Pentagon find no evidence that Saddam tried to assasinate Poppy Bush

[Care4all]

I agree that the assassination plot was mentioned in the resolution. But just cause it was mentioned in the resolution doesn't mean it was listed as a reason.

Regardless, the article that was posted in this thread is BS because there was evidence that was previously presented by Clinton that would scoff at this report. Like the article that was originally posted in this thread said just cause they didn't find the documents linking Saddam to the plot doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's ruling Revolution Command Council denounced the raid as "cowardly aggression" and said Washington's reason for launching it was "fabricated by the vile Kuwaiti rulers in coordination with agencies in the U.S. administration."

Wellllll, it turns out that Saddam WAS TELLING THE TRUTH back in 1993 and he did NOT plan the attack on Bush 1...

Tell me something ......

YOU are okay with our governmjent using intelligence information, (and faulty at that) from a DECADE beforehand as intelligence good enough to attack a country and dictator now?


What WAS the imminent threat that President Bush used to make HIS DECISION to send us to war...DO YOU KNOW?

or are you one of those people that think the military are just people that we can use to do any kind of military action we want with...or just people to use and allow to get killed for any reason the administration wants to give and an IMMINENT threat to the usa is not necessary to send these guys and gals off to die?

Sounds like it....?

I don't think any soldier should be sent to their possible DEATH...unless it is for an imminent threat to us...unless we are in immediate danger or we have been attacked....

care

 

[Care4all]

Once again....

"WASHINGTON — A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups"

Here's the article again: http://www2.nysun.com/article/72906


What are you not understanding???

what is it that YOU are not understanding?

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda.

Alqaeda is the terrorist group that the administration was telling us that Saddam had ties too...thus a relation to the 911 attack....

saddam involved in 1993 with a few terrorists IS not our concern..... him trying to kill the saudi royals IS NONE of our concern....we do NOT send our men to be killed for the Saudi Royals or for the Israelis....IT IS IMMORAL to do that to our military....

care

 

[Gunny]

Wellllll, it turns out that Saddam WAS TELLING THE TRUTH back in 1993 and he did NOT plan the attack on Bush 1...

Tell me something ......

YOU are okay with our governmjent using intelligence information, (and faulty at that) from a DECADE beforehand as intelligence good enough to attack a country and dictator now?


What WAS the imminent threat that President Bush used to make HIS DECISION to send us to war...DO YOU KNOW?

or are you one of those people that think the military are just people that we can use to do any kind of military action we want with...or just people to use and allow to get killed for any reason the administration wants to give and an IMMINENT threat to the usa is not necessary to send these guys and gals off to die?

Sounds like it....?

I don't think any soldier should be sent to their possible DEATH...unless it is for an imminent threat to us...unless we are in immediate danger or we have been attacked....

care

Judging an action taken on intelligence believed to be true at the time the action was taken using contradictory intellegence that comes to light AFTER THE FACT is intellectual dishonesty.

Also, the fact the Pentagon can find no evidence to support the allegation does NOT mean Saddam was telling the truth. It means the Pentagon cannot find evidence to support the allegation. I used to wonder sometimes if those bureaucrats could find the Potomac from the Pentagon.

 

[BrianH]

what is it that YOU are not understanding?



Alqaeda is the terrorist group that the administration was telling us that Saddam had ties too...thus a relation to the 911 attack....

saddam involved in 1993 with a few terrorists IS not our concern..... him trying to kill the saudi royals IS NONE of our concern....we do NOT send our men to be killed for the Saudi Royals or for the Israelis....IT IS IMMORAL to do that to our military....

care

LOL, I love it when people respons with bias without reading the entire thread.

First, read the thread, and you'll see that my argument (IS NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR ACTION....I'm not justifying the war because Saddam had ties to terrorist....

Other numnuts on the thread seem to think that Saddam did not have ties to AQ "but AQ affialiates." Same damn thing... THe argument was over whether or not Saddam had ties to Terrorism....and he did.

http://www2.nysun.com/article/72906

READ SLOWLY

 

[jreeves]

Wellllll, it turns out that Saddam WAS TELLING THE TRUTH back in 1993 and he did NOT plan the attack on Bush 1...

Tell me something ......

