Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Does anyone have a link showing that Hussein was not supporting

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Ohio Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-04 07:59 PM
Original message
Does anyone have a link showing that Hussein was not supporting
al Queda and their ilk? It would be useful if it were a link to a news organization that a right-winger wouldn't automatically reject. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-04 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. ChimpCo Inc kept asking him to prove negatives.....
The burden of proof should fall to the accusers. How would you prove the lack of a connection to something?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-04 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. Im not sure where I seen it ...
But sometime during the Nigerian letter fiasco, the CIA under Tenet issued a report which clearly rejected any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda ... It was this report that sent the PNAC nutcases through the roof ...

This report should be dated sometime after the Intelligence Estimate and before Powell's Feb 6th comments before the UN ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-04 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. Fact that there is nothing showing he was supporting al Queda
should be conclusive proof to any reasonable person. If there was anything, any tiny scrap of evidence, the junta would have it plastered across every TV and newspaper in the world. But there is NADA.

You don't need to prove a negative to a right winger. Nothing you can say will sink in anyway. Just keep asking them to prove to you that Saddam was supporting al Queda. BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHAAAAA :evilgrin:
It'll make their heads spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Narraback Donating Member (510 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-04 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
4. From another thread...
Edited on Sat Apr-24-04 08:22 PM by Narraback
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm


Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link


Bush maintains Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are connected
US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.

Mr Bush did however repeat his belief that the former Iraqi president had ties to al-Qaeda - the group widely regarded as responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-04 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
5. Here. Easy to find more evidence through quick research also.
Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddams secular police state and Osama bin Ladens Islamic terrorism network were in league. At most, there were occasional meetings.

Moreover, the U.S. intelligence community never concluded that those meetings produced an operational relationship, American officials said. That verdict was in a secret report by the CIAs Directorate of Intelligence that was updated in January 2003, on the eve of the war.

We could find no provable connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, a senior U.S. official acknowledged. He and others spoke on condition of anonymity.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/2004/03/04/news/na...

WASHINGTON, July 25 (UPI) -- A member of the independent commission set up to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has accused the Bush administration of deliberately delaying publication of an earlier congressional inquiry into the attacks.

Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., told United Press International that the White House did not want the report made public before launching military action in Iraq. He said the administration feared publication might undermine the administration's case for war, which was based in part on the allegation that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had supported Osama bin Laden -- and the attendant possibility that Iraq might supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction.

"The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war," said Cleland. "There's no connection, and that's been confirmed by some of bin Laden's terrorist followers ... What you've seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends."

Cleland accused the administration of deliberately delaying the report's release to avoid having its case for war undercut.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030723-064812-949...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Narraback Donating Member (510 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-04 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Thanks... I will save those.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-04 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Thanks.
How did you find those? I've been Googling for an hour.

And I'm not in an argument with a freeper. I'm comparing Iraq to North Korea in what may turn into a website. The point being that North Korea has WMD's, can strike the US, sells arms to anyone who wants them, is a member of the "Axis of Evil," and is being run by a brutal dictator. If the reasons Bush gave to invade Iraq are the real reasons, why doesn't he want to invade North Korea? (Oil)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-04 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Google: bush iraq saddam bin laden no connection n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-04 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
7. Here is a good one from a RW publication:
This is a RW news source, and the article was written by someone that voted for Bu$h in 2000.

Yes, Bush lied
Posted: October 6, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
2003 WorldNetDaily.com

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks, Bush confessed last month, finally repeating for the public what his own intelligence services had told him a year earlier.

The president's spokespeople say they're shocked, shocked, to learn that seven in 10 Americans tell pollsters they blame Saddam Hussein for the 9-11 attacks. Gee, they pondered, wherever did they get such an idea?

Oh, maybe from all the president's speeches and remarks suggesting Saddam was to blame for 9-11, starting with this one....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_I...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-04 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
10. He was giving sanctuary to the head of Abu Nidal....
but the guy started plotting against Saddam, so they executed him. This is per a news conference given by Tariq Aziz when Saddam was still in power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No2W2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-04 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
11. It is pretty obvious

when you do a bit of reading...

Al Queda is a very radical Muslim fundamentalist group
Saddam killed fundamentalist. He was very paranoid of ANYONE getting more "popular" than him. I've read where a shia cleric was starting to gather a large following. Saddam arrested him and is sister. The cleric was strapped to a chair and forced to watch as his sister was raped and tortured. He was then killed by having nails driven through is skull. There is no way in hell Al Queda would ever work with Saddam and Saddam would never work with Al Queda for fear of being overthrown by them. What I ask myself, is if I can figure that out by doing a little research through google, why can't the US govt. figure it out?

The only logical conclusion is they are lying for their own purposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-04 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Sure.
I know it's obvious after a little reading, and you know it's obvious after a little reading, but since when does that matter to the non-reading public? You know, the ones that still think Iraq has WMD's and was responsible for 9/11?

Your point is well taken, and correct, but try using common sense and a little reading to convince someone of something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 06:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC