Senate Report: No Pre-War Link Between Hussein and al Qaeda

News:

Not that it will make any difference to neoconservative dead-enders, but a keenly anticipated Senate report released this afternoon confirms that there was no pre-war intelligence to suggest a relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government. That comes as part of two chapters of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s analysis of pre-war intelligence being released today, the rest of which will be delayed until well after the midterm elections. Today’s release includes a declassified October 2005 CIA assessment that Hussein’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates”, contradicting the Bush administration’s claims that Zarqawi’s presence ahead of the invasion was proof of an Iraq-al Qaeda link. White House spokesman Tony Snow quickly dismissed the report as “nothing new”. The full report—assuming the GOP ever allows it to see the light of day—contrasts the White House’s pre-war statements made in public with the intelligence it viewed in private.

Comments

(150)

yeah yeah yeah!!

Tell us something we don't know!!!

"You can't be in the right place at the right time if you don't go." -me '91

By neptune612September 8, 2006 - 1:48pm

Jesus H. CHRIST.

TOOK THEM LONG ENOUGH TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE REST OF US KNEW ... and we ELECT these people??!!

By Pookie2112September 8, 2006 - 1:54pm

Senate Pre-War Intel Reports (PDFs Here)

Senate Pre-War Intel Reports (PDFs Here)
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001490.php

Senate Releases Pre-War Intel Reports

AP reports:

There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush's justification for going to war.

The declassified document being released Friday by the Senate 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 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.

The two sections of the report released by the Senate intelligence committee can be found here:

Report: "Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments"

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiinc.pdf
Report: "The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress"
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiinc.pdf

from tpmmuckraker

"He who allows oppression, shares the crime." : Erasmus Darwin

By HobbitGoddessSeptember 8, 2006 - 1:54pm

Was the war declared on just

Was the war declared on just al qaeda? Nope, terror, and nobody can deny that iraq supported terrorism.

By jfroggSeptember 8, 2006 - 2:30pm

Froggy, you really should learn before posting...

War was never formally declared on Iraq.

Really.

You should spend sometime looking it up.

You might learn something.

Or does that hurt your brain too much? Does it cause headaches for you?

By gwicks56September 8, 2006 - 2:41pm

bloviate some more frogophant

it's amusing.

"He who allows oppression, shares the crime." : Erasmus Darwin

By HobbitGoddessSeptember 8, 2006 - 2:41pm

The WTC was attacked by forces of OSAMA BIN LADEN

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - GW Bush, 3/13/02

_resident Weasel NEVER wanted to catch bin Laden. He was after Iraq and its oil. I'm happy that you feel safer, Froggs, 'cos most Americans don't. I'm sure you could volunteer for something in Iraq. If you can't fight anymore you can drive an ambulance, or work for the Red Cross.

By LiberalIconoclastSeptember 8, 2006 - 2:42pm

Chimpy also said

that he "doesn't know where he is, you know, and I, I don't spend that much time on him."

By Pookie2112September 8, 2006 - 2:54pm

Ooh-ooh! Ee-ee!

Chim-Chim McFlightsuit will just throw feces at the Taleban and it will be "Mission Accomplished!"

By LiberalIconoclastSeptember 8, 2006 - 3:20pm

Aah, another dingleberry.

Bushie!  Doin' a helluva job!
Iraq:  Total Fraud, Total Failure - before the first shot.

By Abou Ben AdamSeptember 8, 2006 - 2:47pm

Ah, sorry Froggy ...

you are wrong on this one. The war on terror began in Afghanistan and was meant to eradicate both bin Laden AND Al Qaeda. At that point it wasn't even called the "War on Terror". It wasn't until AFTER we "cut and ran" in Afghanistan and invaded Iraq that terrorists began pouring into the country from Pakistan and Afghanistan. It wasn't renamed the "War on Terror" until we went into Iraq. And, as we now well know, Iraq had no concrete ties to terrorism prior to 9/11.

Seems to me we should have "stayed the course" in Afghanistan instead of "cutting and running" to Iraq.

By Pookie2112September 8, 2006 - 2:48pm

The 30 percenters

will still believe that Al qaeda and Saddam are linked. The report will be dismissed as from that thar LEEBERAL MAYDIA. Facts do not matter in neocon fantasy land

By hufflarry2000September 8, 2006 - 2:55pm

Show me a link

that Iraq and Saddam supported terrorism

By hufflarry2000September 8, 2006 - 2:51pm

There you go

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/15/sprj.irq.saddam.palestinians/...

