Top link between Al Qaeda and Saddam's Baath Party Captured

There is not one bit of credible proof strong enough to have warranted a war against saddam based on a connection between saddam and osama. Like i said those 2 could never trust each other because they have 2 completely different ideologies. Anyone that grew up in iraq and syria could tell you that muslim extremists completely hate the bath party and what they stand for.

If any of you need more evidence for this stance look up what hafiz assad did to the muslim brotherhood in syria. Completely bulldozed their town, flattened it to the ground then built another town on top of it. Saddam was almost as brutal to terrorists in iraq. Anyone that lived in these countries during those times would know how silly those assertions really were.

Of course anyone living here in america could just listen to fox news or get some flimsy website to agree with them but it could never be the truth. Believing this would be tatmount to saying the allies were on the same side as the axis in ww2. It could never happen and the bush administration knows it

 

but we could just listen to you instead...unless we wanted to know the facts.

 

Whos facts D-man? yours, or some flimsy connection . Saddam was responsible for killing many islamic extremists. Obviously your speaking from fox news's point of view. Do yourself a favor. Study the intricacies of the region, talk to the people of the region, try to get to know the region as if u were there.

When a country is terrorized who do u talk to ? Some news station halfway around the world? Or the people there. Ask any muslim extremists what they think of the baath party. Opps i forgot, you dont want to know the truth.
If a government or intelligence agency can keep one truth hidden from u until the year 2029 cant they also fabricate some flimsy piece of evidence that even the big tv stations know is crazy to even make a big deal about.

How long can bush go against popular opinions(which has changed on him). How many more soldiers must day before we bring them home from this joke of a war based on a lie?

 

Carefully crafted statements can sometimes be made to dismiss certain notions based upon the words used, such as "strong enough." Of course, these are subjective and present qualifiers to the presenters views.

I have covered this many times here. There were connections. They were documented long before Bush was ever in office. zarqawi was in Iraq prior to the invasion.

You may not like that there were, but the logic you are using to dismiss the facts is what actually takes place in the world. Being friends or even agreeing with everything an ally does, is not a reason why groups/entities/countries/organizations cannot be allies. We need only look at the history the US had with Iraq. Or that Pakistan today, is an ally of the US.

 

Ping,

Americans do not support democrats desire for defeat. It's popular for democrats to portray that they were elected to stop the war, but there is nothing I've seen to even remotely suggest this wishful thinking on their part.

Real Americans are not defeatists.

 

lol, didn't zarqawi join al queda after we invaded?

kind of circular reasoning there, isn't it

Does the weekly standard actually verify the stuff it prints or do they just go with it if it fits there idealism?

 

Not that I'm aware of. Let's see what history tells us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

Send them an email and ask them. Surely you wouldn't defend a terrorist over something so petty?

 

The left wing of the Democratic Party is driving the entire party to political suicide.

When your main message is "We hate you; Vote for us" you are going to have long-term problem getting and staying elected.

 

Refresh your memory by reading the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

 

Gtech whoever said i support the democrats.I never have and never will. I also will never support the republicans. I feel that both have moved either to far left or too far right. Another word, both dont care about the american people. There are no checks and balances in this current government and thats the only sad fact i really can say with 100000% certainty

 

scratch scratch scratch

 

Sorry Gtech but the evidence that al-Zarqawi having a connection with saddam is flimsy at best and most of that evidence came from iraqi defectors.
al-Zarqawi Operated in northern iraq(an area outside of saddams jurisdiction)
Of course abc news wont report this but i had to debunk this bologni once and for all.


Thursday, September 18, 2003

Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found
President says Saddam had ties to al-Qaida, but apparently not to attacks

By SCOTT SHEPARD
COX NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said yesterday there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans.

The president's comments came in response to a reporter's question about Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press" program that Iraq was the "geographic base" of the terrorists behind the attacks on New York and Washington.

Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.

"And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."

Most of the administration's public assertions have focused on the man Bush mentioned, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a senior Osama bin Laden associate whom officials have accused of trying to train terrorists in the use of poison for possible attacks in Europe, running a terrorist haven in northern Iraq -- an area outside Saddam's control -- and organizing an attack that killed an American aid executive in Jordan last year.

Security analysts, however, say al-Zarqawi made his way to Iraq, where his leg was amputated. . Unconfirmed reports claim he then visited northern Iraq, where a militant Islamic group affiliated with al-Qaida is encamped not far from the border with Iran.

The group, however, far from being an ally of Saddam, sought to replace his secular government with an Islamic regime.

A senior intelligence official, who asked not to be identified, said the information linking the group, Ansar al Islam, to Saddam comes "almost exclusively from defectors produced by the Iraqi opposition. They are not uniformly credible."

