Osama and Saddam??

[Justin24]

According to reports Saddam and Osama were in contact with each other for several years, which could mean that "mabey" Bush was right in the conncection with Al Qaeda and Iraq.

According to a report:

Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.

That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.

That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.

That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

 

[verte76]

Osama and Saddam hated each other. Osama accused Saddam of beinig "an infidel" and "a socialist". Not exactly bosom buddies. I'm skeptical of any claim, I don't care who says, that they worked with each other.

 

[AliEnvy]

Quite frankly, for these "documents" to surface only now in the face of the Bush administration's credibility approaching new depths of laughable just looks like more smoke and mirrors to me.

 

[nbcrusader]

Osama and Saddam hated each other. Osama accused Saddam of beinig "an infidel" and "a socialist". Not exactly bosom buddies. I'm skeptical of any claim, I don't care who says, that they worked with each other.

Hatred for eachother can be overlooked when there is a bigger enemy (the West) in view.

 

[financeguy]

Hatred for eachother can be overlooked when there is a bigger enemy (the West) in view.

Saddam only became an enemy of the West post Kuwait invasion.

In the 1970s and 1980s there were all manner of Western governments and companies lining up to do business with the Baathist regime.

 

[Dreadsox]

This proves nothing.....

ABC's own analysis:

[Q]Note: Document titles were added by ABC News.



"Osama Bin Laden Contact With Iraq"

A newly released pre-war Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995 after approval by Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995 and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open (in the future) based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere, (e.g. the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is interesting to note that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisors. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)
[/Q]

 

[Rini]

Saddam has already used WMD - on the Kurds - he poisoned whole villages some time ago. There is documentation (the pictures were on the news).

Saddam *was* an infidel...untill he converted to Islam (was that before or after he built the torture and rape rooms? Or was the latter his sons' doing?).

The Second Gulf War was after ten years of the U.N. telling Iraq they had to stop messing with nuclear weapon generation and let the inspectors see to it. The U.N. had Resolution 1441 that said if Iraq didn't cooperate then the other nations would use force against it. When push came to shove, only the U.S, Britain, Australia and I think Poland and Italy carried through.

Many of America's leaders said they knew Saddam had WMD and the man had to be stopped. The quotes are a matter of record (isn't it funny mainstream news can't remember that?). Practically no one has called them on it. Amazing.

One of Saddam's main officers just gave an interview and said that when it was obvious that the West was finally going to come, the WMD were taken to Syria. Syria had had a dam collapse, and Iraq pretended to be sending aid in a couple of large planes, but it was the weapons.

It seems there are people who want you to believe terrorists are good and the West is bad. But the history of freedom started in the West with the Christian-Judeo mindset. Europe has led the world in freedom!

 

[Irvine511]

The Second Gulf War was after ten years of the U.N. telling Iraq they had to stop messing with nuclear weapon generation and let the inspectors see to it. The U.N. had Resolution 1441 that said if Iraq didn't cooperate then the other nations would use force against it.

you are incorrect.

resolution 1441 offered Iraq a final opportunity to disarmam and to provide a complete disclosure of weapons as required by Resolution 687, and “serious consequences” were threatened. Resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" if these are not met. It reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance. Let’s note that Iraq agreed to 1441 on November 13 and Blix and ElBaradei returned to Iraq later that month, and in December Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. Each successive Blix report – in january, february, and march – noted a greater level of Iraqi compliance. No, not nearly enough, but enough to convince many nations that the disarmament of Iraq was achieveable without a direct, unilateral invasion by the United States.

 

[A_Wanderer]

John Howard on the UN dealing with Iran

"People who are critical of George Bush, and myself and Tony Blair and others because we didn’t keep endlessly going back to the United Nations in 2003 now have an opportunity to see how effectively the United Nations will work.”

The UN dealing with Iran

The U.N. Security Council failed to reach an accord on Tuesday on how to respond to Iran’s nuclear programs ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060321/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_dc

 

[DrTeeth]

One of Saddam's main officers just gave an interview and said that when it was obvious that the West was finally going to come, the WMD were taken to Syria. Syria had had a dam collapse, and Iraq pretended to be sending aid in a couple of large planes, but it was the weapons.