"Saddam funneled his funds through the front, which gave $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers, $10,000 to the families of those killed in the intifada, and smaller sums to the wounded. "

So now are you going to tell me that giving money to the families of suicide bombers isnt supporting terrorism?

By jfroggSeptember 8, 2006 - 2:57pm

Froggy - thanks for the link

Didn't know that. However, some people will beg to differ since, technically, he was supporting the FAMILIES of the "Palestinian struggle."

By Pookie2112September 8, 2006 - 3:00pm

Would you say that someone

Would you say that someone that hires a hitman is just supporting the hitman's family? Look, i'll be the first to admit that going into iraq was a mistake, we clearly should've started with iran, but hindsight is always 20/20 and we are there now.

By jfroggSeptember 8, 2006 - 3:13pm

Don't get me wrong ... I agree

I'm just giving you a heads-up in case you get slammed ...

By Pookie2112September 8, 2006 - 3:14pm

Heres another

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

This clearly turned out to be just a case of saddam puffing out his chest, but the intel was there.

By jfroggSeptember 8, 2006 - 3:17pm

a 2 year OLD post?

Oh yeah, Russia had NOTHING to gain from the ouster
of Saddam.

next....

"He who allows oppression, shares the crime." : Erasmus Darwin

By HobbitGoddessSeptember 8, 2006 - 3:19pm

there you go trying to stir

there you go trying to stir up trouble again.

By jfroggSeptember 8, 2006 - 3:20pm

Told ya ...

you were probably going to get slammed!

By Pookie2112September 8, 2006 - 3:29pm

Yes you did, its actually

Yes you did, its actually quite refreshing to hear from a sane liberal.

By jfroggSeptember 8, 2006 - 3:31pm

More a Moderate ...

but quite sane!

By Pookie2112September 8, 2006 - 3:43pm

It does seem that there are

It does seem that there are 4 parties anymore. 2 versions of democrats and 2 versions of republicans. the dems have their guys that believe that bush is more evil than the child of hitler and saddam, and republicans have their guys that want manditory prayer in schools and organized racism in the airports.

By jfroggSeptember 8, 2006 - 4:17pm

It seems the center has

disappeared in both parties these days. Us moderates are getting drowned out by the minority FAR left and the minority FAR right.

I notice that the minority groups on both ends are the ones who scream the loudest and make it all that much harder on those of us who prefer things in moderation.

I do, however, believe Karl Rove is the spawn of Satan!

By Pookie2112September 8, 2006 - 5:05pm

the problem is

That the current administration seems to identify more with the far right. He's definitely not a moderate.
To quantify my point:

If we put the center at 0 and the far right at +5, the far left at -5, then Bush (based on his rhetoric) is at least 3.5. Which means that even a person who is just to the right of 0, say 1, is still 2.5 points (25%) more liberal than he is. And a person who is just to the left of 0 is 45% more liberal. Only the far right 15% would be more conservative.

So even moderates are just too liberal for Bush's supporters these days.

The Republicans have a new healthcare proposal: Just say NO to illness!
Mark Russell

By GMFordSeptember 8, 2006 - 5:44pm

GM - Thanks for the calculation

There's no doubt Duh-Dubya & Co.identify with the far right, especially the Christian right. Duh-Dubya DOES claim to confer to a "higher" authority when making decisions about us earth-bound beings. And, God placed him in the presidency. Speaks volumes, huh?

Pretty pitiful and very fucking scary.

By Pookie2112September 8, 2006 - 5:54pm

Has their ever been a

Has their ever been a president that didnt refer to god though? I really do understand the frustration with bush, the war is definitly not going as planned. Similiar things were said about lincoln (please understand im not claiming bush is as good as lincoln) during the civil war. Lincoln claimed the war would be over in 9 weeks and that casualties would be held to a minimum. I heard that google is expanding their newspaper database back untill the 1700's and I will be sure to find some clippings to back up my statements as soon as they become available.

By jfroggSeptember 9, 2006 - 11:52am

ya think?

