[MaynardMeek]

Even if what is written is true.. and i hold the new york times and other such papers with the same salt as i do with news max etc.. it will never be picked up by the main stream media.. The democratic parties only way to get power in the next ellection is by following the same action line that is under ever last report on iraq. "Bush lied, Bush mislead, ETC ETC... to go away from that would be the death of the deomocratic party....

[mtruther]

Originally Posted by The Experiment

Sean Hannity, newsmax.com?

Way to post sources with damn near zero credibility.

Are you serious? That's a laugh. If Invester's Daily is a source of zero credibility, we don't have many sources with any credibility. Yeah, that's what you called "Sean Hannity." Not that I see him as a source of zero credibility. NewsMax, maybe.

I find it humerous that you'd criticize my sources as opposed to actually doing a very simple google search. And as for the buffoon who gave me negative rep points, keep them coming. The truth will come out soon enough, no matter how hard the moonbats try to hide it.

Well, here's another from The Times (hardly a non-credible source):

Released Saddam Documents Hint at Ties to al-Quaida




Sarah Baxter
NEWLY released documents seized in Iraq immediately after the American invasion in 2003 point to the presence of Al-Qaeda members in the country before the war and moves to hide traces of “chemical or biological materials” from United Nations weapons inspectors.
The documents were posted on the internet as part of a rolling programme by the US government to make public the contents of 48,000 boxes of untranslated papers and tapes relating to the workings of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Saddam is said to have routinely taped talks with cabinet members and intelligence chiefs.
NI_MPU('middle');John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, was ordered by President George W Bush to release the material. Hundreds of thousands of previously unseen documents and hundreds of hours of tapes will be placed on the web in the coming weeks.
The first documents to be released offer tantalising clues to possible Iraqi contacts with Al-Qaeda. An Iraqi intelligence report dated September 15, 2001 — four days after the attacks on America — says Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban were in contact with Iraq and Al-Qaeda members had visited the country.
It claims America had proof that the Iraqi government and “Bin Laden’s group” had agreed to co-operate to attack targets in America and that the US might strike Iraq and Afghanistan in retaliation.
However, the information comes from an unidentified Afghan informant who states merely that he heard it from an Afghan consul, also unnamed. According to ABC News, which translated the tapes, the claims are “sensational” but the sourcing is “questionable”.
Another document from a “trustworthy” source and dated August 2002 claims people with links to Al-Qaeda were in Iraq. There is a picture a few pages later of the Jordanian terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. But the papers suggest Saddam’s agents were trying to verify the presence of Al-Qaeda rather than colluding with it.
Documents from 1997 confirm that Saddam was giving UN weapons inspectors the runaround by removing correspondence concerned with “prohibited weapons” and clearing “labs and storages of any traces of chemical or biological materials”.
The transcript of one tape recording shows an official named as Comrade Husayn expressing concern to Saddam that outsiders would find out about imported material, including some from America, apparently for chemical weapons.
“They have a bigger problem with the chemical programme than the biological programme,” he tells Saddam. “We have not told them that we used it on Iran, nor have we told them about the size or kind of chemical weapons that we produced and we have not told them the truth about the imported material.”
In another taped conversation from the mid-1990s, a man called al-Sahhaf — possibly a former information minister — says: “On the nuclear file, sir, are we saying we disclosed everything? No, we have uncleared problems in the nuclear field.”
Apparently confirming that the nuclear programme had been abandoned, he adds: “Everything is over, but did they know? No, sir, they did not know, not all the methods, not all the means, not all the scientists and not all the places.”
Saddam expelled the UN inspectors from Iraq in 1998.
Bush intervened personally to secure the release of the documents after Bill Tierney, an Arabic-speaking former UN weapons inspector hired by the government to translate 12 hours of Saddam’s tapes, revealed their contents at a private intelligence conference near Washington last month. On one tape, recorded in the mid-1990s, the Iraqi dictator is heard to say: “Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans . . . and told the British as well . . . that in future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...092460,00.html


See also Saddam Husseing giving to al-Quaida in the Phillipines:

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Pu...1/990ieqmb.asp

A yes, right wing source. But these documents are going to keep flowing, and the truth is going to come out, one way or the other.

[The Experiment]

Sean Hannity is entertainment and not a source of news.

Newsmax.com is the Moveon.org/Fair.org of the Republicans. News that appeals to their base and makes the other side into the boogeyman. I suppose I should start posting up stories from The Guardian now that newsmax.com is acceptable.

The truth will come out soon enough, no matter how hard the moonbats try to hide it.

Is it cold up in your Montana cabin? I hope you were joking but you probably weren't. Plus you can find out who negged you also.

[MaynardMeek]

i would trust a reporter who actually did shows from iraq.. not from a hotel.. but with the troops over anyone like Murtha any day.


doesn't have to do with anything but just wanted to say that

[ArnoldIsMyIdol]

I think what alot of people don't realize is that from a historical perspective the Iraq and Afgan wars have been enormously successful. We have liberated 2 countries with less than 3000 casualties. Not to make light of their sacrifices, but you have to look at the numbers. In Vietnam we lost 58,000 and did not even win. 3000 is very small compared to what we have acheived. Its awful when anyone dies in a war. It is also terrible when policemen die in the line of duty, but no one is suggesting we disband the police departments.

