<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">WASHINGTON (AP) _ There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President Bush's justification for invading Iraq. Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none. Republicans countered that there was little new in the report and Democrats were trying to score election-year points with it. The declassified document released Friday by the intelligence committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war. It concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents. The 400-page report comes at a time when Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections. It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government ``did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.'' Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year. White House press secretary Tony Snow said the report was ``nothing new.'' ``In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on,'' Snow said. That was ``one of the reasons you had overwhelming majorities in the United States Senate and the House for taking action against Saddam Hussein,'' he said. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a member of the committee, said the long-awaited report was ``a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts'' to link Saddam to al-Qaida. The administration, said Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va., top Democrat on the committee, ``exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe _ contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time _ that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks.'' The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said it has long been known that prewar assessments of Iraq ``were a tragic intelligence failure.'' But he said the Democratic interpretations expressed in the report ``are little more than a vehicle to advance election-year political charges.'' He said Democrats ``continue to use the committee to try and rewrite history, insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime.'' </div> Source
This is nothing new, if you actually understood Islamic terrorism. Terrorist groups dispised Saddam about as much as Bush. There were so many atrocities committed under his regime, but terrorism can't be one.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">This is nothing new, if you actually understood Islamic terrorism. Terrorist groups dispised Saddam about as much as Bush. There were so many atrocities committed under his regime, but terrorism can't be one.</div> The problem is most people don't understand Islamic terrorism, and the Bush Administration took advantage of peoples ignorance and fear from 9/11 to justify going into Iraq.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">The problem is most people don't understand Islamic terrorism, and the Bush Administration took advantage of peoples ignorance and fear from 9/11 to justify going into Iraq.</div> I agree, and I can't really understand why it takes this long for a senate to realize that. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Republicans countered that there was little new in the report and Democrats were trying to score election-year points with it. </div> I find this part of the article a bit disturbing, as Republicans seem to admit that they pretty much lied to the country.
Bin Laden wants the capital of his caliphate to be in Iraq. This is coming from his own mouth. Iraq is part of the equation.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">Bin Laden wants the capital of his caliphate to be in Iraq. This is coming from his own mouth. Iraq is part of the equation.</div> I don't know why you brought that up, as it really isn't relevant to anything. It doesn't prove any link between Islamic terrorism and Saddam's regime, and therefore provides no justification for the war in Iraq. If you understood the actual goals of Bin Laden and other Islam fundamentalists, you would know that their real targets are secular-run Islamic nations like the former Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. Their acts of aggression on Western nations are meant to create instability in the Middle East, so that they may take control of the government and set up a religiously extreme caliphate (similar to Afghanistan). When Hussein was in power, these fundamentalist movements, supported by terrorists, were brutally supressed. Therefore, his government was probably as far from an ally as you could call one. In reality, the US-led invasion of Iraq played directly into the hands of Islamic terrorists, as their movements have finally begun to gain support amid the continuing conflict.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't know why you brought that up, as it really isn't relevant to anything. It doesn't prove any link between Islamic terrorism and Saddam's regime, and therefore provides no justification for the war in Iraq. If you understood the actual goals of Bin Laden and other Islam fundamentalists, you would know that their real targets are secular-run Islamic nations like the former Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. Their acts of aggression on Western nations are meant to create instability in the Middle East, so that they may take control of the government and set up a religiously extreme caliphate (similar to Afghanistan). When Hussein was in power, these fundamentalist movements, supported by terrorists, were brutally supressed. Therefore, his government was probably as far from an ally as you could call one. In reality, the US-led invasion of Iraq played directly into the hands of Islamic terrorists, as their movements have finally begun to gain support amid the continuing conflict.