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

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-2003
Sun, 02-08-2004 - 4:48pm
Thanks I think its called selective memory.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-2003
Sun, 02-08-2004 - 4:49pm
Lets have soemthing to back that up.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Sun, 02-08-2004 - 8:56pm
<>

The lies the left has been spreading about this war are nothing if not laughable.

<>

Oh dear! The quote from the day the war started wasn't good enough for you? You think the president knew at that point that stockpiles of WMD wouldn't turn up? You are a riot!

Going back to the 2003 SoU Address before the war started, we find the same thing,



Going back to one of your previous statemnents,

<>

and comparing it to what CNN reported the case for war was in 2002 after it had just been voted on,



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

you can see that the case was not made that the stockpiles of unaccounted for weapons were not an imminent threat to anyone in the region, let alone to us. They were a violation of UN resolutions & the 1991 ceasefire, and we were taking action at the time because of the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on some.

The 2002 Bush speech that you so kindly linked to lays it out the same way, not only once,



but twice,




<>

Uh-huh-huh. Congress is a co-equal branch of government and doesn't rely on the administration for its intelligence. They get it directly from the various intelligence agencies just like the Prez does, and one bi-partisan investigation has already said that the CIA was not pressured to slant it's findings as has George Tennent, "hey painted an objective assessment for our policy-makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests. No one told us what to say or how to say it." Try another one to discount these quotes:

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.

Here's a new one. How about Bill Clinton last June on Larry King:

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

<>" TARGET="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html>>

You're going to have to do better than that. In that speech, Bush makes it clear that acting against Iraq is necessary to keep WMDs away from terrorists, and to enforce 1441.

Every word the president said about Saddam's link to terrorists & specifically to Al-Queda was true, and far from implying an Iraq connection to 9-11, it is clear that he was specifically concerned with Iraq's WMD falling into their hands and not for some kind of retribution for 9-11.



<>

Dr Kay is not the useful idiot the anti-war party claims By Melanie Phillips

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/02/01/do0102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/02/01/ixopinion.html

The Fog of War By Peter D. Feaver, Washington Post

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11983

'Kay' Sera, Sera: There was probably no way to know about the absence of Iraqi weapons BY R. JAMES WOOLSEY

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004660

A Tale of Two Reports: David Kay and Lord Hutton By Christopher Hitchens

http://slate.msn.com/id/2094687

Intelligence failure David Warren

http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/Comment/Jan04/index193.shtml

Missed Signals On WMD? By David Ignatius

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17489-2004Feb5.html


Edited 2/8/2004 9:08:36 PM ET by wrhen

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Sun, 02-08-2004 - 10:31pm
I'll just do what others around here do and say...


I AGREE!!!

~W IN04~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sun, 02-08-2004 - 11:15pm

Were you out of the country when this was happening? ;)


I ask again.... Why disclaim something if it was never claimed?


>"Distancing himself from remarks by Vice President Cheney, President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — disputing an idea held by many Americans."<


>"Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the main architects for the war in Iraq, admitted for the first time last month that Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 terrorist attacks, contradicting Cheney and other senior White House and Pentagon officials whose attempt to link Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization al-Qaeda was cited by the Bush administration as one of the main reasons for launching a preemptive strike in March against Iraq."<


 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Mon, 02-09-2004 - 10:04am
Chaney & Wolfie both made remarks about what they expected to find--a link between Iraq & Al Queda, but in all the remarks that I heard them make, they were clear that they were not speaking officially for the adiminstration, but of their personal views which they are allowed to have.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-29-2004
Mon, 02-09-2004 - 11:10am
I thought there was a good bit of evidence that al-Qaeda was active and involoved in Iraq. So saddam may have not been directly involved in the planning of 9-11-01. So what?

President Bush declared that if you are a country that funds, supports, or protects terrorist activity, you will be dealt with as if you are a terrorist.

I could've sworn I remember training camps found and cyanide linked to al-Qaeda...

I'll go look...

~W IN04~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 02-09-2004 - 3:38pm

>"they were clear that they were not speaking officially for the adiminstration"<


If they were the CLEAR the why the disclaimer?

cl-Libraone





 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Mon, 02-09-2004 - 4:24pm
For the same reason we're on our 3rd or 4th cycle of the meritless AWOL story and people are still spreading the 'imminent threat' lie.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-06-2003
Mon, 02-09-2004 - 11:46pm
>> <<

That speaks of 'imminence' to me. Just because the words 'imminent threat' are not used does not mean they weren't implied. If one knows the worst and acts to prevent that from happening, there is some general understanding that one assumes that the worst is in danger of happening quite soon. otherwise, why not wait until agreement with the UN? we could have managed, with some arm-twisting/bribing/etc, to achieve that. or, at least, until we had some better proof of whether or not the purported weaponry existed.