Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat

Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

CrappyDom -> Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 3:32:01 PM)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report We can all discount this propaganda, we all know how biased the Republican controlled congress is... A second part of the report concluded that false information from the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam group led by then-exile Ahmed Chalabi, was used to support key U.S. intelligence assessments on Iraq. It said U.S. intelligence agents put out numerous red flags about the reliability of INC sources but the intelligence community made a "serious error" and used one source who concocted a story that Iraq was building mobile biological weapons laboratories. The report also said that in 2002 the National Security Council directed that funding for the INC should continue "despite warnings from both the CIA, which terminated its relationship with the INC in December 1996, and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), that the INC was penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including the Iranians." According to the report, postwar findings indicate that Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime." It said al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May until late November 2002. But "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

LadyEllen -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 3:42:26 PM)
Seems to me the Republicans in Congress must be getting pretty tired of GWB too then to have done a hatchet job when they could have kept up the pretence a little longer? E

CrappyDom -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 3:52:31 PM)
Oh but they can't! The see the administation as sinking and the rats have to jump ship. They have sat on their hands for almost six years and everyone has let everyone do whatever they want including invading the wrong country and building a multibillion dollar bridge from nowhere to nowhere. Now they have to pretend to be busy, the only question remaining is how dumb exactly is the American public.

meatcleaver -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 3:52:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Seems to me the Republicans in Congress must be getting pretty tired of GWB too then to have done a hatchet job when they could have kept up the pretence a little longer? E Somethings are so painfully obvious that it becomes self defeating to deny it.

Estring -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 4:32:31 PM)
You know I don't see any mention of the fact that every intelligence agency, whether it was American, Russian, French, English, or Israeli all concluded that Saddam had wmds. The fact that he either didn't, or got rid of them before we invaded, doesn't matter. We didn't go into Iraq because of any tie to 9/11. We went in because in the post 9/11 world, you don't wait until he uses the wmds, or gives them to other terrorists to use against us. It was an extention of a "regime change" policy that was endorsed by the Clinton Administration. Saddam was paying the families of homicide bombers 25,000 dollars. That isn't considered aiding the terrorists? It isn't much of a leap to conclude that Saddam could take the next step and give wmds to them next. To not see that possibility is to be extremely naive.

WyrdRich -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 4:41:36 PM)
It's old news, dragged out for election season with a new cover. It won't be long before we have a whole series of "revelations" about the Abramoff scandal. It reminds me of the sexual harassment story about the "Governator" that broke for a day and then vanished until the LA Times rolled it out again a week before the election. I'm wondering if maybe the Dems shot themselves in the foot with the heavy-handed tactics against the ABC mini-series. What if they piss off the media right before the election?

Estring -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 4:52:34 PM)
It is funny that here is a good example of government exerting pressure on a tv network to not show something they perceive to be damaging (censorship, in my book), and there is nary a peep from the media. And nary a peep from all those on here who scream about all our rights being taken away. It proves once again that the left don't care about censorship if it affects views they don't support.

WyrdRich -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 5:14:12 PM)
JMO but it seems like most calls for censorship these days are coming from the left. It's one of the reasons they no longer get my vote, money or use of my pick-up to haul tables and chairs around. This could be interesting though. Will the media put their hatred of Bush ahead of self-interest? It would be very hard for anyone in broadcast media not to see the threat in that letter and it is my experience that reporters get pissed when threatened.

CrappyDom -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 5:24:58 PM)
Yep that mean ole Republican congress is just doing the bidding of the minority Dems. Come on guys, is this really the best you can do? The report was prepared by a Republican controlled congress, either counter it with facts. It is a myth that other intelligent services all believe the lies comming out of the Bush administration about Iraqi WMD but then again you watch FOX so I guess it can be forgiven. http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html Despite the Bush Administration's assertions, allies of the United States did not fully agree with the Administration's assessment on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Prior to the war in Iraq, some foreign countries questioned U.S. assertions on WMD presence in Iraq. Now, some in the U.S. Congress question whether or not the intelligence agencies manipulated intelligence to gain support for the war in Iraq. However, the White House insists that U.S. intelligence on Iraq's WMD were fairly presented. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said that the efforts of the Saddam Hussein regime to conceal its actions "clearly give a picture of a regime that had weapons of mass destruction and was determined to conceal them."1 The debate on Iraqi WMD continues. For example, Russia was not convinced by either the September 24, 2002 British dossier or the October 4, 2002 CIA report. Lacking sufficient evidence, Russia dismissed the claims as a part of a "propaganda furor."2 Specifically targeting the CIA report, Putin said, "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another." He goes on to say, "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."3 However, Putin was apprehensive about the possibility that Iraq may have WMDs and he therefore supported inspections. The Russian ambassador to London thought that the dossier was a document of concern. "It is impressive, but not always…convincing."4 French intelligence services did not come up with the same alarming assessment of Iraq and WMD as did the Britain and the United States. "According to secret agents at the DGSE, Saddam's Iraq does not represent any kind of nuclear threat at this time…It [the French assessment] contradicts the CIA's analysis…"5 French spies said that the Iraqi nuclear threat claimed by the United States was a "phony threat."6 After Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech on February 5, 2003 to the United Nations Security Council, the focus of discussion among U.S. allies changed. France, Russia, and Germany did not find Powell's "evidence" strong enough to support the U.S.'s stance on the Iraqi threat. However, having already questioned the veracity of the dossier and CIA report, they instead concentrated on persuading the international community to continue UN inspections. Other experts said that the evidence is not sufficient enough to prove that Iraq has WMDs. However, what Secretary of State Powell did prove was that Iraq was capable of producing WMDs.