</div> What do you mean it doesn't relate to anything? This thread is about Iraq, it is far from off-topic. I don't have to link Saddam with anything, I think you failed to realize what Bin Laden wants. We don't have to sit here and guess, did you listen to Bush's speech a few days ago? Bin Laden already clarified directly what he desires. He wishes for the entire world to be run by one government of extreme islamists. This came directly from his mouth, I am reporting the news to you. He states that Iraq is the most important front in a new global war. Compliments of CNN, fellow.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">What do you mean it doesn't relate to anything? This thread is about Iraq, it is far from off-topic. I don't have to link Saddam with anything, I think you failed to realize what Bin Laden wants. We don't have to sit here and guess, did you listen to Bush's speech a few days ago? Bin Laden already clarified directly what he desires. He wishes for the entire world to be run by one government of extreme islamists. This came directly from his mouth, I am reporting the news to you. He states that Iraq is the most important front in a new global war.</div> This thread is about how the Senate released a report that revealed that there was no link between Bin Laden/Islamic terrorists and Saddam Hussein's government. Since a major part of Bush's justification for invading Iraq was built upon the supposed link, this means that the war was started on a deliberate lie and is unjust. So, I'll restate my original question: how does Bin Laden stating that he wants to set up a fundamentalist government where Hussein formerly ruled, provide any justification for the invasion? Furthermore, what does it have to do with this topic at all?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">This thread is about how the Senate released a report that revealed that there was no link between Bin Laden/Islamic terrorists and Saddam Hussein's government. Since a major part of Bush's justification for invading Iraq was built upon the supposed link, this means that the war was started on a deliberate lie and is unjust. So, I'll restate my original question: how does Bin Laden stating that he wants to set up a fundamentalist government where Hussein formerly ruled, provide any justification for the invasion? Furthermore, what does it have to do with this topic at all?</div> You're being quite picky to be honest. This thread is about how Iraq shouldn't have been invaded, or it will lead down that path. Thus I posted what I did, I could also discuss Saddam a bit, but I don't find that as entertaining. Seriously, ask a mod to delete my posts if you're that disturbed. Lay off otherwise.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">You're being quite picky to be honest. This thread is about how Iraq shouldn't have been invaded, or it will lead down that path. Thus I posted what I did. Seriously, ask a mod to delete my posts if you're that disturbed. Lay off otherwise.</div> If you were responding to someone asking if the war should be abandoned now, then you're point would make sense. This thread is questioning if the war should have been started in the first place. And stating that it stops Bin Laden from setting up a caliphate in Iraq is ignorant, because Hussein's government was already doing that.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">If you were responding to someone asking if the war should be abandoned now, then you're point would make sense. This thread is questioning if the war should have been started in the first place. And stating that it stops Bin Laden from setting up a caliphate in Iraq is ignorant, because Hussein's government was already doing that.</div> Um what? Someone who supports Hamas and offers 35 grand per homicide bomber is stopping the caliphate (more like instituting their own agenda) ? That is a global escapade, not just limited to the middle east. You're dense, go pick up some books. I've seen countless other posters go much more off topic then I have, my previous post explains all the others either way.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">Um what? Someone who supports Hamas and offers 35 grand per homicide bomber is stopping the caliphate? That is a global escapade, not just limited to the middle east. You're dense, go pick up some books. I've seen countless other posters go much more off topic then I have, my previous post explains all the others eitherway.</div> Why the hell would someone support a movement that advocates the overthrow of his own government? I honestly think you meant to post in shapecity's other thread about if the war in Iraq should be continued, and you got lost along the way. It's not just about off-topic, it just doesn't make sense.
