1
   

al-Qaida / Iraqi link?

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 09:45 am
I said no such thing.

Our justification for staying in Iraq is to assure the people in Iraq get a fair and representative government.

I said that without the foreign aggressors and insurgency that our mission would almost be completed. We will establish a form of government the is good for the entire country, not just a portion of it. It's too bad Sistani can't take a lesson from the Kurds and get his section of the country under control. He wants to be a leader, but he isn't showing how he will lead very competently.

The Kurds on the other hand are loving life post-Saddam. They have been doing very well since his downfall.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 10:16 am
ok McG, shouldn't put words in your mouth... :wink:

But how do you establish "a fair and representative government" until you have extinguished the fighters and established lor norder?

but you did say this just now

Quote:
The Kurds on the other hand are loving life post-Saddam. They have been doing very well since his downfall.


I really hope thats true believe me. But why do we never see any news picture stories about happy Kurds doing their life loving things?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 10:30 am
This poll (pdf-file!)

US Public Beliefs on Iraq and the Presidential Elections April 2004

explains some posts here :wink:
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 10:35 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
ok McG, shouldn't put words in your mouth... :wink:

But how do you establish "a fair and representative government" until you have extinguished the fighters and established lor norder?

but you did say this just now

Quote:
The Kurds on the other hand are loving life post-Saddam. They have been doing very well since his downfall.


I really hope thats true believe me. But why do we never see any news picture stories about happy Kurds doing their life loving things?


Because that doesn't sell papers or garner high ratings.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 12:05 pm
PDiddie wrote:
(edited to reflect the suddenly calmer tone)


That's very funny, P.
0 Replies
 
mporter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 10:24 pm
I am amazed that the person who seems to know more of the truth about Americans doesn't even live in America. We can all learn a lot from Walter Hinteler.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 May, 2004 11:07 pm
mporter wrote:
I am amazed that the person who seems to know more of the truth about Americans doesn't even live in America. We can all learn a lot from Walter Hinteler.


Thanks for your kind remarks, mporter!

However, I neither know the truth nor really anything about the USA or America - I just use the available sources via the internet, a couple of university libraries ... and what I've learnt at school/studied at university.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2004 07:03 am
mporter wrote:
I am amazed that the person who seems to know more of the truth about Americans doesn't even live in America. We can all learn a lot from Walter Hinteler.


I am amazed that the person who seems to know more of the truth about Iraqis doesn't even live in Iraq. We can learn a lot from George Bush.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2004 08:07 am
Quote:
Mr. Clarke's ire is largely directed at the Iraq war, but its preparation was left to others on the National Security Council. He left the White House almost a month before the war began. As for its justification, he acts as if there is none. He dismisses, as "raw," reports that show meetings between al Qaeda and the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, going back to 1993. The documented meeting between the head of the Mukhabarat and bin Laden in Khartoum, Sudan, in 1996--a meeting that challenged all the CIA's assumptions about "secular" Iraq's distance from Islamist terrorism--should have set off alarm bells. It didn't.

There is other evidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda that Mr. Clarke should have felt obliged to address. Just days before Mr. Clarke resigned, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that bin Laden had met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization. In 1998, an aide to Saddam's son Uday defected and repeatedly told reporters that Iraq funded al Qaeda. South of Baghdad, satellite photos pinpointed a Boeing 707 parked at a camp where terrorists learned to take over planes. When U.S. forces captured the camp, its commander confirmed that al Qaeda had trained there as early as 1997. Mr. Clarke does not take up any of this.

Link
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2004 08:17 am
Tarantulas wrote:
Quote:
... Just days before Mr. Clarke resigned, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that bin Laden had met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization. In 1998, an aide to Saddam's son Uday defected and repeatedly told reporters that Iraq funded al Qaeda. South of Baghdad, satellite photos pinpointed a Boeing 707 parked at a camp where terrorists learned to take over planes. When U.S. forces captured the camp, its commander confirmed that al Qaeda had trained there as early as 1997. Mr. Clarke does not take up any of this.

Link


Quote:
Thursday, February 6, 2003 Posted: 9:05 AM EST (1405 GMT)
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell used electronic intercepts, satellite photographs and other intelligence sources Wednesday in an effort to convince skeptical members of the U.N. Security Council that Iraq is actively working to deceive U.N. weapons inspectors and was hiding large amounts of Weapons of Mass Destruction .

