Strong ties have been made connecting Osama and Saddam. Osama Saddam link
The classified annex summarized raw intelligence reports but did not analyze them or address their accuracy, according to a senior administration official familiar with the matter.
The Feith document does not recount many details of an operational relationship, nor does it illustrate a tie that was ongoing, cooperative, and operational. At best, it records expressions of various individuals' wish for a better relationship between the two sides—a desire that does not appear to have been consummated. Meetings between Iraqi officials and al-Qaida members began in the early 1990s, and there are reports that Iraq wanted to "establish links to al Qaeda." In 1993, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq." But in 1998, the Iraqis still "seek closer ties," and the sides are still "looking for a way to maintain contacts."
There was a lot of seeking and wanting going on, and perhaps there were even meetings. [..] What is disputed is that the meetings went anywhere. It would not be surprising to find out that the two sides had a de facto cease-fire, as has been alleged. But we're still waiting to see real cooperation in the form of transfers of weapons and other materiel, know-how, or funds; the provision of safe haven on a significant scale; or the use of Iraqi diplomatic facilities by al-Qaida terrorists. The Feith memo mentions a few instances of possible Iraqi assistance to al-Qaida on bomb-building and weapons supply to affiliated groups, but nothing like the kind of evidence that, in Hayes' words, "is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources." [..]
Hayes says, correctly, that the Feith memo "just skims the surface of the reporting on Iraq-al Qaeda connections." [..] What Hayes does not seem to recognize is that many of the treasures he imagines hidden in the existing CIA files [..] would undermine the "'Cliff's notes' version of the relationship" that he says is provided by the Feith memo. Of course there are more reports. When your intelligence service relays, as it should, everything short of sightings of Bin Laden on the moon, 50 reports of varying quality do not amount to much. The remaining material, many who are familiar with it believe, does not confirm the Hayes-Feith version but points in the other direction."
Attributing a report to a "contact with good access" does not mean the contact's account is true. Proving a report correct, or sufficiently corroborated to be considered plausible, requires a lot more work. Putting all the disparate pieces together and trying to construct a coherent picture—yes, connecting the dots—is harder still, requiring a mastery of all the material. Of course, raw intelligence has its value, especially if you are worried about an imminent attack, but there is a reason why the intelligence community spends so much time and energy putting out "finished product," the reports that evaluate a significant body of information to get the whole picture right. Those are the reports that policy-makers are supposed to rely on in crafting a strategy.
Of course, it's hard to know that when the biased media is bashing any opposition to it's agenda. One hilarious article is Powell Offers Proof of Saddam-Osama Link
We weren't punishing anyone. That's not the way it works. We are trying to deter any further activity. Saddam ousted. Good start.
 Ending Saddam's dictatorship.
 Capturing Saddam's men, America's most wanted pack of cards.
 Short, decisive victory.
 Rebuilding Iraq.
 Improving counter-terrorist measures.
Thats progress to me, but doesn't explain anything to American citizens who want to know why, out of all the world's dictatorships, their children had to die to unseat this one.
Acting on "belief" is often the sign of poor reasoning skills. If I "believe" my next door neighbor is a martian, and for the safety of my fellow humans I "believe" he must die, I am most certainly not justified in going next door and killing him.
What the Bush administration has demonstrated to "other leaders," is that this group is dangerously unstable and unreasonable.
The absence of concrete proof leaves little choice but to make decisions based on belief.
If Einstein thought like you suggest, there would be no theory of relativity. You wouldn't even be able to vote because couldn't be "certain" of your choice.
Your example is utterly useless and is argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. It addresses neither previous posts nor your own conclusion at the end of your post.
The absence of concrete proof leaves little choice but to make decisions based on belief. If Einstein thought like you suggest, there would be no theory of relativity. You wouldn't even be able to vote because couldn't be "certain" of your choice. Your example is utterly useless and is argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. It addresses neither previous posts nor your own conclusion at the end of your post.
Bush believed he already had a legal right to unseat this one. Whether he did or not is immaterial. He believed he did.
out of all the world's dictatorships, their children had to die to unseat this one.
Two cents of advice to Bill. Stop trying to debate with people that are way above your intellect. You come out lookin' real stupid. From your posts it seems that you may have average IQ but after reading responses from others then your responses to them, it becomes real obviousthat you lack the skill to engage in the stream and flounder beneath the water. This mantra of "argument for argument sake" is tiresome, as well as inferior in logic. You speak of common sense but seem to lack any.