YOU are okay with our governmjent using intelligence information, (and faulty at that) from a DECADE beforehand as intelligence good enough to attack a country and dictator now?


What WAS the imminent threat that President Bush used to make HIS DECISION to send us to war...DO YOU KNOW?

or are you one of those people that think the military are just people that we can use to do any kind of military action we want with...or just people to use and allow to get killed for any reason the administration wants to give and an IMMINENT threat to the usa is not necessary to send these guys and gals off to die?

Sounds like it....?

I don't think any soldier should be sent to their possible DEATH...unless it is for an imminent threat to us...unless we are in immediate danger or we have been attacked....

care

There was justification for the war, yes it was faulty intelligence, but nonetheless it was compelling faulty intelligence. What part of Bush doesn't control intelligence flow do you not comprehend?

 

[jreeves]

Right, and even though in many of those countries there are oppresive regimes violating human rights and threatening our security via collaboration with AQ, we refrain from large scale military action, regime changes, and nation building, because the potential economic benefits aren't worth the effort.

Don't you ever question, for example, why we let N. Korea lob missiles at their pleasure? Could it be that they just don't threaten the Dollar on the same level as, say, Iraq or Iran trading oil for something other than US Dollars? If anyone could provide terrorists with nuclear weapons RIGHT NOW, it's Korea.

The double-standards within our foreign policy these days is ridiculous. Luckily though, there's a media that is highly efficient at keeping people from thinking outside the box.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/03/wkorea203.xml

Pyongyang shut down its sole operating reactor at its main nuclear complex in July after the US reversed its hard-line policy against the regime, the first tangible progress from years of talks that also include China, Japan, Russia and South Korea.

The shutdown followed a February deal under which the North agreed to give up its nuclear weapons programme, and the South committed itself to providing aid, particularly in the form of energy.
Is this the North Korea you are referring to?

 

[Dr Grump]

What part of Bush doesn't control intelligence flow do you not comprehend?

The part where he cherrypicks....:O)

 

[jreeves]

The part where he cherrypicks....:O)

Proof please?

 

[Warner]

As far as the technical part goes, I agree...however, he was still willing to use terrorism as a tool. (I'm not justifying the war, but since we're talking about Saddam....) And really, is an accomplice to murder any better than the murderer?(unfortunately the law says so, but we all no it's BS)

You really take what this article says much to literally. All of this is supposition based upon 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of what is in these documents as reported by extremely bias sources.

But none of this justifies invading Iraq. If it did, we'd have to invade about a dozen or more countries.

 

[Warner]

There was justification for the war, yes it was faulty intelligence, but nonetheless it was compelling faulty intelligence. What part of Bush doesn't control intelligence flow do you not comprehend?

You really are joking are you not Jreeves?

 

[BrianH]

You really take what this article says much to literally. All of this is supposition based upon 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of what is in these documents as reported by extremely bias sources.

But none of this justifies invading Iraq. If it did, we'd have to invade about a dozen or more countries.

Many of you have problems reading...

I am going to post a quote from my post (that you responded to): READ:

Quoted by BrianH
"LOL, I love it when people respons with bias without reading the entire thread.

First, read the thread, and you'll see that my argument (IS NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR ACTION....I'm not justifying the war because Saddam had ties to terrorist....

Other numnuts on the thread seem to think that Saddam did not have ties to AQ "but AQ affialiates." Same damn thing... THe argument was over whether or not Saddam had ties to Terrorism....and he did."

First look at your quote, I embolded a sentence that you posted.
If you'll notice the embolded letters, words, and sentences in my post. What do they say? I'll let you deal with your reading problems.
So Saddam had no ties to terrorism? No at all? Even the people saying that he did are saying that he had ties to AQ affiliates (like it's so much better). Saddam had ties to terrorists...

 

[jillian]

Many of you have problems reading...

I am going to post a quote from my post (that you responded to): READ:

Quoted by BrianH
"LOL, I love it when people respons with bias without reading the entire thread.

First, read the thread, and you'll see that my argument (IS NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR ACTION....I'm not justifying the war because Saddam had ties to terrorist....

Other numnuts on the thread seem to think that Saddam did not have ties to AQ "but AQ affialiates." Same damn thing... THe argument was over whether or not Saddam had ties to Terrorism....and he did."