"I cannot tell you everything that we know," Powell said, with CIA Director George Tenet sitting behind him. "But what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years, is deeply troubling."
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 May, 2004 08:39 am
Just a little piece on the author Miniter quoted above, who publishes out of (surprise surprise) Regnery...
Quote:
By Roger Cressey and Gayle Smith
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

As counterterrorism and foreign policy professionals and veterans of the NSC staff in the years proceeding September 11, we have heard our share of misstatements and conspiracy theories about terrorism. But nothing quite compares to Richard Miniter's book "Losing Bin Laden," which includes a number of erroneous allegations about the Clinton administration's counterterrorism record, many of which were then published in this newspaper. Let us address a few:
First, Mr. Miniter recycles old, false Sudanese claims that the Clinton White House declined access to Sudan's intelligence files on al Qaeda and that an unnamed CIA official declined an offer from Sudan in 1996 to turn Osama bin Laden over to the United States.
No one should believe these allegations by Mr. Miniter's source, Fateh Erwa ?- a Sudanese intelligence officer known for his penchant to deceive ?- that there was an offer to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Certainly, no offer was ever conveyed to any senior official in Washington. Had the Sudanese been serious about offering bin Laden to the United States, they could have communicated such an offer to any number of senior Clinton administration officials. It did not happen.
Mr. Miniter also claims that Sudan repeatedly tried to provide voluminous intelligence files on bin Laden to the CIA, the FBI, and senior Clinton administration officials and would be "repeatedly rebuffed through both formal and informal channels." Absurd. In fact, it was precisely the other way around.
On multiple occasions, and in venues ranging from Addis Ababa to Virginia, Washington, New York and Khartoum, the United States aggressively pressed the Sudanese to prove their alleged commitment to cooperating on terrorism, by severing their close ties with known terrorists, arresting specific individuals and providing specific intelligence information to us. Yet, despite frequent promises of cooperation, presumably in the hopes of getting off the terrorism list and out from under U.N. sanctions, the Sudanese consistently failed to deliver.
This should come as no surprise, because Sudan in the mid-'90s was one of the most hard-core terrorist states in the world. Its fiercely militant leader, Hassan Turabi, turned Sudan into a sanctuary, training base and active supporter for a range of Islamic terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda.
That Mr. Miniter so willingly credits bogus claims from the Sudanese regime ?- a regime the Bush administration has rightly kept on the terrorism list, that has done nothing to bring an end to their domestic slave trade, and has only recently begun to engage seriously in international efforts to bring an end to a civil war that has killed over two million Sudanese citizens ?- is deeply troubling.
Another charge in the book is that President Clinton failed to retaliate immediately after the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 despite the fact that responsibility for the attack was clear. Mr. Miniter cites this as part of his overall and unsubstantiated theory that Mr. Clinton "refused to wage a real war on terrorism."
When the USS Cole was hit in October 2000, al Qaeda was a prime suspect. But other terrorist groups and states which had attacked us before were also potentially responsible.
It was appropriate that Mr. Clinton wanted conclusions from his chief intelligence and law enforcement agencies before launching broad retaliatory strikes on al Qaeda and Taliban targets in Afghanistan. Definitive conclusions from the CIA and FBI on who was behind the Cole were not provided to Mr. Clinton for the remainder of his term.
Even without conclusions from the FBI and CIA on the Cole, bin Laden and his lieutenants were still hunted to the last day of Mr. Clinton's presidency for al Qaeda's 1998 attacks on our two embassies in Africa. And if the Clinton administration dropped the ball in responding to the Cole bombing, why didn't the incoming Bush administration pick it up in January, 2001?
Mr. Miniter also alleges that in the spring and summer of 1998 the Clinton administration was deadlocked over the decision to conduct a special forces mission near a bin Laden camp. Mr. Miniter suggests that the president did not want to overrule Pentagon concerns over risks because he could not "stomach sending thousands of troops into harm's way." Mr. Clinton was, in fact, ready and willing to undertake a special forces or other paramilitary assault on bin Laden, particularly after our missile attacks on bin Laden in the summer of 1998, and often pressed his senior military advisers for options. But Mr. Clinton's top military and intelligence advisers concluded that a commando raid was likely to be a failure, given the potential for detection, in the absence of reliable, predictive intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts.
Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda. As President Bush well knows, bin Laden was and remains very good at staying hidden.
For eight years the Clinton administration fought hard to counter terrorism, and while we didn't accomplish all that we hoped, we had some important successes. The current administration faces many of the same challenges.
Confusing the American people with misinformation and distortions will not generate the support we need to come together as a nation and defeat our terrorist enemies.

Roger Cressey served as National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism from 1999-2001. Gayle Smith served as special assistant to the president for African affairs from 1998-2001.
0 Replies
 
mporter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 03:07 am
Of course, Mr. Blatham is correct. No one who knows of the sterling reputation of President Bill Clinton would believe such scurrilous lies. Anyway, President Clinton stopped the mouths of the scandal mongers who were complaining about the quite proper contribution made by certain Chinese gentlemen to Clinton's campaign. Clinton put a stop to their gossip by stating:

"I don't believe anyone can prove that I changed governmental policy just because of a campaign contribution"
0 Replies
 
mporter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 03:12 am
And those on the right who are quick to blame President Clinton for his alleged inaction against Saddam Hussein have probably blocked out his courageous strike at Baghdad on December 18, 1998 when he sent missles to strike at Baghdad.

President Clinton said. in a speech to the nation that evening:

quote

"Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community--led by the United States--has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday, make no mistake--he will use it again as he has in the past"

And to think that there are some who call Clinton soft on Terrorism!!!!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 03/05/2026 at 03:32:20