mnottertail -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 5:32:30 PM)
Perhaps, E- you might cite a source or two that may bolster this argument, or perhaps as you reiterate, it is so prima facia that it is beneath question........... I am a big one for saying what it is, in my mind, and that is certainly what it is, but is untenable, you see. Ron

Estring -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 6:08:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Perhaps, E- you might cite a source or two that may bolster this argument, or perhaps as you reiterate, it is so prima facia that it is beneath question........... I am a big one for saying what it is, in my mind, and that is certainly what it is, but is untenable, you see. Ron Sources? Show me where the outrage is in the media over this tactic? Where is the ACLU? They are so concerned about protecting our constitutional rights? I haven't heard a peep from them about this. There is a movie out now called "This Film Is Not Yet Rated". It deals with the so called "censorship" of the ratings board on movies (especially independent) that are being made. But when there is an actual attempt at real censorship done by Democratic members of Congress, where is the outcry? You need more proof? I don't.

CrappyDom -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 6:12:36 PM)
quote: Show me where the outrage is in the media over this tactic? Where is the ACLU? The ACLU deals with the real world and the law. There is no law preventing the distribution of this movie, nobody is expecting the minority party to be able to prevent the majority party from allowing this bit of propaganda to be shown. quote: Show me where the outrage is in the media over this tactic? Tactic? It is normally the Right that is whining and bitching about something being too sexy, too open, too kinky, too irreligious, too sacrilegious, too liberal, too factual, etc. Besides, the ACLU is sort of busy dealing with things like torture and the violation of the right to privacy.

mnottertail -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 6:32:15 PM)
This is not an equivocable argumnent, the ACLU is not any mesmerantic, bottom line player in this. Perhaps we are at odds because my comments were antecedant to your prior posting, the one dealing withthe world's intelligence agencies concertedly in agreement with the WMD thing (which they were not, and even if they were , would not have made them any more intelligent) Now, in terms of the next post, that may be what you believe and see as prima facia evidence that the left (whatever the fuck that is) do not care about what the fuck ever rights being taken away, which since the ACLU didn't jump on them immediately. Well, now let us sit down and reason together, the only proof you really have about this, is that nobody who feels fanatically righteous about this issue has not put a slug in somebody's ass today. This is the onlyr real proffer of proof in evidence. This is what is referred to by some in the business as a moronic argument (please take the time to note, I did not call you and do not consider you a moron, ok?) The equivalent argument is: All dogs are animals. Dogs bark. Cats are animals, therefore; all cats bark. While to the hot-blooded latin breast this is equated with tautology. it just ain't so, E--- Sincerely, Ron

WyrdRich -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 6:52:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Tactic? It is normally the Right that is whining and bitching about something being too sexy, too open, too kinky, too irreligious, too sacrilegious, too liberal, too factual, etc. Well, the Fundy Christians make quite a bit of noise, but it is the Left I most often see trying to prohibit some form of speech (or force a network to edit a film to their liking). Does anyone recall the PMRC and the Senate hearings on rock lyrics? Who was that radical Right-Winger who led the charge? I didn't let his presence on the ticket keep me from voting Clinton twice but Al Gore lost my vote 16 years before I had a chance to cast it.

KenDckey -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 7:22:31 PM)
Hey Crappy. the report is 211 pages long. this thread will be over well before I finish reading it. the questions I have is about the Executive Order by Clinton that precluded the use of "shady" characters to work iin the intelligence community. What affect did this EO have on intelligence gathering? From the time that Bush took office till 9/11 was less than 9 months, What steps had the inteligence community taken to remedy the situation created by the EO? or as conjecture were they forced to rely upon these splinter organizations for intelligence?

CrappyDom -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 8:17:54 PM)
Kenducky, You won't believe me but Bush CUT counter terror efforts when he got into office and did NOTHING to improve intelligence gathering. On the day of 9/11 Rice was scheduled to give a speach that day about the threats facing America, terrorism wasn't going to be mentioned but the need for star wars was..

KenDckey -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 8:41:55 PM)
for some reason that one makes sense to me.

CrappyDom -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 8:54:09 PM)
Rich, One of the biggest reasons I disliked Gore was Tipper...

Kedicat -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 11:41:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Estring You know I don't see any mention of the fact that every intelligence agency, whether it was American, Russian, French, English, or Israeli all concluded that Saddam had wmds. The fact that he either didn't, or got rid of them before we invaded, doesn't matter. We didn't go into Iraq because of any tie to 9/11. We went in because in the post 9/11 world, you don't wait until he uses the wmds, or gives them to other terrorists to use against us. It was an extention of a "regime change" policy that was endorsed by the Clinton Administration. Saddam was paying the families of homicide bombers 25,000 dollars. That isn't considered aiding the terrorists? It isn't much of a leap to conclude that Saddam could take the next step and give wmds to them next. To not see that possibility is to be extremely naive. You are once again spouting discredited things. several high and lower ranked CIA folks said the WMD was BS. Almost all that info came out of Rumsfelds cherry picking inteligence agency that he started in the pentagon. Bypassing the much better vetting of the CIA and NSA and many others.

Kedicat -> RE: Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat (9/8/2006 11:43:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Estring It is funny that here is a good example of government exerting pressure on a tv network to not show something they perceive to be damaging (censorship, in my book), and there is nary a peep from the media. And nary a peep from all those on here who scream about all our rights being taken away. It proves once again that the left don't care about censorship if it affects views they don't support. Nary a peep except the thread you are replying in? I saw this senate report and also considered posting it. And then I actually thought specifically of you, and the lame obfuscation that would ensue. You did not disappoint.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875