"the war is definitly not going as planned"..I think It is going as they planned,they didnt want it to be over.this is the plan.. "In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take."
- Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965)

By shlogerSeptember 10, 2006 - 12:39am

What lie would Bush

have used to go to Iran warmonger? "WE" do not go anywhere to fight. Our poor 2600 dead soldiers did for a lie though. "WE" should have went into Iran ya as long as you dont have to go

By hufflarry2000September 8, 2006 - 3:24pm

SING ALONG!! All we are

SING ALONG!! All we are saying, is give war a chance! Is bin laden lying when he calls for jihad? Is president tom of iran lying when he calls for the destruction of israel? How about when they took our guys hostage, was that a lie? By the way, every single one of those 2600 volunteered for service. Another by the way, i did my time in the military, how about you?

By jfroggSeptember 8, 2006 - 3:28pm

What sort of combat

were you in? Were you in Vietnam? Join back up and put your money where your mouth is. They need help. NO? Thought so

By hufflarry2000September 8, 2006 - 3:38pm

They volunteered to serve not die for a maniacs lie

When did Iraq attack us? Where are WMDs?

By hufflarry2000September 8, 2006 - 3:39pm

is this info still valid?

this was from 3 years ago... is this still valid?

if it is then it is good to know. thank you.

"You can't be in the right place at the right time if you don't go." -me '91

By neptune612September 8, 2006 - 3:02pm

Yes, unless the news turned

Yes, unless the news turned out to not be true, which i havent heard anything about.

By jfroggSeptember 8, 2006 - 3:19pm

The Saudis

give more money to the families of terrorists. Why doesn't your boy bomb them? The chechen separatists are terrorists why doesn't your boy bomb them? The tamil tigers are terrorists why doesn't your boy bomb them? Got an answer jfrogg? Or are you just going to embarass yourself further.

By badugaSeptember 8, 2006 - 3:02pm

Chimpy will NEVER go after the Sauds ...

Remember, they are considered the extended Bush family ... Bandar "Bush" anyone? He was the Saudi royal family member Chimpy shared his Iraq invasion plans with before he even shared them with his own Secretary of State.

By Pookie2112September 8, 2006 - 3:07pm

Bush Boys don't attack their own

"You can't be in the right place at the right time if you don't go." -me '91

By neptune612September 8, 2006 - 3:07pm

Nice dodge! The fact remains

Nice dodge! The fact remains that saddam supported terrorists plain and simple and your attempts at a diversion are weak. I thought we were talking about iraq here.

By jfroggSeptember 8, 2006 - 3:11pm

See, you're embarassing yourself.

The 25 g's were for conservative PALESTINIAN terrorists. Next time try an answer.

By badugaSeptember 8, 2006 - 3:14pm

So in what world is giving

So in what world is giving money to the families of suicide bombers not supporting terrorism??? By the way, I never once claimed a link between saddam and bin laden. Never, not once. i see youve taken hobbit's classes.

By jfroggSeptember 8, 2006 - 4:20pm

Baduga I see the point Froggy's making

regarding terrorists ... but you are implying that there's a difference between a Palistinian terrorist and a non-Palistinian terrorist. In my mind, a terrorist is a terrorist, whether in the form of an Islamic Fundamentalist, and evangelical who bombs abortion clinics and suicide bombers in the Middle East. Actually, anyone who instills fear in others can be classified as a terrorist - serial killers, rapists, etc.

By Pookie2112September 8, 2006 - 5:08pm

Instills fear in others...?

Such as perhaps...the Programming Department of Fox News?

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.
---Sinclair Lewis

By LiberalIconoclastSeptember 8, 2006 - 5:15pm

HA! Yeah ...

that works well too!

By Pookie2112September 8, 2006 - 5:22pm

How about people that spread

How about people that spread fear by claiming that we are one election away from living under nazi rule, I think that would qualify as well.

By jfroggSeptember 9, 2006 - 11:46am

just because you are blind to truth

does not mean most Americans are. You are an authoritarian follower(the 30 percenters) and no matter how the truth smacks you in the face you will never believe it.

By hufflarry2000September 9, 2006 - 12:43pm

how about people who say we WILL be attacked

if we vote out their party?

That pretty much covers all the WH crowd.

That's a terrorist tactic -- right out of the handbook
of the Republican Party.

"He who allows oppression, shares the crime." : Erasmus Darwin

By HobbitGoddessSeptember 9, 2006 - 2:36pm

Makes you wonder

If they are threatening us with terrorist attacks if we don't vote them into power, are they the ones responsible for 9/11? If a terrorist attack happens if they lose power, it will seem rather obvious to me who is actually responsible.

