2 posts tagged “saddam hussein”
Yahoo Answers http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070712155615AAzYLj7
This question on Yahoo Answers was asked and answered one year ago. The links don't work on their site, but if anyone cares to dig a little, all the information for where to find the evidence is listed in the answer. Learn this information and commit it to memory. The next time you see Code Pinko nuts dissing our President and our country, drive a stake of truth through the heart of their whacked out message.
Let's do it again: When will Bush stop lying about the link between Iraq and 9-11?
Can some conservative hacks out there please tell me why our president continues this lie? I mean, it's been disproven time and time and time again, yet we keep hearing the same thing. What is wrong with this administration? What is wrong with the American people that we haven't demanded his removal from office? He is lying about the reasons we are sending our troops to DIE. To DIE! He's not lying about who gave him a hummer in the Oval Office. He is lying about the reaons we are killing Iraqis and seding our soldiers to DIE.
Damn he ticks me off!
And we are going to have this argument until one of you conservative hacks can give me a legitimate reason based on truth and fact and not simply regurgitating the lies being fed out of the White House.
Additional Details
1 year ago
And I have no problem going after the guy who actually attacked the US. Remember bin Laden? The guy in his cave making movies every other week? Let's get him and if he implicates others, then we go get them. Instead Bush and Cheney lie, lie, lie, lie to start an unecessary and unjust war when we had a necessary and just war that hasn't been finished yet. If we have to kill some people, let's at least kill people in the right country. Is that too much to ask?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
On August 20, 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against a chemical weapons factory in Sudan. The cruise missle strike was in retaliation for the August 7, 1998 truck bomb attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya which killed more than 200 people and wounded more than 5,000 others. The chemical weapons factory in Sudan was funded, in part, by Osama bin Laden who the U.S. believed responsible for the embassy bombings. Richard Clarke, a national security advisor to President Clinton, told the Washington Post in a January 23, 1999 article that the U.S. government was "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts had produced a powdered substance at that plant for use in making VX nerve gas. link
On August 25, 1998 the Fort Worth Star-telegram reported a link between Iraq and the Sudanese chemical weapons factory destroyed by the United States in a cruise missile attack. The chemical weapons factory was hit because of links to Osama bin Laden who the U.S. believed responsible for the recent embassy bombings. A senior intelligence official said one of the leaders of Iraq's chemical weapons program, Emad al-Ani, had close ties with senior Sudanese officials at the factory. The intelligence official also said a number of Iraqi scientists working with al-Ani attended the grand opening of the factory two years earlier. Emad Husayn Abdullah al-Ani surrendered to U.S. military forces on April 18, 2003. link link
On November 5, 1998 a Federal grand jury in Manhattan returned a 238-count indictment charging Osama bin Laden in the bombings of two United States Embassies in Africa and with conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad. The grand jury indictment also charged that Al-Qaeda had reached an arrangement with President Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq whereby the group said that it would not work against Iraq, and that the two parties agreed to cooperate in the development of weapons. link link
On January 11, 1999, Newsweek magazine ran the headline "Saddam + Bin Laden?" The subheadline declared, "It would be a marriage made in hell. And America's two enemies are courting." The article points out that Saddam has a long history of supporting terrorism. The article also mentions that, in the prior week, several surface-to-air missiles were fired at U.S. and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones and that Saddam is now fighting for his life now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective. link
On January 14, 1999, ABC News reported, "Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists. Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, the most notorious terrorists of their era, all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad. Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction." video
On February 13, 1999, CNN reported, "Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday. Bin Laden's whereabouts were not known....." The article reports, "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden....." link
On February 18, 1999, National Public Radio (NPR) reported, "There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi, sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq." NPR reported that Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when Farouk Hijazi met with bin Laden when he lived in Sudan. link link
On February 14, 1999, an article appeared in the San Jose Mercury News claiming that U.S. intelligence officials are worried about an alliance between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The article states that bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan in late December 1998 and that "there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world." According to this article, Saddam has offered asylum to bin Laden in Iraq. The article said that in addition to Abu Nidal, another Palestinian terrorist by the name of Mohammed Amri (a.k.a. Abu Ibrahim) is also believed to be in Iraq. link
On February 28, 1999, an article was written in The Kansas City Star which said, "He [bin Laden] has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States....." link
On December 28, 1999, an article appeared in The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland) titled, "Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West." The article starts, "The world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq....." The article quotes a U.S. counter-terrorism source who said, "Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying." link
On April 8, 2001, an informant for Czech counter-intelligence observed an Iraqi intelligence official named al-Ani meeting with an Arab man in his 20s at a restaurant outside Prague. Following the 9/11 attacks, the Czech informant who observed the meeting saw Mohammed Atta’s picture in the papers and identified Mohammed Atta as the man who met with the Iraqi intelligence official. link link link
Able Danger, a highly-classified U.S. Army intelligence program under the command of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, supports information from the Czech Republic’s intelligence service that Mohammed Atta meet with the Iraqi ambassador at the Prague airport on April 9, 2001. link link
On July 21, 2001 [less than two months prior to 911] the Iraqi state-controlled newspaper "Al-Nasiriya" predicted that bin Laden would attack the U.S. "with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House." The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden "will strike America on the arm that is already hurting," and that the U.S. "will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs" - an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, "New York, New York." link link link
After the 9/11 attacks, Saddam became the only world leader to offer praise for bin Laden, even as other terrorist leaders, like Yassir Arafat, went out of their way to make a show of sympathy to the U.S. by donating blood to 9/11 victims on camera. Saddam later pays tribute to 9/11 by having a mural painted depicting the World Trade Center attack at an Iraqi military base in Nasariyah.
