We are discussing Saddam. Can you get back on topic please. Are you claiming he was a peaceful benevolent ruler who never used his military against his own people and never tried to and actually invaded his neighbors and was trying by force to increase his influence and dominance...
So here and all the quotes I posted are all lies? All those people were lying? And Bush NEVER said Iraq was involved in 9/11 why do you keep posting that. Back it up and cite him claiming Iraq was involved in 9/11.
No where is there a claim that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack. 9/11 was just ONE of the many terrorist attacks that occurred and were committed by AQ and other terrorist groups.
“With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.” — President Bush, State of the Union Speech, Jan. 28, 2003. “But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants. … But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered al-Qaida safe haven in the region. We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service. Saddam became more interested as he saw al-Qaida’s appalling attacks. A detained al-Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist al-Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by al-Qaida’s attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.” — Secretary of State Colin Powell, Statement to the U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003. “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.” — President Bush, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003. “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that still goes on. al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist networks still operate in many nations. And we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend our homeland and, more importantly, we will continue to hunt the enemy down before he can strike. No act of terrorists will change our purpose or weaken our resolve or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.” —President Bush, Weekly radio address, May 3, 2003. MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that? VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection. MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection? VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven. Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know. —Vice President Dick Cheney, Interview with NBC’s Tim Russert, Sunday, Sept. 14, 2003.
perhaps you never saw the folly of your argument, those things you labelled sadam with can be applied to the ukraine government yet you suppoert the ukraine. that makes your comment hypocritical. sadam had his reasons for moving on kuwait, non of which threatened usa. why not be honest and admit the only reason usa attacked iraq was at the request of israel?
Everything you say is correct and perfectly in line with my post. Among other things I claimed that we claimed we had no evidence that Saddam was involved with 9/11 and not one word in your lengthy post contradicts that unless one tries real hard to read between the lines. But I do appreciate your thoroughness.
You are right, there is no sentence from Bush administrations which says “ Saddam was involve in 9/11”. But Bush administration keep talking about Saddam, 9/11, Al-Qaida, Terrorism again and again. It’s like hypnotize Americans with code word Saddam , 9/11, Al-Qaida. Back in 2002-2003 pre Iraq invasion, American people understood what 9/11 and Al-Qaida symbolize. American people were scared and Bush administration took advantage of that and again and again insisted that Saddam was involved with terrorism, Saddam supported Al-Qaida and the war in Iraq is part of “ Global war on Terror” which started on 9/11. But yes, they specifically didn’t say “ Saddam was involved in 9/11”.
And nothing saying Saddam was involved with the 9/11 terrorist or the attack but thank you for proving why he could not be allowed to remain in power.
So he went from ally to enemy in the space of two years for no apparent reason. There is the proof that USA cannot be trusted, ever.
While being careful, you are still trying to get people to believe something that didn't happen did. Iraq (along with the stated Iran and N. Korea) was in fact a dangerous player and a serious activist in the war on Terror. Saddam interfaced with most terrorist organizations, financially supported many, and showed an inclination (and highly likely did) to supply terrorist groups with weapons including WMD (other than nuclear but that was likely because Israel set their nuclear program back years if not decades). Irag met with and interfaced with al Qaeda often (though our intelligence thought Saddam was not particularly enthusiastic with al Qaeda and Osama.) Iraq was a major threat to the region, us, and the world, and showed no reservations with using or supplying WMD and actively supported many terrorist groups. But we have no intelligence that he had anything to do with 9/11.
You're being petty beyond reasonable. Nobody denies Iraq had WMD and used it against the Kurds. The US aided Saddam Hussein with that... in the early 1960's. GWB claimed that Iraq still was developing WMD's in early 2000's in labs build in trucks that were driven around etc etc etc... are all flat out lies GWB used to justify a war against Iraq. There were simply no WMD's in Iraq in the early 2000's. His own fact finding mission came to that conclusion. And about the entire world disputing the claims the US made in the 2000's about Iraq's WMD program. They all knew the US was flat out lying to start a war. With that, the US got blood on it's hand of 100.000's people killed, and owe the millions of people who fled for their lives and is no better than Russia today.