I keep hearing about the Syria theory, but is there any evidence suggesting that this is any more than the next speculative escape hatch for people who supported the war?

 

[BVS]

I keep hearing about the Syria theory, but is there any evidence suggesting that this is any more than the next speculative escape hatch for people who supported the war?

Exactly. I find it odd that Rini knows about it but somehow the Bush administration isn't doing anything about it.

 

[Irvine511]

Exactly. I find it odd that Rini knows about it but somehow the Bush administration isn't doing anything about it.

 

[tackleberry]

It seems there are people who want you to believe terrorists are good and the West is bad. But the history of freedom started in the West with the Christian-Judeo mindset. Europe has led the world in freedom!

The idea of freedom and democracy came from Athens way before the Christian-Judeo mindset. B.C., when they were worshiping Zeus and the Mighty Aphrodite....

 

[AliEnvy]

Exactly. I find it odd that Rini knows about it but somehow the Bush administration isn't doing anything about it.

Oh Syria is on the list as soon as Iran is dealt with lol. So much evil so little time!

 

[Rini]

"I keep hearing about the Syria theory..."

Sada doesn't call it a theory. "The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun."
I sent the ref for this and my reply got deleted....sigh.

"but is there any evidence suggesting that this is any more than the next speculative escape hatch for people who supported the war?"

You mean like Ted Kennedy and Clinton? They both saw the same intelligence the president saw, and came to the same conclusion (and said so - it's on record)...for a while.

 

[Rini]

"I find it odd that Rini knows about it but somehow the Bush administration isn't doing anything about it."

Ha! You can say that again! He never returns my calls... LOL

 

[Irvine511]

[B You mean like Ted Kennedy and Clinton? They both saw the same intelligence the president saw, and came to the same conclusion (and said so - it's on record)...for a while. [/B]

yes, many people saw the evidence and came to the conclusion that it was likely that Saddam had WMDs.

but only one man thought this was worth going to war over.

 

[Rini]

The idea of freedom and democracy came from Athens way before the Christian-Judeo mindset. B.C., when they were worshiping Zeus and the Mighty Aphrodite....

Democracy, yes; but freedom for who? Who got to vote? And the Jewish nation long predated the Greeks, with a set of laws that are the original basis of American law and thus freedom.

And I said freedom, not democracy. Not the same thing. A free country is the result of a republic; democracy eventually ends in tyranny. It was the idea that all men (mankind) are created equally by and in the image of a benign Creator that was behind all mankind get a vote. Take out the Creator and you're just something to be manipulated by a bigger force, with no rights but a tyrant's whim.
When Ben Franklin was asked what kind of a government the Founding Fathers had given the new U. S., he said, "A republic - if you can keep it." The U. S. called itself a "republic" in a pamphlet it published on our government until 1928, when it changed the word to "democracy." God help us.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

yes, many people saw the evidence and came to the conclusion that it was likely that Saddam had WMDs.

but only one man thought this was worth going to war over.

Uhh....

The vote to go to war was 296-133 in the House of Representatives.

The vote to go to war was 77-23 in the Senate.


The buck stops with the President, but the responsibility also lies in the Congress. Obviously more than one man thought "this was worth going to war over." If they didn't think it was worth it, they would not have voted to use military action.

 

[Irvine511]

Uhh....

The vote to go to war was 296-133 in the House of Representatives.

The vote to go to war was 77-23 in the Senate.


