Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida

The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.

Perhaps you guys missed this key sentance before making your sweeping condemnations?

Quote:

The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.

No one had access to the Iraqi regime's archives and could therefore not have known. We could only go with the intelligence at the time. As ststed before, being wrong is not lying.

No one had access to the Iraqi regime's archives and could therefore not have known. We could only go with the intelligence at the time. As ststed before, being wrong is not lying.

The president stated over and over again, incredibly clearly, that the justification for invasion was the apparent likelihood that Iraq had active WMD programs. Misquoting president Bush doesn't help your argument.

Brandon9000 wrote:

The president stated over and over again, incredibly clearly, that the justification for invasion was the apparent likelihood that Iraq had active WMD programs. Misquoting president Bush doesn't help your argument.

What about Cheney, who to this day maintains a link between the two?

He repeated it over and over before the war, which you are well aware of.

Cycloptichorn

The president stated over and over again, incredibly clearly, that the justification for invasion was the apparent likelihood that Iraq had active WMD programs. Misquoting president Bush doesn't help your argument.

SEC. RUMSFELD: We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Brandon9000 wrote:

The president stated over and over again, incredibly clearly, that the justification for invasion was the apparent likelihood that Iraq had active WMD programs. Misquoting president Bush doesn't help your argument.

Reading comprehension, Brandon. I was not talking about or quoting Bush, specifically.


But if you want to talk about a specific quote - here you go:

Quote:

SEC. RUMSFELD: We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

See?


Saying "there's contradictory information out there, but we're pretty sure that there are WMD hidden around Tikrit and Baghdad," you might be wrong, but not lying.

If you say "we know where the weapons of mass destruction are - they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad" - in spite of the fact that there is evidence that suggests the opposite - then you're essentially telling a lie.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

The president stated over and over again, incredibly clearly, that the justification for invasion was the apparent likelihood that Iraq had active WMD programs. Misquoting president Bush doesn't help your argument.

What about Cheney, who to this day maintains a link between the two?

He repeated it over and over before the war, which you are well aware of.

Cycloptichorn

If you say so, I accept it on your word, but if you look at the justifications Mr. Bush gave when trying to get support for the invasion beforehand, it was pretty clearly based on the fear WMD and/or programs. If one intends to make a correct argument, it should be based on correctly quoting people.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

The president stated over and over again, incredibly clearly, that the justification for invasion was the apparent likelihood that Iraq had active WMD programs. Misquoting president Bush doesn't help your argument.

What about Cheney, who to this day maintains a link between the two?

He repeated it over and over before the war, which you are well aware of.

Cycloptichorn

If you say so, I accept it on your word, but if you look at the justifications Mr. Bush gave when trying to get support for the invasion beforehand, it was pretty clearly based on the fear WMD and/or programs. If one intends to make a correct argument, it should be based on correctly quoting people.

I'm okay with you saying that Bush didn't directly say this, but Cheney and the other Neocons in Washington - Bush's surrogates - most certainly did. And you know it!

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

The president stated over and over again, incredibly clearly, that the justification for invasion was the apparent likelihood that Iraq had active WMD programs. Misquoting president Bush doesn't help your argument.

What about Cheney, who to this day maintains a link between the two?

He repeated it over and over before the war, which you are well aware of.

Cycloptichorn

If you say so, I accept it on your word, but if you look at the justifications Mr. Bush gave when trying to get support for the invasion beforehand, it was pretty clearly based on the fear WMD and/or programs. If one intends to make a correct argument, it should be based on correctly quoting people.

I'm okay with you saying that Bush didn't directly say this, but Cheney and the other Neocons in Washington - Bush's surrogates - most certainly did. And you know it!

Cycloptichorn

But did they say it as a justification for invading beforehand? My recollection is that they did not - certainly not in any substantial way.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

The president stated over and over again, incredibly clearly, that the justification for invasion was the apparent likelihood that Iraq had active WMD programs. Misquoting president Bush doesn't help your argument.

What about Cheney, who to this day maintains a link between the two?

He repeated it over and over before the war, which you are well aware of.

Cycloptichorn

If you say so, I accept it on your word, but if you look at the justifications Mr. Bush gave when trying to get support for the invasion beforehand, it was pretty clearly based on the fear WMD and/or programs. If one intends to make a correct argument, it should be based on correctly quoting people.

I'm okay with you saying that Bush didn't directly say this, but Cheney and the other Neocons in Washington - Bush's surrogates - most certainly did. And you know it!

Cycloptichorn

But did they say it as a justification for invading beforehand? My recollection is that they did not - certainly not in any substantial way.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.