This is why we went to war

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
This is why we went to war
41
Fri, 02-06-2004 - 10:06am
SADDAM IN 'TERROR TAPE'



New footage has been released purporting to show Saddam Hussein paying large sums of money to a terrorist group.

Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Nicholson says the footage is "incontrovertible proof" of the former Iraqi dictator's links to international terrorism.


It appears to show the former Iraqi President plotting crimes and paying money to members of an international terrorist group.

Baroness Nicholson says the group of men in the footage looked after Saddam's chemical and biological warfare.

The footage given to Sky News was reportedly looted from one of Saddam's palaces.

There has been no independent confirmation of the tapes and Sky News cannot verify their veracity.

However, Baroness Nicholson says there is no doubt the footage highlights Saddam's links to terrorism and chemical weapons.

"This is incontrovertible proof of Saddam Hussein's involvement in international terrorism," she said.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12986177,00.html

Renee

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 02-06-2004 - 3:09pm
Surely you jest. We were told that we needed to go to war because of weapons-- nuclear,chemical and biological that could be used against the US and its interests; and because of a link by Iraq to the 9/11 attacks.

The article you posted is notable more for the questions it raises about its content than about whether there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. For instance, who's Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Nicholson? What sort of credentials does she carry to make the claims she made? What international terrorist group is the tape showing? Moreover, there are several caveats in the article itself:

<>

and

<>

Actually, you're probably quite right--we DID go to war on the basis of stories as flimsy as this one. How sad! Keep digging, wrhen, maybe you'll find something that truly justifies a war which has killed hundreds of Americans, and maimed thousands more.

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 02-06-2004 - 5:11pm
Good post! Thanks for writing it.!
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Fri, 02-06-2004 - 6:54pm
<>

Oh, no. We were told that WMDs could be passed to international terrorists (note, not specifically the Al-Queda variety) who could smuggle them into the country & use them in an attack against civilians.

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities."--George Bush March 19, 2003

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

<>

Nope. The administration never claimed an Iraq-9/11 link.

I don't give a flip who the Baroness is or what she thinks about the tape, but I am quite interested in getting it analyzed and verified because we went to the UN for 1441 because of the threat that Iraq posed in a post 9-11 world where a vial of anthrax, a small quantity of sarin gas, or a dirty bomb in the hands of ANY terrorists could kill thousands of unsuspecting civilians and contaminate large areas of vital real estate.

If you've been paying attention to David Kay, you'll know that the potential just such a senario was even more likely then we imagined before we went into Iraq.




Edited 2/6/2004 7:00:42 PM ET by wrhen

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-2003
Sat, 02-07-2004 - 7:30pm
Recheck your facts; Ths administration consistently tried to connect 9/11 to Saddam.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Sat, 02-07-2004 - 10:17pm
I'm quite familiar with Bush's pre-war statements, and the case the administration made to go to war, and a Saddam 9/11 connection was never made.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sun, 02-08-2004 - 7:41am
A link between 9/11 & Saddam was

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 02-08-2004 - 10:55am
Quit the legal wiggle. The president repeatedly made speeches and his staff made speeches. They may have been careful to avoid actual use of the word "imminent" (thanks, metrochick, for the legwork!) but they regularly invoked threat of weapons of mass destruction by Hussein himself. In fact, it's that slipperiness on their part that has me particularly incensed. Innuendo, inference and finger pointing are not the hallmarks of great leadership.

The administration constantly inferred a link between the Al Qaeda attacks on 9/11 and the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was only when asked point blank, that the president admitted that no such link existed. But by that time, it hardly mattered since the war was a done deed and the misperception was firmly planted in many minds.

You're making the same error the president has made in not questioning the credentials and background of intelligence reports in Iraq. Who the source is, what their credibility in the past has been, and under what the circumstances "discovery" was made, are key in establishing how seriously to take the information.

As far as David Kay–he's not omnipresent, nor is he omniscient. He has opinions. His is an experienced opinion but hardly gospel truth. Moreover, one of his opinions was that Iraqi society had experienced a "meltdown" and was operating on "every man for himself". One would think that it would be difficult for the leader of such a society to mobilize the resources to present a serious threat to just about anything!

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Sun, 02-08-2004 - 11:58am
Nice try, but no dice. Cheney & a few others have said that they personally believe that SH was involved with Al-Queda or that their is some evidence, such as Salmon Pak, which points to a possible involvement of Iraq with 9-11.

However, that was never the administration's position.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Sun, 02-08-2004 - 12:30pm
<>

LOL! They specifically said that Iraq was not am imminent threat, and made it clear that Iraq's WMD were only dangerous to the US, as opposed to countries in the region, if they were passed along to terrorists.

There was absolutely no subterfuge about that. Even Democrats who voted for the war, said the exact same thing:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

TOM DASCHLE, on the war resolution, back in 2002:

Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored."


Dick Gephardt:

"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.


<>

If that's the case, you should be able to find plenty of quotes by the president or cabinet memebers speaking on behalf of the administration making just such inferences. You post them, & I'll put them against all the quotes I've already found to the contrary, and then you can make the case that for some reason, the majority of the American population were brainwashed to hear your so-called inferences, understand the secret message the administration was appearantly sending to them, and believe it instead of the numerous direct statements the administration made when presenting their case to the public.

<>

As we observed before SH was overthrown. His forces didn't even put up a fight, and the times when they were ordered to use chemical weapons, nothing happened because all the units thought the other ones had them when in reality none did which supports what Kay said--that the scientists were gaming Saddam and he no longer had any control over them. That put them in the position of being able to freelance Iraq becoming a chem & bio supermarket for the many terrorists who we now know were passing through Iraq just as Khan made Pakistan for nucs.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 02-08-2004 - 3:53pm
Yep, it's a laughing matter alright. Americans have died, are dying, and are being maimed in a war that was BOGUS. I would just love to have a quote from someone (not "in the bowels of the White House") which specifically denies imminent threat BEFORE the conflict was started. I gotta tell you that I don't think you can show that quote.

The Democrats listened to the administration--probably partly for political reasons, probably also partly to present a united front. This whole situation has been heavily politicized by both parties to the point where I seriously doubt the integrity of any political animal. To me, it's not a matter of partisan politics--at all. It's about life and death and the way in which the United States is seen by the rest of the world community.

If you would like to read a Bush speech which puts Iraq and 9/11 in close enough proximity to make it sound like a cause/effect relationship, go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

It was hardly a secret message. I don't doubt that you will try to find some way to wiggle here too but there's not a whole lot of room.

This administration has been anything but straight forward and direct. They are shameless in using smoke and mirrors to arrive at their goals. They gambled but guess what--others paid the ultimate price.

Let me see if I have grasped the premise of your last paragraph. Saddam Hussein was being gamed by his scientists to the point that SH couldn't actually bring any particular threat to bear in an organized way BUT his scientists were freelancing and peddling their own technology to the terrorists. Funny, but that's the first time I've heard that interpretation. Where's the proof?

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

Pages