First look at your quote, I embolded a sentence that you posted.
If you'll notice the embolded letters, words, and sentences in my post. What do they say? I'll let you deal with your reading problems.
So Saddam had no ties to terrorism? No at all? Even the people saying that he did are saying that he had ties to AQ affiliates (like it's so much better). Saddam had ties to terrorists...

Saddam Hussein HAD NO TIES TO AQ... OR ANY OTHER RADICAL FUNDIE MUSLIM GROUP. HE GAVE MONEY TO PALS BECAUSE ALL ARABS IN THE MID-EAST (BUSH'S BUDDIES THE SAUDI'S INCLUDED) GAVE/GIVE MONEY TO THE PALS TO BLOW UP ISRAELIS.

Jeeze....

Sorry for raising my voice, but I'm so bored of hearing that tune. (Nothing personal!)

 

[BrianH]

Saddam Hussein HAD NO TIES TO AQ... OR ANY OTHER RADICAL FUNDIE MUSLIM GROUP. HE GAVE MONEY TO PALS BECAUSE ALL ARABS IN THE MID-EAST (BUSH'S BUDDIES THE SAUDI'S INCLUDED) GAVE/GIVE MONEY TO THE PALS TO BLOW UP ISRAELIS.

Jeeze....

Sorry for raising my voice, but I'm so bored of hearing that tune. (Nothing personal!)

Man my ears hurt now...You yell too loud.

I'll agree that there was no "smoking gun". Then again, there wasn't one in the OJ trial. But Saddam did have ties to terrorism. And I also know that AQ isn't really known for keeping records. Like I said, I'm not justifying it as means to go to war.

 

[BrianH]

This is what Saddam was planning for us...

http://www.strategypage.com/humor/articles/military_jokes_20081131.asp

No ties to terrorism....plz.....

 

[Care4all]

There was justification for the war, yes it was faulty intelligence, but nonetheless it was compelling faulty intelligence. What part of Bush doesn't control intelligence flow do you not comprehend?

It was Vice President Cheney and HIS NEW TEAM of supposed intelligence gathering/monitoring people that helped with the manipulation of intelligence information....CHERRY PICKED....where they presented all the information regarding saddam being a POSSIBLE threat from their UNRELIABLE SOURCES, due to wmd's, yellowcake, etc was put UPFRONT, while the dissenting intelligence views were put in fine print....and to the back burner....

I don't need to post a link for this...a simple GOOGLE will do you good ...that is, IF you really want to expand your own mind to accomodate REALITY.

Seriously reeves....the info is out there....

Care

And at what point does 10-15 year old intelligence that still could not be confirmed, NOT BE valid "INTELLIGENCE" anymore?

 

[Warner]

Many of you have problems reading...

I am going to post a quote from my post (that you responded to): READ:

Quoted by BrianH
"LOL, I love it when people respons with bias without reading the entire thread.

First, read the thread, and you'll see that my argument (IS NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR ACTION....I'm not justifying the war because Saddam had ties to terrorist....

Other numnuts on the thread seem to think that Saddam did not have ties to AQ "but AQ affialiates." Same damn thing... THe argument was over whether or not Saddam had ties to Terrorism....and he did."

And by the way, the post you quoted is not the one I responded to. Check it.

And by the way, that was not the post I replied to.

First look at your quote, I embolded a sentence that you posted.
If you'll notice the embolded letters, words, and sentences in my post. What do they say? I'll let you deal with your reading problems.
So Saddam had no ties to terrorism? No at all? Even the people saying that he did are saying that he had ties to AQ affiliates (like it's so much better). Saddam had ties to terrorists...

Dude you need to learn how to write so I can read it. Your structure is so bad it's hard to grasp what the hell your point is.

As for affiliates = AQ, that's just silly. I'd bet we could find many cases where the USA had dealings with AQ affiliates. It's how the business of intelligence gets done.

Also, check again - the post you've quoted was NOT the one I replied to.

 

[BrianH]

Dude you need to learn how to write so I can read it. Your structure is so bad it's hard to grasp what the hell your point is.

As for affiliates = AQ, that's just silly. I'd bet we could find many cases where the USA had dealings with AQ affiliates. It's how the business of intelligence gets done.

