Case for Iraq War Stronger Than Ever

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
We sure do hear a bunch about how WMD have not been found but why don't we hear about all of this?


Case for Iraq War Stronger Than Ever

Chief weapons of mass destruction hunter David Kay's pronouncement over the weekend that he doesn't think the U.S. will ever find Iraq's WMD stockpiles has all but demolished the Bush administration's central justification for the Iraq war.

But as the WMD case grew increasingly weaker over the last year, the case for war against Saddam Hussein actually became more and more compelling - based on the growing dossier of evidence linking the Iraqi dictator to the 9/11 attacks.

Though the Bush administration has strenuously looked the other way on one blockbuster development after another, the 9/11 file on Baghdad has grown to include:

* A memo from Iraqi intelligence uncovered by the London Sunday Telegraph last month stating that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had completed his training regimen in Baghdad under the tutelage of notorious Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. The memo was dated just two months before the World Trade Center attacks.

In one passage, the Iraqi intelligence chief reportedly informs Saddam that Atta had demonstrated his capability as leader of the team "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy."

* A Defense Department memo detailing over 50 contacts between senior officials in Iraq and Osama bin Laden's minions going back to the 1980's. According to a Nov. 2003 report in the Weekly Standard, the memo cites evidence that Ahmed al Ani, the Iraqi intelligence chief in Czechoslovakia, "ordered the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] finance officer to issue [Mohammed] Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office."

* A Wall Street Journal report linking Flight 93 hijacker Ziad Jarrah to Abu Nidal, who had reportedly helped train his 9/11 partner Mohammed Atta. "A constant figure in Jarrah's life in Germany was his great-uncle, Assem Omar Jarrah," the Journal said. "According to the German magazine, Der Spiegel, Assem Jarrah worked for a long time as an informer for the Stasi, the East German secret service, while maintaining connections to [Abu] Nidal's terror group."

Eleven months after the 9/11 attacks, Nidal was executed in Baghdad by Saddam's secret police in what many believe was an attempted cover-up of Iraq's 9/11 complicity.

* A November 11, 2001 report in the London Observer citing the accounts of two Iraqi defectors who say they helped train radical Islamists to overcome U.S. flight crews using only small knives - a technique never used before 9/11 - at Iraq's Salman Pak terrorist training facility.

Sabah Khododa, one of the defectors, told PBS's Frontline that he believed the 9/11 attacks had been executed "by graduates of Salman Pak."

While the defectors' accounts were widely reported at the time, the media later dropped the story as the Bush administration built its WMD case against Iraq.

* U.S. satellite photos confirming the existence of a Boeing 707 fuselage that Khodada and his partner say was used as a hijacking classroom. U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who was tapped on Friday to succeed David Kay, corroborated their account.

"We reported [the Salman Pak hijacking drills] at the time, but they've obviously taken on new significance" after the 9/11 attacks," Duelfer told USA Today at the time.

* A May 7, 2003 decision by Manhattan U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer, who awarded $104 million to two families of 9/11 victims based on the testimony of Khodada, Duelfer and former CIA Director James Woolsey, as well as other evidence presented to his court.

In his opinion Judge Baer wrote that the case was "sufficient to meet plaintiffs' burden that Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al Qaeda's terrorist acts of September 11."

* The account of former CIA Director Woolsey, whose testimony was summarized by Judge Baer thusly:

"Director Woolsey described the existence of a highly secure military facility in Iraq where non-Iraqi fundamentalists [e.g., Egyptians and Saudis] are trained in airplane hijacking and other forms of terrorism. Through satellite imagery and the testimony of three Iraqi defectors, plaintiffs demonstrated the existence of this facility, called Salman Pak, which has an airplane but no runway."

Judge Baer continued: "The defectors also stated that these fundamentalists were taught methods of hijacking using utensils or short knives. Plaintiffs contend it is farfetched to believe that Iraqi agents trained fundamentalists in a top-secret facility for any purpose other than to promote terrorism."

