

An Iraqi Defector Tells of Work on at Least 20 Hidden Weapons Sites
By JUDITH MILLER
NY Times, December 20, 2001

"An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago.

The defector, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, gave details of the projects he said he worked on for President Saddam Hussein’s government in an extensive interview last week in Bangkok.

Government experts said yesterday that he had also been interviewed twice by American intelligence officials, who were trying to verify his claims. One of the officials said he thought Mr. Saeed had been taken to a secure location. The experts said his information seemed reliable and significant. . . ."

Oops . . .

"On December 17th, 2001, in a small room within the sound of the crashing tide, a CIA officer attached metal electrodes to the ring and index fingers of a man sitting pensively in a padded chair. The officer then stretched a black rubber tube, pleated like an accordion, around the man’s chest and another across his abdomen. Finally, he slipped a thick cuff over the man’s brachial artery, on the inside of his upper arm.

Strapped to the polygraph machine was Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a forty-three-year-old Iraqi who had fled his homeland in Kurdistan and was now determined to bring down Saddam Hussein. For hours, as thin mechanical styluses traced black lines on rolling graph paper, al-Haideri laid out an explosive tale. Answering yes and no to a series of questions, he insisted repeatedly that he was a civil engineer who had helped Saddam’s men to secretly bury tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The illegal arms, according to al-Haideri, were buried in subterranean wells, hidden in private villas, even stashed beneath the Saddam Hussein Hospital, the largest medical facility in Baghdad.

It was damning stuff – just the kind of evidence the Bush administration was looking for. If the charges were true, they would offer the White House a compelling reason to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. That’s why the Pentagon had flown a CIA polygraph expert to Pattaya: to question al-Haideri and confirm, once and for all, that Saddam was secretly stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

There was only one problem: It was all a lie. After a review of the sharp peaks and deep valleys on the polygraph chart, the intelligence officer concluded that al-Haideri had made up the entire story, apparently in the hopes of securing a visa. . . .

As the CIA official flew back to Washington with failed lie-detector charts in his briefcase, Chalabi and Sethna didn’t hesitate. They picked up the phone, called two journalists who had a long history of helping the INC promote its cause and offered them an exclusive on Saddam’s terrifying cache of WMDs. . . .

The INC’s choice for the worldwide print exclusive was equally easy: Chalabi contacted Judith Miller of The New York Times. Miller, who was close to I. Lewis Libby and other neoconservatives in the Bush administration, had been a trusted outlet for the INC’s anti-Saddam propaganda for years. Not long after the CIA polygraph expert slipped the straps and electrodes off al-Haideri and declared him a liar, Miller flew to Bangkok to interview him under the watchful supervision of his INC handlers. Miller later made perfunctory calls to the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, but despite her vaunted intelligence sources, she claimed not to know about the results of al-Haideri’s lie-detector test. Instead, she reported that unnamed “government experts” called his information “reliable and significant” – thus adding a veneer of truth to the lies.

Her front-page story, which hit the stands on December 20th, 2001, was exactly the kind of exposure Rendon had been hired to provide. AN IRAQI DEFECTOR TELLS OF WORK ON AT LEAST 20 HIDDEN WEAPONS SITES, declared the headline. . . .

For months, hawks inside and outside the administration had been pressing for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. Now, thanks to Miller’s story, they could point to “proof” of Saddam’s “nuclear threat.” . . . It was the first in a long line of hyped and fraudulent stories that would eventually propel the U.S. into a war with Iraq – the first war based almost entirely on a covert propaganda campaign targeting the media."

Of course, there was that open propanda campain by the media targeting the administration way back when. “Remember the Maine!” :loco:

Here’s a serious, related question: [color=blue]What’re your most trust information sources?[/color]

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Dear Mods -
Please stop the :offtopic: :threadjacked:[/quote]
I agree, starting with your first post that is not on topic of the subject line.