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." Confucius

By MichtouSeptember 9, 2006 - 3:16pm

If a terrorist attack happens if they lose power, it will seem r

-brilliant

-Dave

By darmbruster1September 11, 2006 - 2:34pm

hobbit goddess

lets not forget about the statement that chenny said--A vote for
Lamont was a vote for al Quida. Now the neocons are trying to turn our freedom to vote as we choose into a terrorist tactic, sound like hitler to me.

By eyes wide openSeptember 11, 2006 - 2:15am

again post a link

that tells when Saddam said he supported Al Qaeda or bin Laden. Not a half ass truth about Saddam supporting families of terrorists.

By hufflarry2000September 8, 2006 - 3:15pm

You asked for a link that showed he supported terrorism

And i gave you the link. I never claimed that he supported al qaeda, but he did support terrorists.

By jfroggSeptember 8, 2006 - 3:32pm

chirp chirp

chirp chirp

By jfroggSeptember 9, 2006 - 11:45am

I'm still waiting.

Answer, or embarassment jfrogg, which will it be. I'll consider silence an acknowledgement of your inability to give a rational answer.

By badugaSeptember 8, 2006 - 3:39pm

Those are all bad guys, but

Those are all bad guys, but we only have so many bombs. The fact remains that the middle east is the source of the problem.

By jfroggSeptember 8, 2006 - 4:19pm

no -- Bushie's cronies CLAIMED he supported terrorists

But that's turned out to be false.

Here's one instance of a *claim* being made, without factual
evidence --

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/Iraq.Qaeda.link/

George Tenet was the mouthpiece on this one.

"He who allows oppression, shares the crime." : Erasmus Darwin

By HobbitGoddessSeptember 8, 2006 - 9:29pm

Have you not read the senate report?

Saddam had no links to Al Qeada. The terrorists are Al Qeada dumbass. The truth is right in front of you yet you still refuse to believe it. All Bush lies have been exposed yet you refuse to believe it. You are willfully ignrant. Neocons are proud of there ignorance and lack of education. I know you probably live in some southern neocon hell hole area and do not get much info except for right wing lies but please do not tell lies when the facts prove you are wrong. It makes you sound like an ass.

By hufflarry2000September 9, 2006 - 12:50pm

Saddam would NOT support

Saddam would NOT support Al-Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a Saudi group (he had no love of the Saudis). Al-Qaeda is Wahabi, a militant form of Islam that most Sunnis shun, and ALL Shias shun. Hussein would not want Al-Qaeda in Iraq, because Al-Qaeda would be a threat to his power. He also would not fund them.

Who would he fund? Palestinian groups. That's safe for him, politically a plus at home, and a thorn in the side of Israel, which has a history of winning conflicts with Iraq. So, yes, he funded groups we call terrorists, but not the ones you think.

The same with Iran. Iran would not for any reason want anything to do with Al-Qaeda. Palestinians, on the other hand, that's another story.

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." Confucius

By MichtouSeptember 9, 2006 - 3:32pm

talking about

about Iraq vs. Al Qaeda. While there are lots of nasty groups in the world, lots of nasty dictators, that is not the topic. Al Qaeda attacked us - Saddam did not support them in any way.

The Republicans have a new healthcare proposal: Just say NO to illness!
Mark Russell

By GMFordSeptember 9, 2006 - 3:48pm

which terrorist group did he support? Links?

anything.

"He who allows oppression, shares the crime." : Erasmus Darwin

By HobbitGoddessSeptember 10, 2006 - 12:47am

supporting terrorism

We are either at war with every country that supports terrorism or that isn't a legitimate excuse for picking Iraq. And it certainly wasn't the excuse the White House gave the american public.

Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.
John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

By GMFordSeptember 8, 2006 - 4:25pm

That wasn't the reason bush

That wasn't the reason bush picked iraq, the reasons he picked iraq largely turned out to be false, but saddam did support terrorism nonetheless. Realistically, everyone knows why we dont instantly declare war on every nation that supports terrorism, there are simply too many of them, I could make an argument that mexico supports terrorism with its corrupt police force, drug trafficking, and kidnappings. The way i see it, bush thought that iraq was the source of terrorism, when it was really iran.

By jfroggSeptember 8, 2006 - 4:47pm

OR

Saudi Arabia?