The buck stops with the President, but the responsibility also lies in the Congress. Obviously more than one man thought "this was worth going to war over." If they didn't think it was worth it, they would not have voted to use military action.

eh ... we're getting into shady territory here. firstly, the idea of going to war does lie with the president, that others might have agreed with him doesn't disprove my statement, especially when Bush himself was contrasted with Clinton and Sen. Kennedy in the previous post -- and note that many other countries thought that he had WMDs, but didn't think that war was the best course of action. i would count myself as someone who thought that he had WMDs, but that war was a bad idea because i felt as if (and have been 100% vindicated) that the Bush administration, and especially Jr. himself, were uniquely unqualified and incompetent to wage a war in such a volatile region without wide global support and especially the presence of other Muslim troops on the ground (Egyptian, Pakistani, and Turkish troops would have been nice).

however, to get at the resolution passed in Congress itself, it's important to note that the vote took place in 2002, that it took place 3 weeks before midterm elections, and that Bush was required to determine that further diplomatic efforts would not satisfactorily protect the United States or ensure Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions.

we can make the argument that Bush did not live up to his end of the resolution, particularly in light of Hans Blix's presentations to the UN that showed no evidence of WMDs in Iraq.

 

[Dreadsox]

yes, many people saw the evidence and came to the conclusion that it was likely that Saddam had WMDs.

but only one man thought this was worth going to war over.

That's why the vote to authorize force was passed by one man.

 

[verte76]

Thanks for the post, Dread. I'm re-thinking my position on the invasion. I'm less critical of the invasion than I am of the post-war planning. It's the post-war planning, or lack thereof, that really has had me pissed off the whole time.

 

[trevster2k]

Ah, perpetual war on a preemptive basis. That so called info is bull, dread's full article post shows the truth behind it.

So Rini, do you agree with Richard Clarke and Paul O' Neill assertions that Bush wanted to attack Iraq since the first day of his presidency? Just wondering since you are so quick to believe this Sada fellow.

 

[nbcrusader]

That's why the vote to authorize force was passed by one man.

Apparently that can effectively happen when a deliberative body abdicates their independent evaluation of a situation.

 

[verte76]

Apparently that can effectively happen when a deliberative body abdicates their independent evaluation of a situation.

I agree with this, Congress basically rubber-stamped the Bushies. To hell with partisanship. Partisanship can be very bad at times. Since the Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone, maybe this was one of those times. I *still* have some problems with the basic idea of a pre-emptive strike, however. That bothered me. Color me confused.

 

[Irvine511]

That's why the vote to authorize force was passed by one man.

see the above post. ultimately, Congress authorized what one man said he needed to do to "defend" the US. Congress didn't come up with the idea of going to war, that credit lies with the Bush administration, and ultimately with President Man-Child himself.

what we CANNOT say is that "all nations saw the same evidence and came to the same conclusion." that is not true. everyone saw the same evidence, and came to the same conjecture, but the conclusion to go to war -- particularly on a timetable most favorable to the American election cycle -- rests on the shoulders of Bush.

and if we're talking about the UN, see the 1441 explanation.

 

[VintagePunk]

I agree with this, Congress basically rubber-stamped the Bushies. To hell with partisanship. Partisanship can be very bad at times. Since the Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone, maybe this was one of those times. I *still* have some problems with the basic idea of a pre-emptive strike, however. That bothered me. Color me confused.

That was also taking place during a time when any dissenters were labelled "unpatriotic."

 

[verte76]

That was also taking place during a time when any dissenters were labelled "unpatriotic."

Tell me about it. I heard that when I went to a protest demonstration here in Birmingham. I mean, hell, with that logic, some nuns were unpatriotic because Benedictines For Peace were participating in the demonstration.

 

[nbcrusader]

That was also taking place during a time when any dissenters were labelled "unpatriotic."

I guess they were just victims of the times.

 

[VintagePunk]

I guess they were just victims of the times.

I wasn't trying to say that, exactly. Post 9/11, and in the days leading up to the war, there was an undeniable "rah-rah, let's get the bad guys, and support our government" mentality going on down there, whereby both private citizens and public service members of society who were critical of this were dismissed at best, and scorned at worst.

Drat my poor memory, but wasn't there a document pertaining to the existance (or lack thereof) of WMD at the time in which several pieces of crucial information were left out, where, if the opposition had had that information, the vote to go to war either would have been much closer, or not passed at all?