Story Comments
Posted by: jovial 1 year, 4 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
-
67%
jovial1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This isn't so much a politcal story as it is a news item. Any conclusion you draw from this story is your opinion. The papers released from the Nation Archives merely provide information that the government had at the time. What was released (and it's not known if it is provided in it's entirety) may not show the entire picture of the events happening at that particular time. I just thought it would be good for informational purposes.
Reply-
50%
injest1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
“What was released (and it's not known if it is provided in it's entirety) may not show the entire picture of the events happening at that particular time. I just thought it would be good for informational purposes”
Reply
OMG Jovial ya got a good point here, let me add some more to it, to help get the picture.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/feb/06/julianborger
fta
February 6, 1999,
“Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq? US says dealings step up danger of chemical weapons attacks
Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials”.
“The Saudi-born fundamentalist's response is unknown. He is thought to have rejected earlier Iraqi advances, disapproving of the Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist regime. But analysts believe that Bin Laden's bolthole in Afghanistan, where he has lived for the past three years, is now in doubt as a result of increasing US and Saudi government pressure.
News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use."”
“President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures, including extra guards for US embassies around the world and funds for executive jets to fly rapid response investigative teams to terrorist incidents around the world”.
Our response? executive jets to fly rapid response investigative teams after the fact!
Perhaps they were thinking hey lets just sit here and wait for the Americans!-
100%
jovial1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I understand all that, but this nagging question in everyone's mind should remain.
Reply
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/index.html
"The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said."
"The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were two primary elements in the Bush administration's arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq."
"The Pentagon's report also contradicts then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said in September 2002 that the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are, in fact, al Qaeda in Iraq."
If what you say is true, then how come we were never able to prove it. In your original article it was based on the testimony of someone that held quite a bit of acrimony for Saddam.
Look at this link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayad_Allawi
So it seems that the main perpetrator of these allegations came from a organization known as the INC. Guess who else came from the INC...did you say "curveball"? Then you guessed right. Allawi is a blood relative of Chalabi. All have held high offices in the recent new Iraqi government. Is this a coincidence do ya think?-
Neutral
injest1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were two primary elements in the Bush administration's arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq.
Reply
Ya gotta break it down and keep it simple, and the way this is written doesn’t help.
The “smoking gun” would be qualified as
1. Iraq had WMD’s
2. Saddam had a working relationship with AQ
3. Saddam AND AQ were working together in the 911 attack.
A so called “smoking gun” would ONLY be true IF ALL conditions are met.
Aside from the fact that no one in the Bush adsmin EVER said Saddam was involved with the 911 attack should have made the criteria for the “smoking gun” moot.
Did Saddam have WMD’s? yes. And they were destroyed in 1994, this was not known till 2004 after Saddam was taken out.
Did Saddam have a “working relationship with AQ”? Debatable, have to also include all the AKA’s for AQ, Bin Laden and others.
The CIA along with others Intel agency said they did.
Did Saddam and AQ “do” 911? No and no one has ever claimed they did.
Were “seeds” planted in the public mind that would make someone jump to that conclusion? Yes, all through the 90’s and 00’s
In fact here’s News guy Dan Rather, 6 day’s after 911 on the Letterman show making it obvious that he thought Saddam and AQ did 911.
Dan Rather, anchorman for CBS News, appears on The David Letterman Show shortly after 9-11. The show had been off the air for a week.
Below are transcript excerpts.
“RATHER: And with what we're dealing with here, which is not one man [Bin Laden], it's a hydra-headed operation that's in 55 countries around the world. Now granted, the focus is on, and we should understand, not just Afghanistan -- Afghanistan, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya.”
(hy•dra-head•ed
Having many facets or aspects, especially difficult or intractable ones)
LETTERMAN: Why?
“RATHER: Who can explain madmen, and who can explain evil.
RATHER: Saddam Hussein, if he isn't connect to this, he's connected to any other things. He's part of this 'Hate America' thing. You have to understand, Saddam Hussein is somebody I have sat this close, eye to eye.”
Remember this was 6 days after 911, Dan Rather was still a trusted credible news guy.
Anyone seeing this show or hearing about it would have concluded Rather believed Saddam was connected.
Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor
Interview on "The David Letterman Show"
September 17, 2001
http://tinyurl.com/yvkdbg
http://www.livevideo.com/video/
>B0BE9375C1C54920A32C79C5...
dan-rather-on-letterman-just-a.aspx
BTW Yes the CIA was wrong. And Yes it was the same CIA that gave info to both Clinton And Bush Admins.
-
-
-
-
loading ...
berkeley
miklkit
juvel
Goppy
Will1313
OnionHead
bruhaha
dissent
cowboygrandpa
bluetexasvalley
Mdiar
Progressive
Wolfie2007
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.