[quote name='Chutney'] Since a major part of Bush's justification for invading Iraq was built upon the supposed link, QUOTE] interesting point but u assume wrongly that people are rational and more importantly that their pretense for war has been static. to that end, this report should be about how bush and co. bamboozled the american public again. first it was terrorism (the purported link); that worked fine so they wanted to dignify themselves in the history books so they went next with liberation and democracy, that didn't work out so well and finally with the GOP plummeting at the polls leading into the election, they decided to go with terrorism and regional stability (clamping down on al queda insurgents). three b.s. reasons and the lies will keep on coming.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">Why the hell would someone support a movement that advocates the overthrow of his own government? I honestly think you meant to post in shapecity's other thread about if the war in Iraq should be continued, and you got lost along the way. It's not just about off-topic, it just doesn't make sense.</div> Uh you don't get it. Saddam can't suppress the kind of caliphate Bin Laden wants to accomplish. The caliphate is an international venture. Thus your claim was false. This topic is going to be infested with anti-Iraq rants, I simply posted ahead of time a pro-ish style post. What don't you comprehend? You need to move on, even if I were to agree I went off topic, it's not going to kill anyone. That's quite sensitive of you to go on and on.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception:</div><div class="quote_post"> interesting point but u assume wrongly that people are rational and more importantly that their pretense for war has been static. to that end, this report should be about how bush and co. bamboozled the american public again. first it was terrorism (the purported link); that worked fine so they wanted to dignify themselves in the history books so they went next with liberation and democracy, that didn't work out so well and finally with the GOP plummeting at the polls leading into the election, they decided to go with terrorism and regional stability (clamping down on al queda insurgents). three b.s. reasons and the lies will keep on coming.</div> Yea, I know that I was oversimplifying. It was just an attempt to show huevonkiller how his point was irrelevant. In reality, Bush's justification for the war has been a rollercoaster ride of lies and empty promises. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">Uh you don't get it. Saddam can't suppress the kind of caliphate Bin Laden wants to accomplish. The caliphate is an international venture. Thus your claim was false. This topic is going to be infested with anti-Iraq rants, I simply posted ahead of time a pro-ish style post. What don't you comprehend? You need to move on, even if I were to agree I went off topic, it's not going to kill anyone. That's quite sensitive of you to go on and on.</div> Well, he had been supressing it for about 20 or so years, before he was overthrown by the US. If anybody's gotten sensitive, it's you. I've simply disagreed with your opinion, while you've stooped to calling me stubborn and sensitive for doing so, instead of actually proving your original point.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post"><div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception:</div><div class="quote_post">Since a major part of Bush's justification for invading Iraq was built upon the supposed link, </div> Yea, I know that I was oversimplifying. It was just an attempt to show huevonkiller how his point was irrelevant. In reality, Bush's justification for the war has been a rollercoaster ride of lies and empty promises.</div> I didn't mention Bush's justification anywhere... His reasons for going to war are not my main points in any of my posts. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Well, he had been supressing it for about 20 or so years, before he was overthrown by the US. If anybody's gotten sensitive, it's you. I've simply disagreed with your opinion, while you've stooped to calling me stubborn and sensitive for doing so, instead of actually proving your original point.</div> Uh, whatever, more over simplification. What original point did I not prove btw? And it is obnoxious the way you whine about going off topic, that's not being sensitive, but rather, being annoyed. You did not simply disagree with my opinion, hah.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">I didn't mention Bush's justification anywhere... His reasons for going to war are not my main points in any of my posts.</div> Then why did you post here?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">Then why did you post here?</div> Why don't you scroll up?
u guys brought the notion of the caliphate, something that many people believe that muslims so dispersed by cultural and language need for unity. well a recent CIA paper released apparently states they plan to establish a caliphate in the next 30 years to act as an moral lynchpin to keep order. it does two things, it establishes what is: permissible (free trade) and not (terrorism) btw, interesting debate guys, but instead of attacking each other, u might consider attacking one anothers arguments.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception:</div><div class="quote_post">u guys brought the notion of the caliphate, something that many people believe that muslims so dispersed by cultural and language need for unity. well a recent CIA paper released apparently states they plan to establish a caliphate in the next 30 years to act as an moral lynchpin to keep order. it does two things, it establishes what is: permissible (free trade) and not (terrorism) btw, interesting debate guys, but instead of attacking each other, u might consider attacking one anothers arguments.</div> Well that depends, I don't know if I have permission from Mr. Chutney to post here.
