Saddam and Al Queda? Linked?

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

I did read those. But the sources dont seem as reliable as id like, I guess I just mean that the mainstream American media would have picked up on this, even if they are biased.

Well they used to report on it and now they deny any connection. Here:

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:


Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.

Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden:


Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.

NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:


Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.

What do you guys think of that.

[GundamGuy]

I know that we helped Saddam in the Iran Contra, but I doubt that we gave him nukes or any other chemical or biologial weapons.

We gave him Anthrax, no Nukes... that just silly, but we did give him basic meteral that could be used to make biologial weapons... did you read the link it said so.

from the site...

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

You can easly look that up if you want to... refrence Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002

[Jimmy Onestroke]

Leatherman, I already posted one flaw in the story, and seeing as though I spotted it within the first few sentences of the article I didn't bother to continue reading. I figured that if they're unable to factcheck some of their story, the entire thing could be faulty. So I read it, and the main issue that it brings up is the media outlets who reported these links (Newsweek, ABC) who have changed their story since. Given that these same news agencies were willing to report any unsubstantiated claims of WMD being found in Iraq prior to and during the invasion, I think it unlikely that they decided to change their stories based on partisanship. Plus, if the intelligence of 1999 clearly showed a Ba'athist/al Qaeda link, Bush himself would have ranted on about it. Cheney would have ranted on about it. Rumsfeld would have ranted about it. Not because it was in Newsweek or ABC or wherever, but because it's in the intelligence supplied to them by the CIA. The only intelligence we've heard them give as evidence have been revealed as fraudulent or inaccurate.

That being said, you may find it wise to look into what other countries have ties to al Qaeda. It's not always an issue that prevents alliances with the USA.

I know that we helped Saddam in the Iran Contra, but I doubt that we gave him nukes or any other chemical or biologial weapons.

Erm, what? Sillyface. Iran and Iraq were at war. How does helping Iran help Iraq?

Lesson: Saddam was in charge of Iraq, not Iran. Study harder.

As for the supplies given to Saddam's Ba'athist party by the USA, they included materials able to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

The picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam is from about 20 years ago or more, things have changed between the US and Saddam.

If you read my post, you can see a nice little timeline guide to it all. It happened after the US knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians. When they met, Rumsfeld didn't even bring up the topic of chemical weapons, instead choosing to talk about oil pipelines.

About that picture of Saddam and Bin Laden together, well do you think that they would allow themselves to be photographed if they wanted to keep it secret that Iraq was supporting Al Queda. He harbored a terrorist organization in his own country.

There are no photographs of penguins shaking hands with tigers. Do you not find that suspicious? The tigers are in alliance with the penguins in a plot to destroy us all. As soon as they get some hands.

[Jimmy Onestroke]

This is very very silly, and awesome, which is why I'm posting it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...vwath.asp?pg=2

The second page is the most important! The second! The second!

DUBBLE POSTE SORRRRIE.

[Solitude]

i offer only this in argument to whatever that guy said in bush's defense....
http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/d...5042bush1.html

[Xaenn]

There are no photographs of penguins shaking hands with tigers. Do you not find that suspicious? The tigers are in alliance with the penguins in a plot to destroy us all. As soon as they get some hands.

I just had to quote that to see its greatness once again.

And that article? wtf? I was scratching my head a bit trying to figure out why you posted it.

[Ziegfried]

This is very very silly, and awesome, which is why I'm posting it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...vwath.asp?pg=2

The second page is the most important! The second! The second!

DUBBLE POSTE SORRRRIE.

RACIST!
Hahahahahahhahahahah...

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

Leatherman, I already posted one flaw in the story, and seeing as though I spotted it within the first few sentences of the article I didn't bother to continue reading. I figured that if they're unable to factcheck some of their story, the entire thing could be faulty. So I read it, and the main issue that it brings up is the media outlets who reported these links (Newsweek, ABC) who have changed their story since. Given that these same news agencies were willing to report any unsubstantiated claims of WMD being found in Iraq prior to and during the invasion, I think it unlikely that they decided to change their stories based on partisanship. Plus, if the intelligence of 1999 clearly showed a Ba'athist/al Qaeda link, Bush himself would have ranted on about it. Cheney would have ranted on about it. Rumsfeld would have ranted about it. Not because it was in Newsweek or ABC or wherever, but because it's in the intelligence supplied to them by the CIA. The only intelligence we've heard them give as evidence have been revealed as fraudulent or inaccurate.

That being said, you may find it wise to look into what other countries have ties to al Qaeda. It's not always an issue that prevents alliances with the USA.

If you read my post, you can see a nice little timeline guide to it all. It happened after the US knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians. When they met, Rumsfeld didn't even bring up the topic of chemical weapons, instead choosing to talk about oil pipelines.