My structure may not be up to APA or MLA format, but it's certainly understandable. Sorry you can't keep up...dude.

My point, is that some posters are throwing out all kinds of little snipitz of personally biased comments in regards to the war in Iraq.

For example, you stated: "I'd bet we could find many cases where the USA had dealings with AQ affiliates. It's how the business of intelligence gets done."

What the hell does this have to do with whether or not Saddam had ties to terrorism?

LIke I've said, I'm not justifying our actions in Iraq. I'm not saying that the U.S. intelligence community does not have confedential informants involved in AQ, but those two things have nothing to do with whether or not Saddam had ties to terrorism.

Sure, actions were taken on that premise. However, if no action was taken, it wouldn't matter. Because Saddam would have still had ties to terrorism.

 

[jillian]

Man my ears hurt now...You yell too loud.

I'll agree that there was no "smoking gun". Then again, there wasn't one in the OJ trial. But Saddam did have ties to terrorism. And I also know that AQ isn't really known for keeping records. Like I said, I'm not justifying it as means to go to war.

No no no no no no no no no.... Saddam hated Muslim fundies... his was a secular state and all they could possibly do was muck it up for him. You have to understand the dynamic in the mid-east. Fundies try to overthrow leaders like Saddam (see: Iran) b/c they think people like Saddam are heathans who are probably even worse than western heathens because theoretically, he was muslim.

It isn't aobut a smoking gun... it's about reality.

Saddam was what stood between Iraq and the fundies... for better or for worse. And the sad part.... any leader who keeps the factions from blowing each others' heads off probably has to be as disgusting and heavy-handed as he was... so gee willikers, we really accomplished...

um... nada.

Sorry for hurting your ears before, babe... you know we like ya.

 

[BrianH]

No no no no no no no no no.... Saddam hated Muslim fundies... his was a secular state and all they could possibly do was muck it up for him. You have to understand the dynamic in the mid-east. Fundies try to overthrow leaders like Saddam (see: Iran) b/c they think people like Saddam are heathans who are probably even worse than western heathens because theoretically, he was muslim.

It isn't aobut a smoking gun... it's about reality.

Saddam was what stood between Iraq and the fundies... for better or for worse. And the sad part.... any leader who keeps the factions from blowing each others' heads off probably has to be as disgusting and heavy-handed as he was... so gee willikers, we really accomplished...

um... nada.


Sorry for hurting your ears before, babe... you know we like ya.

Did you say something??? I couldn't hear you?

After some research...I concede that he was not directly linked to AQ, because it cannot be proven based on the evidence.

I also agree with your synopsis about the Middle East and it's organization/operation.

The Pentagon report/summary said that Saddam did use terrorist frequently on his own people. They may have not been AQ or inernational terrorist. But were terrorist none-the-less. Probably equivalent to our NSA....lol.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080313/wl_mideast_afp/usattacksiraqqaedamilitary

"The Iraqi Perspective Project review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism," said a summary of the Pentagon study to which ABC News provided a link on its website Wednesday.

State terrorism became a routine tool of State power" but "the predominant target of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens," the summary said."

Just going off what I read...so I'm not willing to get into a discussion about the logisitcs of the Pentagon and it's agendas.

 

[maineman]

My structure may not be up to APA or MLA format, but it's certainly understandable. Sorry you can't keep up...dude.

My point, is that some posters are throwing out all kinds of little snipitz of personally biased comments in regards to the war in Iraq.

For example, you stated: "I'd bet we could find many cases where the USA had dealings with AQ affiliates. It's how the business of intelligence gets done."

What the hell does this have to do with whether or not Saddam had ties to terrorism?

LIke I've said, I'm not justifying our actions in Iraq. I'm not saying that the U.S. intelligence community does not have confedential informants involved in AQ, but those two things have nothing to do with whether or not Saddam had ties to terrorism.

Sure, actions were taken on that premise. However, if no action was taken, it wouldn't matter. Because Saddam would have still had ties to terrorism.

"ties to terrorism" and "ties to terrorists who attacked us" are two completely different things.

If "ties to terrorism" were all it took to get a place invaded, conquered and occupied by the US military, South Boston, Massachusetts would have been under martial law a long time ago for their continued support for IRA terror.