must see pictures link
- Asker's Rating:
- Asker's Comment:
- You get the nod, even though in your very detailed links between AQ and Saddam, you have links that have been discounted by Bush, the 9-11 Commission and Michael Moore. And that's enough evidence to ignore bin Laden and attack Saddam? Wow.
The greatest sin of the second Bush administration is poor communication with the people of the United States. I understand why they have done such a poor job of it, but it is the greatest failing of George Bush's presidency. The Main Stream press have continually worked to discredit him and have joined the Democratic party in undermining his credibility and have thought nothing of the damage to national security or the morale of our military in a war time effort. In publishing military and national secrets during war, in seeking only the worst stories for the front page and spinning every event to make the US look as bad as possible in an international light, by burying positive news deep in the mid to back pages of the papers they are complicit in harming the reputation of the US and encouraging the enemies of freedom and Democracy. David Horowitz is a great communicator and should be the Republican Party's spokesman on the war against Radical Islam. He was giving a speech introducing his new book, "Party of Defeat" when he spoke these words:
The opposition party has full access to our secrets and our intelligence. They conducted a campaign beginning in July 2003 to attack the United States and its commander in chief. That is the position of the Democratic party. That is a national disgrace. We went into Iraq in March 2003, we liberated Baghdad in April 2003 with 139 casualties. It was July (that's three months or so) after we liberated Baghdad. We were winning the war. But when the resistance was starting from the al Quaeda terrorists and the Baathist Fascists in Iraq and our young men and women were in harm's way that the Democratic party ran a national TV ad. And the TV ad said "Read his lips, President Bush deceives the American people." President Bush is a war criminal, that's what that was saying. What change was there in American policy between April and July? There was none. The Democratic party, you'll remember, had a presidential primary at this time. I can't think of anything lower than selling your country out. Selling your young men and women who are on the battlefield out. Selling the security of 300 million Americans out, because you wanted to win the Democratic presidential primary. Now, let's look at a couple of these lies that the Democratic party has based their campaign against America, against the American people, against the Iraqi people, and against the war on terror. The first is that Iraq is no threat, or was no threat. Was Afghanistan a threat? Afghanistan is a much poorer nation than Iraq. Afghanistan has no oil. Its got half the population. Its virtually all tribal. Baghdad was a pretty modern city. Of course, that's the whole point of the Bush doctrine and of the war that we are fighting in Iraq. That 9/11 told us that a weak and fragile and unstable nation, a very poor nation, if it supports terrorists, can strike the American mainland. Something the Nazis never did, the Germans could not do. Something the Japanese could never do. Something no enemy in the last 150 years could do. And that's why Saddam Hussein was a threat. Because Saddam Hussein had put... after the Gulf war had put Alahu Ackbar into the flag as a calculated effort to join the forces of the Islamo-fascist crusade because they shared a common enemy. America, the great Satan. He had tried to assassinate the president of the United States, he had held international conferences for terrorists, he had hosted abu Habbas and abu Nedal, and Musab al Zachari, and Ansar al Islam. All of this Saddam Hussein had done. And so, if you look out at the world, with any modicum of responsibility on 9/11, you would see that Iraq was the next big threat to the United States. I tried to lay out here, why Iraq should have been considered a threat, but you don't have to take my word for it. You can go to Al Gore. On February 2, 2002, Al Gore gave a speech. Now this speech followed a speech... the state of the union that year by George Bush. And that was the axis of evil speech. And many Democrats were in a rage over the use of the term evil to describe Iraq even though the regime had murdered 300,000 Iraqis and put them in mass graves, even though it had dropped poison gas, a wmd, on an ethnic population (the Kurds) even though it had invaded two countries within recent memory, even though Saddam Hussein was in violation of the terms of the Gulf war truce, Al Gore gave a statesmen like speech and he defended Bush's use of the term evil because it was an accurate description of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. And this is what he said about whether Iraq posed a threat. Instead of saying it posed no threat and would cause us to be judged harshly by history, what he said was, and this is an exact quote, "Iraq is a virulent threat in a class by itself." "a virulent threat in a class by itself, and the United States would be justified in going to the limit to take Saddam Hussein down." That's what Al Gore said. So this book I've written, "The Party of Defeat" is about a party that betrayed its own war. that betrayed its own country, and that betrayed its men and women in the field. Don't let anybody tell you that you can support the troops but not the war. If you support the troops, you support their mission, because when you do what John Kerry did, and say, "Its the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" you send a demoralizing message to our troops and an encouraging message to our enemies. On the WMD's, Saddam Hussein lost the Gulf war. When he invaded Kuwait, the first George Bush organized an international