The Republicans have a new healthcare proposal: Just say NO to illness!
Mark Russell

By GMFordSeptember 8, 2006 - 4:50pm

I know saudi isnt our

I know saudi isnt our friends, neither is china or russia, but it is possible to work with them. I dont see that as the case with iran.

By jfroggSeptember 8, 2006 - 4:52pm

how do we know though?

They are asking for talks - what's the harm in talking to them? We don't trust them, they don't trust us - couldn't an honest discussion clear the air a little?

I know we think Ahmadinejad is a madman but I'm pretty sure they think Bush is a madman too so we would at least start off on equal footing.

The Republicans have a new healthcare proposal: Just say NO to illness!
Mark Russell

By GMFordSeptember 8, 2006 - 4:58pm

WE have refused

Every time Iran has asked to negotiate with us, WE have refused. We refused when Khatemi was president, and he was a reasonable person we could have dealt with. We are refusing with Ahmaninejad, and he has offered several times to sit with the US and talk. We can't say that it's impossible to work with Iran if WE are the ones who refuse to sit at the table.

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." Confucius

By MichtouSeptember 8, 2006 - 7:23pm

How is iran negotiating?

How is iran negotiating? They refuse to budge on the main issue at hand. Khatemi was reasonable?? Are you serious? Ask the women that were stoned to death for learning to read how reasonable he was. Do you know how they stone them to death? First they bury them up to their necks, then they select stones (too small wont do enough damage, too big will kill to quickly), then the throw the rocks until the woman's dead, lifeless head is too deformed to recognize. Is that reasonable? Oh, wait, thats just tradition right??

By jfroggSeptember 9, 2006 - 11:43am

If you're not in a private

If you're not in a private room talking with the main parties, you're not negotiating. That's what the US is refusing to do. Public posturing, which is what both countries are doing, is for the media. It's not negotiations, which is what Iran has proposed many times and what the US refuses to do.

In IRAN no women were ever stoned to death for learning how to read. Iran has one of the highest levels of educated women in the Islamic middle east. Women in Iran go to the universities. They are doctors. They drive cars (something not allowed in Saudi Arabia, our erstwhile ally). They run businesses. Yes, they have to submit to their husbands, but Iranian men are smart enough to know that when a woman is bringing in a lot of money they're not going to stop it.

If you wonder how I know this, I have Iranian relatives. My late husband was Iranian. I have lived in Iran.

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." Confucius

By MichtouSeptember 9, 2006 - 12:07pm

The u.n. is doing the

The u.n. is doing the negotiating, but iran clearly doesnt want to give up anything, they are stalling plain and simple. By the way, i know i have read articles about women being stoned (not the stoned most libs are thinking of) to death in iran, it may not have been for learning to read, cheating on their husbands maybe?

By jfroggSeptember 9, 2006 - 12:11pm

Stoning is not a widespread

Stoning is not a widespread public policy, it seems to be happening in a backwater area under the rule of a particularly nasty mullah.

If the fundamentalist Christians took over here, we might have stoning for adultery. That's what was happening to Mary Magdalene when Jesus intervened and saved her life. But fundamentalists don't look much at the New Testament. They are really Old Testament followers.

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." Confucius

By MichtouSeptember 9, 2006 - 12:32pm

"The stoning of women is one

"The stoning of women is one of the more savage, and revealing aspects of the mullahs' rule in Iran. This vicious punishment of women is without precedent in Iran's recent history. Since the inception of the mullahs' rule, hundreds of women of various ages have been and continue to be stoned to death throughout Iran."

www.iran-e-azad.org/stoning/women.html

But he's a reasonable guy right?

By jfroggSeptember 9, 2006 - 12:14pm

You're still mistaken

You said women were stoned for LEARNING TO READ. Women and men were stoned for ADULTERY. That is, by the way, the Biblical punishement for adultery. It happens in Saudi Arabia also. It is horrible, I'll agree.

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." Confucius

By MichtouSeptember 9, 2006 - 12:19pm

Ive already corrected myself

Ive already corrected myself on that one, just because its in the bible doesnt make it ok.

By jfroggSeptember 11, 2006 - 8:49am

hahahahaah Froggy's, 'Well of Wit'

just hit bottom......

Like rats on the sinking ship frogga$$.

