No link between Saddam/al Qaeda: Pentagon - Page 8

BillyBob · #71 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

But because Bush, Rummsfeld, Howard, Blair and others lied - there are now hundreds of thousands of innocent dead Iraqis and several thousand allied troops killed carrying out an illegal act.

Lied about what?

PatriotNews · #72 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

Ha ha ha ha. Yes - PatriotNews' usual method is to quote such well-respected journalists as Andrew Bolt

Never heard of Andrew Bolt.

We did find WMD's in Iraq.

There were connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

I've proved the last two arguments several times over the last few days. Where you been?

Tuatara · #73 (**permalink**) 03-15-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotNews

We did find WMD's in Iraq.

No you didn't. Even Bush says there are no WMDs. If you think they even found one he would use it as evidence.

Quote:

There were connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Sorry wrong again.

Quote:

I've proved the last two arguments several times over the last few days. Where you been?

No you haven't. You posted a lot of reportedly's and may have's. That's not evidence. Like I said before you better call the Pentagon with your findings.

f0ca1 · #74 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotNews

OK now you have to demonstrate to me that the administration was saying that they had a "collaborative" connection as part of their argument to go to war.

Demonstrating it to you may prove impossible, but I will prove it.

It isn't very tough; for months the Administration ranted on and on about exactly that.

Here's a few claims by the Administration:

Quote:

Question: Mr. Secretary, what global terrorist networks do you believe that Iraq has relationships with? Is Al Qaeda one of those terrorist networks?

Rumsfeld: Sure.

Question: Could you elaborate on that, sir? (Laughter.) Because I don't think any—I think the evidence that—talked about in the press about that has been a bit murky. Could you—

Rumsfeld: Well, life's murky. I mean, we're not on the ground down there. But are there Al Qaeda in Iraq? Yes. Are there Al Qaeda in Iran? Yes. Are there Al Qaeda in the United States? Yes.

Seems innocuous enough, right? I mean, he's not overstepping the bounds of reality.

Although he weakens duhmbo's argument that the mere pressence of zarqawi in Iraq represents a connection.

But, you see the President, unfortunately, seems to have a touch of the downs, or possibly Fetal Alcohol Syndrom:

Quote:

The war on terror, you can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is—I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two.

See, the president doesn't really know what's going on. He just knows there's bad guys, Iraq is one, al qaeda is another.

He's too stupid to understand that tyrannical despots run half the globe, and saddam really was no different from others we've managed; that the approach to defeating them should be different than the approach to defeating terrorists.

The world is more complicated than 'with/us' against us; re: pakistan.

Bush had a job to do: sell his self proclaimed "inevitable war" with Iraq, so he was prone to a few overstatements about Saddam calling him:

Quote:

a man who loves to link up with Al Qaeda

Which of course, we know, there is no proof of. But, the administration needed to tie Iraq with the attacks against us, so that's what they did, repeating:

Quote:

there is a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

Well, to a nitpicker like you, that's still within bounds; afterall a connection could be anything. If saddam's only connection to al qaeda was their shared love of the LA clippers, you'd say that was legitimate..

But, they really needed to sell this idea; that Iraq and al qaeda were linked, and that a war with Iraq is part of a war on terrorism, so they started postulating a fantasy:

Quote:

we need to think about Saddam Hussein using Al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind.

Whoah, now. We should "think about that," even though there is no evidence at all this was possible.

Now, I guess he didn't say "This will happen," and that's exactly why this qualifies as BS, and not a lie.

The problem is: The BS piles even higher when Bush brings in the (false) claims that Saddam was close to getting a Nuclear weapon:

Quote:

He's even more of a threat now that we've learned that he's anxious to have, once again to develop a nuclear weapon. He's got connections with Al Qaeda.

The entire argument made for the war was based on the idea of al qaeda and Iraq cooperating.