The importance of the letter is not particular reports but the sheer scope of the evidence. It would fully entitle any president to treat the possibility of a connection with the utmost gravity, and certainly raises questions about the quality of intelligence analysis.
The public ought to know that this evidence is there. Yet the Washington Post ran a very brief, dismissive story Nov. 15, a Saturday, when attention is skimpy. Perhaps under pressure from continued coverage by the "blogs," The New York Times, cue sheet for the establishment, got around to the story on Thursday, Nov. 20 - at the bottom of Page 14, the third of three pages of Iraq news. And the same day the Post used the letter as an opening into reports of disagreements between the Defense Department and the CIA - on Page 34.
This amounts to hiding the news.
The people who sneer at the possibility of bin Laden-Saddam connections overlap with people who tend to blame Sept. 11 on the failure of the United States to solve all the problems of the Middle East. The recent bloody attacks in Turkey show that it's the modern world itself that the terrorists are trying to destroy. Turning a blind eye to evidence that conflicts with cherished feel-good assumptions is a dangerous habit.
The so-called liberal media is owned by wealthy corporate moguls that are part and parsle of the USA Plutocracy. Most of the people that appear on this media are wealthy drones of Capitalist Machine.
Rumsfeld said the goal of the operation is to defend Americans, eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and liberate the Iraqi people.
"Coalition military operations are focused on achieving several specific objectives: to end the regime of Saddam Hussein by striking with force on a scope and scale that makes clear to Iraqis that he and his regime are finished," he said.
Next, Rumsfeld said their goal is "to identify, isolate and eventually eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, production capabilities, and distribution networks. Third, he said, they'll "search for, capture, drive out terrorists who have found safe harbor in Iraq."
Fourth, they plan to "collect such intelligence as we can find related to terrorist networks in Iraq and beyond," followed by collection of "such intelligence as we can find related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction activity."
Sixth, they seek "to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian relief, food and medicine to the displaced and to the many needy Iraqi citizens." Seventh, they plan to "secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people, and which they will need to develop their country after decades of neglect by the Iraqi regime."
"And last, to help the Iraqi people create the conditions for a rapid transition to a representative self-government that is not a threat to its neighbors and is committed to ensuring the territorial integrity of that country," Rumsfeld said.
Feith, in prepared testimony for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee February 11, said the United States would stay in Iraq long enough to achieve five objectives: the liberation of the Iraqi people; the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD); the elimination of its terrorist infrastructure; the safeguarding of its territorial integrity; and the beginning of its political and economic reconstruction.
Saddam's capture "will definitely have a psychological impact on the whole network of terrorists and terrorism," Karzai told CNN. "It will prove to them that they cannot hide and yet kill people; that they will be found and their terrorism stopped."
My sentiments exactly. Dismissing an Osama - Saddam connection takes a great deal of gullibility. Something the liberal media is counting on.
Still, peacenik Howard Dean - pulling away from the pack - seems headed toward the Democratic presidential nomination. And Democrats generally, from presidential wannabes on down, are saying, "President Bush misled us into war against Saddam on the basis of insufficient information about his possession of, or his efforts to acquire, weapons of mass destruction."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMDs and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's WMD program."
- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998: "What happens in (Iraq) matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Congressman (now House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Letter to Clinton signed by Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, etc., Oct. 9, 1998: "We urge you ... to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspected Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs."
- Sen. Bob Graham and other Democratic senators in a letter to President Bush, Dec. 5, 2001: "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status."
- Sen. Levin, Sept. 19, 2002: "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building WMDs and the means of delivering them."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002: "We know that (Saddam) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing WMDs."
- Sen. Robert Byrd, Oct. 3, 2002: "We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002: "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of WMDs in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct. 10, 2002: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
Many of the usual suspects recently attacking President Bush and declaring smugly, "I insistently have dismissed the phony claims of Saddam's WMDs as a justification for war against him," have eagerly ridden the WMD bandwagon all along. Comes now Howard Dean, in his way trying to clamber aboard. In October he blasted the president on Iraq, telling The New York Times he opposed the American invasion last spring and promising that if president he (a) would cut the number of American troops in Iraq by half and (b) would send President Clinton to the Middle East to broker peace.
Dean added: (1) "Great countries ... get in trouble when they overstretch their military capabilities," and (2) "What this president is doing is setting the stage for the failure of America."
"Setting the stage for failure"? If so, the record shows that President Bush had considerable help and encouragement from Dean and his fellow suspects in ideological crime.
Strong ties have been made between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein proving Saddam supported terrorist activities that flattened two towers in New York.