And if you don't agree with the premise of the war, look at Libya. Since Reagan kicked Qaddaffi's ass in the 80's we have not heard a peep from them, Libya is voluntarily disarming and today we normalized relations with them.

[gearvet]

Exactly, Libya is the best example. Wish we could do same with Syrians now.

[Rufio]

I covered this in the other thread. Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda are based on the belief that they were in the same place at different times (which most people who read the documents dispute) and quotes of them wanting to be "closer." However, there are also verified quotes of Saddam denying any ties to Osama while saying that he wouldn't be ashamed if the ties DID exist, a reported claim that Saddam considered ties to Osama and decided against it, and of course Osama' claim that Saddam is an "infidel." We do know, however, that the people in Bush's administration trained the Al Qaeda operatives and allied with them during the Cold War, as well as helping Saddam gain power.


As for the war's death toll, this is not taking into account the number of Iraqi civilians dead, especially when you consider the embargo that killed over a million civilians which helped make Iraq so defenseless. And a comparison to Vietnam is ridiculous, considering that the Vietnam war was pretty much textbook terrorism. Vietnam was supposed to be united by elections, but that went out the window when it became apparent that Ho Chi Minh would've won over Diem. I don't see how anyone who's studied the history of Vietnam could support that.


Regarding Libya, I still do not accept the premise. Qaddafi was a supporter of terrorism and an evil human being, but the majority of charges behind the invasion have been by and large written off as lacking in evidence by the international community:


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...v24/ai_4776473

And for a more detailed report of the real reasoning behind the attack on Libya, and just what the UN meant by the "lack of evidence" of Libyan involvement in most of the actions they were charged as participating in:


http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomLyb2.html



I'm not saying that it doesn't make me happy that Qadaffi and Saddam were deposed. However, you have to weigh that against the civilian casualties and look at the guilt of the people who are ordering these invasions.


I don't really get this argument anyway. Our own country and our allies have DOCUMENTED cases of allying with terrorists. If this is about aiding terrorists, then why aren't Cheney and Rumsfeld being executed? If it's about "freedom" then why do we ally with Saudi Arabia? The truth is that it's about securing power and doing so against enemies that have pitiful armies and pitiful economies, so that they can be easily crushed.


As far as Syria, that's a good example of my point. We allied with them when they were massacaring Palestinians, but turned on them when they refused to integrate into the market system. Bush Sr. even supported their occupation of Lebanon. Just like with Saddam, our leaders turned against Syria when they threatened US economic/power interest internationally.


Of course politics are about prudence rather than what's right and wrong. Personally, I'm against the Iraq war because it's another example of the US trying to horde world power instead of preparing for the eventuality of new superpowers. They're trying to prevent other countries becoming rivals by maintaining sole puppet control of the oil. IMO it's a big waste and in the long run actions like this are not going to endear the international community to us. This openly imperialistic and anti-diplomatic approach could lead to another Cold War when the next superpower emerges.

[Rufio]

One other thing ...

Originally Posted by ArnoldIsMyIdol

I think what alot of people don't realize is that from a historical perspective the Iraq and Afgan wars have been enormously successful. We have liberated 2 countries with less than 3000 casualties.

In what way was Afghanistan liberated? The US actions ended up putting control of the country back in the hands of the warlords whose presence lead to the rise of the Taliban in the first place. This was a massive setback to any kind of real long-term liberation. Afghanistan is a mess.

[somewhatgifted]

So bin laden is still free....
there are or were no WMD's.....
iraqui oil is in us hands.....
750,000 dead iraqui civilians....

RE -vote, should the us have invaded iraq?

[Rufio]

That's generally the biggest problem with these invasions: they can end up killing more civilians than the dictator ever did. Iraq should've been an easy case given how pitiful their economy was, but what wasn't accounted for was the extremely factional nature of the region. Saddam's iron fist more or less kept them in line.

Of course I highly doubt that Bush and co. are that concerned with civilian casualties on the scale of things. The real issue is how realistic it is at this point to create a stable puppet government and thus stabilize the oil reserves.


As for Osama Bin Laden, don't you know that terror is bigger than one person and so his whereabouts don't matter that much?


YouTube - Bush-Truly not concerned about bin Laden

[semper60003]

seems that support for the war as its all-time low... we'll see how this'll play out

[Reaper329]

interesting to see this out and about. I was against the war from the beginning as it had no relation to 9-11. It was a mistake then and it is now

[AM07]

I couldn't care less what other countries view of the U.S. is.

But the Iraq War was a mistake from the beginning. Anyone who could support this piece of **** war from the beginning is retarded, and I'd like to hear their reasoning.

[Reaper329]

Originally Posted by AM07

But the Iraq War was a mistake from the beginning. Anyone who could support this piece of **** war from the beginning is retarded, and I'd like to hear their reasoning.

I am glad to hear others say this, as this is my sentiment as well. It truly was a situtation where it seems the administration was dead set on going there for one reason or another, and this gave them the opportunity to fleece an already semi-retarded american public.

I am still amazed as a HS teacher, hearing my students say that Iraq flew the plans on 9-11. Very sad

[CryingEmo]

What a tangled thread we weave...