le sigh Options

[pebkac]

http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?ID=17039

Senate finds no Saddam-al-Qaida link
Source: AP

CAPITOL HILL -- Two years in the making, a report on pre-Iraq war intelligence finds no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any relations with al-Qaida leaders in his country.

President Bush and others at the White House have said Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's presence in Iraq was evidence of a link between Saddam's government and al-Qaida.

But the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee report reveals for the first time what the CIA said about that last year.

The spy agency concluded that before the war, Saddam's government had no relationship with al-Zarqawi and found no proof Saddam either harbored or turned a blind eye toward Zarqawi.

Committee member Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, accuses the administration of deception in trying to link Saddam to al-Qaida. But a White House spokesman says from what they've seen, the report is "nothing new."

Ok... so Congress is just now figuring this out?

This is what pisses me off about Congress in general (especially the Democrats). Ok, so we accept that the war was a bad thing. So why didn't Congress do something about it before the war even started instead of investigating the issue five years later?

[impala454]

The war didn't start over whether or not there was any Saddam-al-Qaida link. It started over intelligence reports that Saddam was developing weapons he wasn't supposed to, and because he wouldn't allow weapons inspectors in according to the agreement he was bound by. It amazes me to this day that people can't figure this shit out.

1. Agreement saying you have to allow weapons inspectors
2. Intelligence that you're developing weapons
3. Don't allow weapons inspectors
4. Get your ass kicked

pretty simple if you ask me.

[schwab]

ive known this for 5 years

[pebkac]

The war didn't start over whether or not there was any Saddam-al-Qaida link. It started over intelligence reports that Saddam was developing weapons he wasn't supposed to, and because he wouldn't allow weapons inspectors in according to the agreement he was bound by. It amazes me to this day that people can't figure this shit out.

1. Agreement saying you have to allow weapons inspectors
2. Intelligence that you're developing weapons
3. Don't allow weapons inspectors
4. Get your ass kicked

pretty simple if you ask me.

No, sorry. You're wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/

President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq was in league with al Qaeda under Saddam Hussein's rule, saying Tuesday that fugitive Islamic militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network.

"Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters at the White House. "He's the person who's still killing."

"We did the absolute right thing in removing him from power, and the world is better off with him not in power," he said.

Bush has tried to portray the war in Iraq as the "central front" in the war on terrorism that began with al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

Yes, the fact that Bush claimed that there was a Hussein-Al Qaeda link was a contributing cause for the war.

[Jim]

The war didn't start over whether or not there was any Saddam-al-Qaida link. It started over intelligence reports that Saddam was developing weapons he wasn't supposed to, and because he wouldn't allow weapons inspectors in according to the agreement he was bound by. It amazes me to this day that people can't figure this shit out.

1. Agreement saying you have to allow weapons inspectors
2. Intelligence that you're developing weapons
3. Don't allow weapons inspectors
4. Get your ass kicked

pretty simple if you ask me.

5. Tunr out that there weren't any weapons to beging with.

[Hartmann]

5. Tunr out that there weren't any weapons to beging with.

That's arguable but I don't feel like arguing because quite frankly, it doesn't matter...

We're at war, soldiers and civilians are going to die.

The middle east was engulfed in war in the past, they are engulfed in war now, and they'll be engulfed in the future.

[woody]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030317-7.html

[GOB]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030317-7.html

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

lollin over here

[pysex]

You're right.

There wasn't an al-Qaida link.


BECAUSE THAT ORGANIZATION DOESN'T EXIST KTHX!

CONGRATS TO WHOEVER WROTE THAT ARTICLE


p.s. al-Qaeda

[The Fanatic]

That's arguable but I don't feel like arguing because quite frankly, it doesn't matter...

We're at war, soldiers and civilians are going to die.

The middle east was engulfed in war in the past, they are engulfed in war now, and they'll be engulfed in the future.

One word: Imperialism

[Hartmann]

One word: Imperialism

It goes back in history farther than that... Look up Ishmael in the Torah, Koran, or Bible (Genesis)

[impala454]

5. Tunr out that there weren't any weapons to beging with.

so just a few questions:

1. why would he turn away weapons inspectors if he had no illegal weapons?

2. how does the fact that none have been found change the fact that saddam was violating UN policy he'd agreed to by not letting the inspectors in?

3. does the possibility exist in your mind at all, that saddam had weapons, and by turning away inspectors for so long, bought himself time to sell/dump/transport the weapons somewhere else?

[Timbo]

This just displays that Congress, much like the rest of the government, was intentionally "stupid" about this whole mess.

Why'd they just figure this out now? The elections are close. 'Nuff said.

Timbo