Bush's statement was the latest in a series by administration officials this week that appeared to distance the White House from the widely held public perception that Saddam was a key figure in the attacks.

Publicly, at least, Bush has not explicitly blamed the attacks on Saddam. In speech after speech, however, the president has strongly linked Saddam and al-Qaida, the terrorist organization of bin Laden, the renegade Saudi whose followers hijacked jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania.

In his May 1 declaration of military victory in Iraq from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, Bush said, "We have removed an ally of al-Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding." He also said, "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror."

Two months earlier, in a speech aimed at mustering public support for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Bush said, "The attacks of September 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."

Critics have said the steady drumbeat of that message has tied Saddam to the attacks in the mind of the public. A recent poll by The Washington Post found that nearly seven Americans out of 10 believe Saddam played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, a notion the administration has done little to tamp down.

But retired NATO commander Wesley Clark, in a little noticed appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press" on June 15, charged that "a concerted effort ... to pin 9/11" on Saddam began in the fall of 2001, and "it came from people around the White House." Clark, who declared his campaign for president yesterday, did not identify anyone by name.

It was just weeks after the terrorist attacks that the first link between Saddam and al-Qaida was alleged by the administration. It came from Cheney, who said it had been "pretty well confirmed" that Mohamed Atta, the man held responsible for masterminding the Sept. 11 hijackings, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in April 2000, an allegation congressional investigators later dismissed.

Sunday, Cheney began the group of Bush administration officials denying any ties between Saddam and Sept. 11. He said "we don't know" whether Saddam was connected to the attacks, but admitted, "It's not surprising that people make that connection."

The vice president also said: "If we are successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good, representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

White House National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, in an interview aired late Tuesday on ABC's "Nightline," said one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged." But she insisted, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11."

Her remarks echoed those of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon earlier Tuesday. Asked if Saddam was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, Rumsfeld replied, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated to reporters yesterday that the administration never directly linked Saddam to the Sept. 11 strikes.

"If you're talking specifically about the September 11th attacks, we never made that claim," McClellan said. "We do know that there is a long history of Saddam Hussein and his regime and ties to terrorism, including al-Qaida."

 

Enough of the bs and enough of the lies allready

Security analysts, however, say al-Zarqawi made his way to Iraq, where his leg was amputated. . Unconfirmed reports claim he then visited northern Iraq, where a militant Islamic group affiliated with al-Qaida is encamped not far from the border with Iran.

The group, however, far from being an ally of Saddam, sought to replace his secular government with an Islamic regime.

A senior intelligence official, who asked not to be identified, said the information linking the group, Ansar al Islam, to Saddam comes "almost exclusively from defectors produced by the Iraqi opposition. They are not uniformly credible."


They are not uniformly credible."
They are not uniformly credible."
They are not uniformly credible."
They are not uniformly credible."

As i said before there was no connection between the 2 and bush knew it, this is also why bush stated that even if there was no connection that saddam was a tyrant and a bully and he needed to go.
COMPLETE BSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
If anymore flimsy evidence is presented i will also research and debunk it too. The truth is powerful and if researched cannot be drowned even in a sea of lies!!!!

 

People , why am i the only one researching this. The facts are out there. It is now up to you to go and look it up for urselves.
CASE CLOSED!!!!

 

Ummm... skippy... al-Zarqawi left Iran to go to Iraq to be treated for his leg injury at a hospital run by Uday Hussein -- Saddam's Hussein's son.

Your fantasy about al-Zarqawi hanging out with people who wanted to depose Hussein is... comical.

 

"And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."


and yet they provide no credible evidence at all to this assertion. No wonder why bush doesnt bring this up now, but by now the truth doesnt matter as the mission has been accomplished. Our troops are in iraq dying every day, iraq is in chaos and wont regain any semblence of normalcy for the next 10 to 20 years. On top of that this war has insured that many more terrorist will be born into that sick extremist ideology for many generations to come.
Mission accomplished? yes but u have to wonder whos mission was accomplished exactly?
The elitists maybe?

 

Willie spencer if that is true( and i dont know if it was as i havent researched this) that is still flimsy evidence at best. Are you basing saddams connection to him based on this?
Tell me who would believe u based on this? If it were even true and if true please provide a link to this evidence please.

 

Willie spencer i presented the evidence, and this is what came from an american state department official. Are u trying to say that our government evidence is comical.
HMMMMMM

 

I think the 9-11 comission conclusions summed it up best. Would we the american people and congress go to war in iraq in 2003 based on what we know now. 1000000000% NA, no, la, no way!!!