The failure to turn up Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is being called a stunning intelligence failure. But the far more startling intelligence blunder may turn out to be the Bush administration's decision not to spotlight reams of compelling evidence tying Iraq to 9/11.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,245
Tokens
You don't hear about it because it doesn't serve the liberal self-hating bullshit they're constantly trying to sell.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
If there had been evidence that Iraq aided Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks (and Powell is on record recently as saying there is no evidence ... everything you have listed here is still speculation at this point) then why was it not presented to the UN Security Council?

Are you suggesting that it is okay for the US to attack a country based on the notion that 'you never know what you mind find in there'???

Look, the world was not against the invasion of Afghanistan, because a clear case for self-defence had been made. You simply cannot say the same thing about Iraq.

If it has suddenly become the US's job to take down all dictators because they are more likely to aid terrorist organizations than democratic nations, the US will certainly have its hands full.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
I don't know if these alleged "links" are accurate or significant or not, but I would guess that if 9/11 links were going to be the basis for war then after Afghanistan, SAUDI ARABIA would have been higher up on the list than Iraq, probably Syria as well.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> * A May 7, 2003 decision by Manhattan U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer, who awarded $104 million to two families of 9/11 victims based on the testimony of Khodada, Duelfer and former CIA Director James Woolsey, as well as other evidence presented to his court.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This FACT was rarely if at all mentioned by the mainstream media...The libs are always wanting a fair trial by the US court system for war criminals.So this civil suit was won in an American court on the bases that there was in FACT a link....funny it passes the smell test for a US Court but its not worthy enough for the Bush hating crowd.
If the traitor in Chief Bill Clinton were pursuing this war you wouldn't have half the protest.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
I wonder how much c**** examination there was by Iraq's lead counsel? Oh yeah, obviously there was none. This is like a default judgment. It's on the books because a case was presented, but when a case isn't defended it doesn't go a long way to proving the alleged "facts".
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,245
Tokens
Xpanda...I don't think you have all the facts. Unless you have a top-secret clearance with the U.S. government and access to all classified information, you don't know all there is to know about these issues concerning the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Do you really believe you know all there is to know beause you've read the NYT, USA Today, checked out some internet sites and listened to some Dean and Kerry interviews? You're on the outside looking in. We all are.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
American, and do you really believe that if the Bush Administration had solid proof that Saddam was linked to 9/11 that they wouldn't be shouting it from the mountaintops?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,245
Tokens
D2bets...We don't know the "half of it". All we know for sure is that the U.S. armed forces got their man. Now, what have you convinced yourself that you "know"?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
They may have gotten "their man" but they haven't gotten the man that we were told post 9/11 would be captured "dead or alive" -- the man who was actually was responsible for 9/11 and who has threatened future attacks. The man whose name Bush is scared to now utter.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
608
Tokens
This is what I don't understand Pat....

You justify us going to war because of WMD, links to terrorism, general human rights atrocities, the fact that Saddam was a nasty dictator, and the general consensus that the world is a better place without Saddam.

Would you please rank in relevance how we should go about invading and occupying these other countries.

China: Worse human rights records than Iraq, Communist, in possession of WMD, will invade Taiwan.
North Korea: Worse human rights record than Iraq, Communist, in possession of WMD, will invade South Korea if given chance.
Saudi Arabia: Oppressive nonsecular government, more links to terrorism than the Jackyl, in possession of WMD,
Syria: Links to terrorism, hates Israel and contributed to many Israelis deaths, harbors terrorists and has a very bad human rights record.
Turkey: Has killed more Kurds than Saddam, in possession of WMD, god knows how many terrorists call Turkey home.
Iran: In possesion of WMD, sponsors terrorists, non democratic, non secular, horrific human rights records.
Rwanda: Human rights? Genocide. Will we stop it if it happens again?
Congo: 50,000 people dead in 3 years. Not human rights
Azerbaijan: No free, fair elections. Massive beatings and killings of people of the opposition party. In possession of WMD.
Indonesia: In possession of WMD, Sponsor of terrorism, Genocidal.
Pakistan: Sponsor and harbor of terrorism, in Possession of WMD.