Dick Cheney makes the case:

Quote:

We will also continue our efforts to stop the grave danger presented by Al Qaeda or other terrorists joining with outlaw regimes that have developed weapons of mass destruction to attack their common enemies—the United States and our allies. That is why confronting the threat posed by Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror. It is absolutely crucial to winning the war on terror.

Again, that "grave danger" only existed in the minds of those who believed the warmongers. There was no evidence that this was likely to happen. Yet, this fantasy was repeated ad nauseum.

It's BS, and if you had paid attention this wouldn't come as a surprise.

Quote:

I don't think you'll find it because I don't think that is what anyone said. You see, if we can agree that all the administration has said is that there was communications between the two, we will have no argument.

There really is no argument coming from you but "nuh-uh."

That's not the goalposts, because "communications" do not represent a connection that would justify war. Sure, the administration relied heavily on those contacts, but that wasn't their only claim about the relationship between the Regime and al qaeda.

Quote:

But let's say you are right just for a second. Wouldn't we have cause to go to war against Saddam just because of all the other reasons? I mean, he didn't cooperate with the weapons inspections, he violated the UN Security Council's Resolution more that a dozen times, and even when given a final ultimatum UNSC Res 1441 he still thumbed his nose at them. That resolution gave us the right to use force against him.

No, it certainly did not. The US did not submit an authorization resolution for the invasion.

Quote:

So Bush gave him a certain amount of time to leave the country and he still didn't go.

Saddam was compliant; inspectors were in the country, at the time of this ultimatum.

Despite progress made during early 2003, Bush said the war was inevitable.

Quote:

We got a use of force passed through both houses of congress which amounts to a Declaration of War and he still would not cooperate.

He was cooperating, actually.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/737483.stm

Quote:

Do you remember any of this going down prior to our invasion?

Not the fantasy you project, no.

bugalugs · #75 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotNews

Never heard of Andrew Bolt.

Yes you have
Global Warming

DuH2 · #76 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 02:46 AM

Quote:

THERE WAS NO WORKING LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAIDA !!!! PERIOD.

Who said there was?

Whomever it was it wasn't me.
I said rightfully al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the invasion. Aided by its now formal member Ansar al-Islam.
Zarqawi was in the nation prior to the invasion and working with that group directly. Zarwqawi was an ally that had been funded by Osama bin Laden since 1989.
Its well past time you stop mistating what I am saying in order to dodge reality.

f0ca1 · #77 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuH2

Who said there was?

The Bush administration.

Joker · #78 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 06:05 AM

Saddam/Al-Qeada, wmds-- they're all irrelevant.

There's one simply reason why we were justified in invading Iraq. We needed a battleground to fight the war on terror. Afghanistan was unrealistic because of all those pesky mountains with caves to hide in, so we moved it into a desert. What we couldn't do was let the enemy decide the scene. Remember:

We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight tham over here.

Now, could Bush have just come out and stated that to the American people? Of course not. Because the American people are weak. They wouldn't support such a plan. Some of them would actually put their own security at risk for the sake of humanity. Silly people.

Hard-Driver · #79 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuH2

Who said there was?

Whomever it was it wasn't me.
I said rightfully al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the invasion. Aided by its now formal member Ansar al-Islam.
Zarqawi was in the nation prior to the invasion and working with that group directly. Zarwqawi was an ally that had been funded by Osama bin Laden since 1989.
Its well past time you stop mistating what I am saying in order to dodge reality.

Then what is your point?

You seem to be claiming that your facts justify this war....

So a simple yes/no question. Are you claiming that the invasion of Iraq is justified by Al Qaida in any way? If so, why?

PatriotNews · #80 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f0ca1

Demonstrating it to you may prove impossible, but I will prove it.

It isn't very tough; for months the Administration ranted on and on about exactly that.

Here's a few claims by the Administration:

Seems innocuous enough, right? I mean, he's not overstepping the bounds of reality.

Although he weakens duhmbo's argument that the mere pressence of zarqawi in Iraq represents a connection.

But, you see the President, unfortunately, seems to have a touch of the downs, or possibly Fetal Alcohol Syndrom:

See, the president doesn't really know what's going on. He just knows there's bad guys, Iraq is one, al qaeda is another.

