|
|
Post by MO on Nov 17, 2003 11:24:16 GMT -5
from recent news- Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, as well as financial and logistical support, and may have included the bombing of the USS Cole and the Sept. 11 attacks. That's the assessment of a 16-page top secret government memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee, reports the Weekly Standard. The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. The memo cites reports from a variety of domestic and foreign spy agencies including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. MORE- www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35634 |
|
|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWork on Nov 17, 2003 17:19:29 GMT -5
A "top secret" memo that was "leaked" huh? I have to admit that I'm very cynical about this one.
Firstly, saddam was a dictator of a secular state (Hardly anyone in the arab world believed his pathetic attempt at pretending to 'convert' to islam) whilst Al-Queda promote a weird brand of theocratic anarchism. Ideologically the two could not be more different.
Secondly, the US administration have too much to lose from there not being a link between Iraq and A-Q. An intelligence 'leak' that can neigther be confirmed or proven (but can be denied) is a a tried tested way of implanting the idea in peoples heads with needing to make the risky move of officially releasing information that may be proven false at a later date. Governments have done this many a time before. What makes it any different now?
|
|
Ironside
German Shepard
Army Veteran
Posts: 21
|
Post by Ironside on Nov 17, 2003 18:42:54 GMT -5
And didn't we support bin Laden in the 80's? Oh, here... a picture is worth a thousand words!  Now, what was it you were saying? This war in Iraq is a QUAGMIRE! |
|
|
|
Post by quinwound on Nov 17, 2003 20:46:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Nov 18, 2003 1:08:58 GMT -5
Well of course the liberals think Saddam is more trust worthy than the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency. They always side with our enemies.
I've never understood why the liberals try to make an issue of that. Allies have always changed through the years. What's the point?
The sky is falling, chicken little!
|
|
|
|
Post by quinwound on Nov 18, 2003 1:25:50 GMT -5
Well of course the liberals think Saddam is more trust worthy than the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency. They always side with our enemies. I've never understood why the liberals try to make an issue of that. Allies have always changed through the years. What's the point? The sky is falling, chicken little! True, Allies do change during the years. I don't play that argument. And yes I don't trust everything the government leaks/says. I also don't trust Saddam. I trust the us government over him. Who I do trust is articles from creditable news organizations. Like CNN, AP, ..... And even with those I check there facts. What you are doing here is trying to make it so you are with the terrorists or with Bush. One of the most patriotic things an american can do is openly question our leaders. That idea that you can openly question your leaders is one of the foundations of this country. This is america, I would rather be here than anywhere else. I just want to keep it great. Edit: spelling |
|
|
|
Post by Walter on Nov 19, 2003 14:33:20 GMT -5
And Neville Chamberlain and FDR worked to accomodate Adolph Hitler.
And FDR formed an alliance with Stalin.
So, to continue this Liberal nonsense we should have avoided all efforts to deal with either of those folks. Right?
Now let's get on to a related point.
Liberals say that removal of Saddam was a bad thing because a link with Al Quaida was never proven.
1. Saddam broke the unilateral treaty signed with the UN in 1991 that called for use of force if he failed to comply with its terms. That treaty made no reference to Al Quaida. The link is an attempt by Liberals to demonize Bush.
2. If Saddam remained in power and continued his despotic rule the Liberal mantra would be reversed; specifically, the Liberals would be quoting WJC's 1998 remarks about Saddam and would be yelling about Bush permitting the continued rights abuses perpetrated by Saddam.
MO, the issue isn't the link between Saddam and OBL altho the Libs like to make that seem like the issue because we conservatives will be distracted from the real issue.
It's very simple. THEY [glow=blue,2,300]HATE BUSH[/glow] Period. No more, no less.
That means they raise an issue, you respond. They argue the response until they cannot do it any longer and move on to another "issue."
Their hatred of BUSH is the issue. Nothing else. That's why it's futile trying to debate these people. With no basis in logic, their hatred cannot be responded to.
|
|
|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWork on Nov 29, 2003 19:05:20 GMT -5
"MO, the issue isn't the link between Saddam and OBL altho the Libs like to make that seem like the issue because we conservatives will be distracted from the real issue."
It was a conservative who bought up the issue on this thread in the first place so your point doesnt seem to correlate with reality here does it? Secondly, the issue of a link was NOT bought up by ANY 'liberal'. What do you think GWB is doing when he talks about the 'War on Terror' in reference to the Iraq conflict? He's making a link between Iraq and international terrorism
"It's very simple. THEY HATE BUSH
Period. No more, no less."
You should really think about these ones a bit harder. What possible reasons would I have for hating bush other than his foreign policy? I do not know him and I do not have any link to party politics in the US. It makes no sense for me to disagree with his policies because of a 'hate' for him personally.
You are right about one thing though, I DO dislike the man but you have mixed up the cause and effect.
I don't hate Bush's policies because I dislike Bush, I disike Bush because I hate his policies.
|
|
|
|
Post by vito on Nov 30, 2003 0:07:29 GMT -5
I don't hate Bush's policies because I dislike Bush, I disike Bush because I hate his policies. Hear hear! I can't figure out where all this conservative whining about "irrational hatred" comes from. Are they so full of themselves and wrapped up in their own little right-wing paradise that they simply can't imagine anyone in their right mind disagreeing with Bush? Conservatives, I read this board to learn: are you really that pathetic? |
|
1st Armored Division, HHC 1 Battalion 37th Armor - USAAREUR (74-76)