So what? So THERE! Collin Powel went to the UN with an urgent message that Iraq was making antrax in portable labs in some crazed breaking bad story. The US published reports that Iraq was buying some high end aluminum tubes, that they confiscated them, to prevent Iraq from building a nuclear bomb. It was all horse manure for the sake to start a war. They had nothing of what the US claimed. The US flat out lied about their evidence. They owe the lives of 100.000's of people they killed. The owe the millions of people who fled.
There was nothing clandestine. It's still being blacked out who gave the authorization, but nobody doubts it was Eisenhower himself. And it was done together with MI6 from the UK. It's totally not relevant that the Shah was somewhere some previous leader in the past. This starts to get dumb rather quick. Mosaddegh was a social democrat, like the UK labor party. There was nothing communistic about it. In fact, there was a communistic party in Iran at that time and Mosaddegh very much disliked the lot of them. And as an Iranian, he put Iranian interests first and nationalized the oil companies. The west simply got used Iran as a colony, by selling the Iranian resources to themselves while keeping the bulk of the profit of it too.
The GOP ran the intelligence agencies who made up those lies. The Dems only trusted that those lies were true.
Yes you have when we had that discussion about Brett Farve welfare fraud case with the gov of Mississippi.
Aha. The false pretext was ran in a massive indoctrinating campaign causing around 80% of the US population a believer of the nonsense. So you end up with "Our GOP government indoctrinated ourselves rather successfully in believing the lies with as a result of getting 100,000's of people killed and millions of people fled for their lives over absolutely nothing.... BUT! BUT! at least we were free to oppose it in the US, how cool is that?!". How about you go to Iraq and tell that to a family who buried all their children, ey? I bet they feel relieved after they gave you a piece of their mind on that idea.
It's totally not relevant that the Shah was somewhere some previous leader in the past. It was financed and supported by the CIA in which we supported a group who wanted to bring the Shaw back in 1953. It was quite literally a coup d'tah and we did it in the name of protecting communism from that country. And UK is the one who convinced Eisenhower, not the other way around. We know that now after the documents were declassified. But at that time, that was the allegation. We just had a statemate in a place called Korea. The domino theory was being used and applied by all Western Allies to thwart communism. And he was a member of the National Front, a moderate nationalist party. In our way of political thinking back then and in every circumstance in which a country did turn communist, nationalism was the key and they used democratic procedures to get their way and make the country communist in a few of the countries. The last that happened was a place called Venezuela. And to give you clarity, in 1947, it was North Korea that got that going.
You are ignoring a lot of things at that time. From 1992 to 1996 or 1997, it was quite literally, the world vs Iraq. Beginning in 1997, France and Germany, along with Russia and a few other countries began challenging the UNSC sanctions. France and Germany pretty much outright defied them, in secret, because they saw $$$$$$ over principle. And most of the posts, especially between 1998 tp 2002 were in effect to support the UNSC resolutions, which also include the use of force if Iraq didn't comply with the sanctions.
Your vague allegations about US wrongdoing are SO vague as to be meaningless. Your specific vagueness about Ukraine is especially silly. What about Viet Nam? We lived up to our SEATO commitments. What about Korea? We helped the South stay free. Its obvious your emotional hatred of the United States cripples your ability to remain objective. Its especially notable how you talk about how evil America was in the post-WWII War world, and then reference a judge from the WWII era to back up the vagueness.
Utter and utter bollocks. Mosaddegh was a member of the National Front. And he ran the 1952 elections against Tudeh Party. He stopped the counting of the votes, when he had a majority in all the places he knew where they would vote on him. And subsequently by stopping the counting of the votes he made it so, that no seats were filled by the Tudeh Party who otherwise would have had some opposing voice. That's how much he hated the Tudeh Party. And the Tudeh party are the commies, something you casually are leaving out. So the idea that a fanatic hater of communism would be drawn towards it, just because it's a moderate left winger really is utter and utter bollocks red scare rhetoric dug out of the mud. And the US did it, mainly because the UK wanted it. Truman said no, so they had to wait till a GOP hawk to replace him. And the UK wanted it, because it's fleet was powered by Iranian oil, and it's government was the major shareholder of the oil company who got booted out of Iran by Mosaddegh. And the group who wanted the Shah back,... was bribed to be like that by the US.