Please rank those for now.
 

Andersen celebrates his 39-yard NFC Championship w
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,789
Tokens
Again this is the same spin that I am starting to hear over and over. Stick to the reason we invaded the country.

What our President presented to us in a barn storm of speeches to invade Iraq has not exactly come to fruition.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
American: let me just make sure I fully understand what you're saying here ... you're suggesting that the US may have all this time had additional information that links Saddam and Al Qaeda but have for some reason of national security chosen to tell neither its own citizens or the UN of this information? None of it?

Assuming you think it's okay for your government to keep such information from you (and I don't agree with that) then why not have the same level of security concerning Afghanistan?

Why are you so hell-bent on believing that there is a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda? Is it that underneath it all, you have a sense that perhaps the invasion wasn't justified after all, and that you must find some good excuse, since the WMD isn't going to fly anymore, to justify it?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
massmil.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You justify us going to war because of WMD, links to terrorism, general human rights atrocities, the fact that Saddam was a nasty dictator, and the general consensus that the world is a better place without Saddam <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ask your UN buddys what they are doing about it??...oooppps!! forgot, most of those countries are in the UN.
If I thought they had involment in giving comfort and support to terroist that would do this country harm I would say go for it....that would include France, and Saudi Arabia.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
Let's not forget that President Bush is not the one doing the investigation and research as to if Iraq has WMD. He only knows what the intelligence directors tell him. He only makes decisions based on what he is told.

The fact is that the whole world knew Saddam had these weapons. Clinton said he did, Bush said he did, and the all mighty UN
icon_rolleyes.gif
said he did, and, if this information in this thread is true, which we all know it is right? Because everything we post, liberals and conservatives, is from reliable web sites right? Then the case for war as been proven.

KMAN
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
X<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Why are you so hell-bent on believing that there is a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda? Is it that underneath it all, you have a sense that perhaps the invasion wasn't justified after all, and that you must find some good excuse, since the WMD isn't going to fly anymore, to justify it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
17 UN resolutions justified it...they went on the same intelligence that we did,just because their wasn't any WMD as it turned out does not say this was unjustified.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Kman: what a g**** manipulation of people's words ... everyone, of course, knew that at one time Saddam had these weapons, but we all knew he no longer did. In effect, the US's actions are akin to asking someone to drop their weapons, then hitting them over the head with a baseball bat.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
X<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Why are you so hell-bent on believing that there is a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda? Is it that underneath it all, you have a sense that perhaps the invasion wasn't justified after all, and that you must find some good excuse, since the WMD isn't going to fly anymore, to justify it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
17 UN resolutions justified it...they went on the same intelligence that we did,just because their wasn't any WMD as it turned out does not say this was unjustified.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Resolution 1441, the one that Powell was pushing at the end after it was clear that the UN was not buying his WMD argument, called for Saddam Hussein to effectively resign. Hmmm .... and the UN didn't uphold that one, gee, wonder why? The UN is NOT in the business of overturning governments that do not pose an imminent threat to other countries. The US used to be like that, too, until your Mr. Bush came along and changed the rules.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
xpanda - If you have $100 in your house and I tell you that in 3 months I am going to come search your house for $100, what are going to do? You guys act like Saddam is stupid.

The only stupid thing the US did was wait 3 months trying to get UN apporval. If we would have went in right away we would have found.

Do you think that Police call people ahead of time and say "Hey, we have a search warrant to search for something in your house and we will be there Tuesday at 5:00pm"?

We all know that you would hide the money. Saddam has hid the weapons and we will find them eventually.

KMAN
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,179
Messages
13,565,025
Members
100,756
Latest member
68gbcasino1
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com