coalition to stop him. But actually, that coalition was a little too multi-lateral, because it included the Arabs and the Arabs said you cannot remove Saddam Hussein. What ended the Gulf war was a truce. It said Saddam Hussein can stay in power but these are the conditions. And the conditions were UN resolution 687, and UN resolution 689. The Gulf war truce UN resolution 687 and 689 said "You will not build, you will not plan to build, you will not have programs to build weapons of mass destruction. and you will allow UN inspectors onto Iraqi territory and freedom to go anywhere they want so they can determine that you're not doing it, because nobody in his right mind can trust you." Those two UN resolutions which were followed by fourteen others, were there to keep Saddam from doing what he wanted to do, and what we know he wanted to do, which was to build weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein systematically violated these resolutions until a day came in 1998 when he actually threw the UN inspectors out. Iraq was always on the U.S. government's mind. Hillary Clinton in one of her statements said that she... not only did she vote for the war when she was defending her support for the war, not only did she support the war because of the intelligence that Bush gave her, but the intelligence she got from the Clinton administration. Saddam Hussein was a threat. Now, this is what George Bush did, he gave a speech identifying Iraq as a national threat, part of an axis of evil. And then George Bush in September went to the United Nations and spoke to the general assembly and said, "There are 16 outstanding resolutions which are arms control agreements which are part of the UN truce with Saddam Hussein that kept him in power. Either you will enforce your word, or you will be seen to be irrelevant." Which the UN is. "And we will do it for you." That's what George Bush said. And then he went to Congress and he got the authorization for the use of force. So the very opposite of what the Democrats claim is the truth. George Bush did not violate international law, he tried to enforce it and the Democrats didn't support him. The Bush administration made a diplomatic mistake, which was to go back to the UN. Once they had the resolution, they should have acted on it. And Tony Blair begged the Bush administration to go to the UN again and get another resolution. And unfortunately, the Bush administration listened to Colin Powell and did so. And Colin Powell got what he deserved for this. Because, what he did, go to the UN to sell the war. And the way he sold it was to imply that Saddam had more weapons capability than he had. And that's why people say its about WMD's. No it isn't!! It wasn't at all about the weapons of mass destruction. It was about his potential to build those weapons and his programs to do so, and his intentions to do so.
Now, if there is any doubt left that the Bush administration lied to the American public, to the Congress or to the UN or that we were justified in invading Iraq, or that we could afford to allow that tyrant to continue in his plans to help work destruction on the innocent people of America, please, tell me what it is. More, if there is any doubt that the actions of the Democratic leadership is not traitorous in their actions against our national security and against our men and women in the field at war, please, inform me. If there is any doubt that these actions expose the complicity of the American main stream press, please, tell me what doubts you can dredge up. This is not patriotism to act this way, careless of the effects on our security or that of the troops, or their morale. If the Democrats win this election with this for credibility, I am without hope for our nation and its future. John McCain is a moderate. He has worked across the aisle enough times to anger most Republicans and only got the nomination because the more conservative Republicans were split between the two more conservative candidates. Barack Obama is a radical leftist and his voting record proves it. He is unvetted and has zero accomplishments to point to, much less working with the opposition, so how can he fulfill his promises to be the agent of change and hope? Hillary Clinton is running on her husband's experience. She voted for the war before she promised to abandon the war. This isn't flip flop, this is pandering to the base merely for the seat of power. The Democrats are proven traitors and deserve nothing less than a trial for treasonous act against national security in a time of war. We cannot afford to put into office any member of the party of defeat, and of enmity with the nation that grants that power voluntarily. We have to have a Chief that isn't moved by every wisp of breeze of political winds. We have to have a leader with the vision and the steadfast resolve to meet every challenge with the grace and assurance of having practiced what's right and good. No promise of benefits is greater than the value of assured security to continue in our existence as a nation of freedom and democracy. The only issue on the ticket this election has to be the security and continuance of our great culture. Everything else pales in comparison. Without that security, there are no human rights protection, no freedom of speech, no opportunity to succeed in business, no opportunity to live in peace and security, no opportunity to participate or not participate in the religion of your choice. Do not reward the party of defeat this election year. Don't even encourage them to speak until they get this one issue right. National security is tantamount in politics. Everything else is secondary.
My Groups
-
Conservative Politics Updated: 32 minutes ago
-
News We're Not Getting From MSM Updated: 2 hours ago
-
U.S. Rep. Who Commit Treason Updated: 4 hours ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