But why would the mainstream media change their story without telling why?
Bush did rant on about it after we got hit. The timeline stops at 1984, a year after the pic. That is very soon after we found out the Saddam used wmds against his own people. But if you feel like the blood thirsty dictator, Saddam Hussein, should still be in power that is your opinion. I want him out of power for the sake of the people of Iraq and the sake of the world. Can someone tell me why some people here are pro Saddam?

[Ziegfried]

leatherman, did you ever bother to read Xaenn's post in the other thread? You know, that "God damnit. Nobody is listening to what I'm saying. It's not that Saddam should've remained in power. It's that we didn't need to rush into doing it. As we could STARTED a plan to do so now, and executed it timely and diplomatically. However before that plan should be executed we'd need to go after all of the much worse terrorists." one?

Making us look like conscience-less monsters won't strengthen your argument, silly. Try again.

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

Well silly how many more people needed to die before we took him out? You can't have it both ways. He would either been in power or not. He isn't gong to leave because we ask him to, he had to leave because we forced him to. And if the dimplomacy had no effect and the rest of the world was still against us, then when would you go in and save the millions who were in harms way? That diplomatic thing would take around six months give or take. In a article written be Uday's newspaper, he called Bin Laden a hero for what he did. Now Uday won't be killing anyone else.

[Ziegfried]

I wonder who's given Bin Ladin the most money, the Hussein family or the US...

[Jimmy Onestroke]

Well silly how many more people needed to die before we took him out? You can't have it both ways. He would either been in power or not. He isn't gong to leave because we ask him to, he had to leave because we forced him to. And if the dimplomacy had no effect and the rest of the world was still against us, then when would you go in and save the millions who were in harms way? That diplomatic thing would take around six months give or take. In a article written be Uday's newspaper, he called Bin Laden a hero for what he did. Now Uday won't be killing anyone else.

You complain about how long six months would be, when it took longer for the Republican administration in the 80s to say "uh, we should probably stop giving him chemical weapons". You complain about the possible bloodloss that could have happened in that time as a result of Saddam's remaining in power, yet you see no harm in the bloodloss caused by the invasion itself. Why?

The invasion of Iraq was a distraction to the war on terror, and as such diverted the resources necessary for hunting down bin Laden and increasing national security into a costly exercise of "let's see how many countries want to be our allies after we do THIS."

But why would the mainstream media change their story without telling why?

Because that's what the mainstream media do, the best example being that of Fox. Retractions aren't really their thing, and journalism tends to consist more of copy and pasting than of research these days.

Bush did rant on about it after we got hit.

"...after we got hit"? What exactly are you talking about?

And that article? wtf? I was scratching my head a bit trying to figure out why you posted it.

This is very very silly, and awesome, which is why I'm posting it.

Need anything more be said? Other than maybe:

IT'S OBVIOUS not only that George W. Bush has already earned his Great President badge (which might even outrank the Silver Star) but that much of the opposition to Bush has a remarkable and very special quality; one might be tempted to call it "lunacy."

...

Opposition to Bush's policy in Iraq goes even further than the Kitty Genovese defense. Its real nature finally came clear when I heard about an anti-Bush harangue by a survivor of Hitler's Germany.

...

We can't understand hatred like the German survivor's or Michael Moore's or a million self-righteous left-wingers' unless we understand that their Bush-hatred is racist hatred.

Honestly, laughter should be tickling your eyes to the point where tears threaten to roll down your cheeks just by contemplating "the Kitty Genovese defense" of the invasion of Iraq. The introduction of racism to the argument takes it to an even higher level of awesomeness.

But I'm one of the racist liberal 1337, so I would say that.

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

[QUOTE=Jimmy Onestroke]You complain about how long six months would be, when it took longer for the Republican administration in the 80s to say "uh, we should probably stop giving him chemical weapons". You complain about the possible bloodloss that could have happened in that time as a result of Saddam's remaining in power, yet you see no harm in the bloodloss caused by the invasion itself. Why?[QUOTE]

I know they should have taken out Saddam then but they didn't and we needed to do it soon. What is this possible bloodloss? He was killing his own people and that was a fact. When anyone dies it is harmful, but they do not have to worry now, because Saddam can't rape or kill them anymore. If anyone who is killing them on purpose it is the terrorists still inside the country.

[Xaenn]

If anyone who is killing them on purpose it is the terrorists still inside the country.

Good to know that US soldiers haven't killed a single Iraqi...I mean, you gotta watch out for those accidental bombs...

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

Good to know that US soldiers haven't killed a single Iraqi...I mean, you gotta watch out for those accidental bombs...

Yeah i know, especially since i said killed on purpose.