He's too stupid to understand that tyrannical despots run half the globe, and saddam really was no different from others we've managed; that the approach to defeating them should be different than the approach to defeating terrorists.

The world is more complicated than 'with/us' against us; re: pakistan.

Bush had a job to do: sell his self proclaimed "inevitable war" with Iraq, so he was prone to a few overstatements about Saddam calling him:

Which of course, we know, there is no proof of. But, the administration needed to tie Iraq with the attacks against us, so that's what they did, repeating:

Well, to a nitpicker like you, that's still within bounds; afterall a connection could be anything. If saddam's only connection to al qaeda was their shared love of the LA clippers, you'd say that was legitimate..

But, they really needed to sell this idea; that Iraq and al qaeda were linked, and that a war with Iraq is part of a war on terrorism, so they started postulating a fantasy:

Whoah, now. We should "think about that," even though there is no evidence at all this was possible.

Now, I guess he didn't say "This will happen," and that's exactly why this qualifies as BS, and not a lie.

The problem is: The BS piles even higher when Bush brings in the (false) claims that Saddam was close to getting a Nuclear weapon:

The entire argument made for the war was based on the idea of al qaeda and Iraq cooperating.

Dick Cheney makes the case:

Again, that "grave danger" only existed in the minds of those who believed the warmongers. There was no evidence that this was likely to happen. Yet, this fantasy was repeated ad nauseum.

It's BS, and if you had paid attention this wouldn't come as a surprise.

There really is no argument coming from you but "nuh-uh."

That's not the goalposts, because "communications" do not represent a connection that would justify war. Sure, the administration relied heavily on those contacts, but that wasn't their only claim about the relationship between the Regime and al qaeda.

No, it certainly did not. The US did not submit an authorization resolution for the invasion.

Saddam was compliant; inspectors were in the country, at the time of this ultimatum.

Despite progress made during early 2003, Bush said the war was inevitable.

He was cooperating, actually.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/737483.stm

Not the fantasy you project, no.

I could go down the list and debate each point you make one by one. But I hate reading long blogs and I bet a lot of other people do likewise.

Suffice it to say that I think all the points and example you make actually make my point but you feel that this evidence isn't a strong enough case to go to war. Fine. I’m glad you weren’t president at the time because you apparently wouldn’t have had the huevos to pull the trigger. I disagree with you as did the administration and the UNSC and the congress.

You want to debate whether UNSC Res 1441 was an authorization for the use of force? Fine, go right ahead. I don't want to debate it because I feel it was as did Ambassador Negroponte in his assessment of the resolution when it was passed.

The inspectors had been thwarted several times after Res 1441 was passed and finally left saying he would not cooperate. After they left and before the war began, Saddam realized he was screwed and he started rolling out his new missiles that he had been hiding saying, "see, we're cooperating! We're cooperating!" By then it was too late for him.

What progress? Bush said the war was inevitable because Saddam was incorrigible. Saddam had it coming, he was asking for it and he got it.

As far as the war on terror goes, we need to be looking around and say who's next?

As for fantasy, my memory is based on the news programs of the day. That was the situation back then, and people can continue to attempt to re-write history, but saying progress was being made and saying Saddam was cooperating, doesn’t make it true.

Now you've made me go on longer than I wanted to.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Senate report: No Saddam, al-Qaida link	amepro	Current Events	61	09-27-2006 02:38 PM
Senate finds no link between Iraq, Al-Qaeda before Invasion	skeptic-f	Latest World News	20	09-09-2006 06:48 PM
Pentagon: Russia Gave Saddam U.S. Intel	charliepage	Current Events	10	03-25-2006 06:30 PM
911 COMMISSION: SADDAM AND ALQUAEDA LINK PROVEN	jonnydanger	Current Events	21	06-18-2004 08:33 AM
Link between al Qaeda and Saddam found	maze51	Current Events	49	05-30-2004 08:48 AM