Your coward cohorts in crime can not wait to make plea deals and write their books.
I hope your retirement Fund is secure... lol

By pb_trueSeptember 11, 2006 - 10:08am

ya like the lynching

of BLACKS in the RED states. My DR is from Iran and they do not stone women any more. Stop getting your news from a drug addict and a phone sex pervert.

By hufflarry2000September 9, 2006 - 12:45pm

your dr is a liar then,

your dr is a liar then, http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=9799
By the way, if its fair to call oreilly a phone sex pervert (never convicted), then its fair for me to call ted kennedy a drunk driving killer.

By jfroggSeptember 11, 2006 - 8:46am

Frogga$$

You are a real idiot.

Did you find your padded headboard yet?
I bet all this frustration makes Rove extra frisky.

By pb_trueSeptember 10, 2006 - 7:14pm

That was funny the first

That was funny the first 1000 times you said it, come up with something new.

By jfroggSeptember 11, 2006 - 8:38am

rather convenient that this page has no DATE?

and it's poorly done as well.

Ohh -- I forgot -- froggy can't surf REAL sites.

"He who allows oppression, shares the crime." : Erasmus Darwin

By HobbitGoddessSeptember 10, 2006 - 8:15pm

Are you suggesting that

Are you suggesting that women arent stoned to death in iran or just attacking my choice in links?

By jfroggSeptember 11, 2006 - 8:37am

"My late husband was Iranian. I have lived in Iran"

What years were you there?

Do you believe Ahmadinejad should be allowed to produce nuclear weapons?

-Dave

By darmbruster1September 11, 2006 - 2:43pm

If John "The Stache" Bolton had done his job in the first place

Iran probably wouldn't be any where NEAR where they are now. Ditto on North Korea. And what does The Stache get? A promotion to the UN. Yes, this administration looooooooves to reward total and complete incompetence.

By Pookie2112September 11, 2006 - 3:04pm

IT IS POSSIBLE.........

To work with the rulers of Saudi at this time, but they are so scared they are going to be thrown out by the common people........and they will be, it is only a matter of time......they play both sides of the fence.

THE COMMON WORKING GUY SPEAKS!!!

By common_workingc...September 9, 2006 - 9:03pm

Hmm here's an idea

Terrorism - to the western viewer is killing innocent people in the name of whatever right?

If there are so many people who support it... there can't be that many evil people out there.

i think we are looking at this wrong, so instead of looking at it with western eyes what if we try to understand where they are coming from.

not so much validating their killing, but if we understand why then black and white may give way to grey.

how long did the crusades last? are we just seeing the beginning of the islamic crusades?

i would like to know more if anyone has any history or wants to discuss how this whole ordeal might be a perspective issue. (maybe for another string, but none out there at the moment, so if you don't wanna discuss it then go back to orig topic)

hindsight is 20/20 so now that we know we did wrong, how do you rectify it?

"You can't be in the right place at the right time if you don't go." -me '91

By neptune612September 8, 2006 - 7:10pm

What Bush Thought

was Iraq was a perfect opportunity to enrich his fascist friends.

By ghiguaSeptember 8, 2006 - 8:13pm

IT HAS..........

Always been Iran. That is where fundemental Islam got its hold. Our idiot attacked the wrong country. And now, the country he should have attacked is stronger than ever and we are weaker than ever. Some leadership.......should not have listened to the oil companies, I think.

THE COMMON WORKING GUY SPEAKS!!!

By common_workingc...September 9, 2006 - 9:01pm

no it hasn't always been Iran

Bush went into Iraq for the OIL.

Do yourself a favour and read Greg Palast's book,
Armed Madhouse.

The Saudis are NOT afraid of being put out of power.
They are COMPLICIT with the oil companies and BushCabal.

Bush didn't go after OBL because Daddy Bush is in Business
with the BinLaden family.

"He who allows oppression, shares the crime." : Erasmus Darwin

By HobbitGoddessSeptember 9, 2006 - 9:06pm

So now are you going to tell

So now are you going to tell me that giving money to the families of suicide bombers isnt supporting terrorism?
Submitted by jfrogg on September 8, 2006 - 2:57pm

Is holding stock in anything Carlyle Group supporting terrorism?
Poppy Bush loves the Sauds.

It's still bin Ladens family.....right?

By pb_trueSeptember 8, 2006 - 7:31pm

i heard this from Rush and Mark Levine too

Except they leave out the fact that Saudi Arabia
whom we call our allies did the same thing too.
Given money to the family of Palestian suicide
bombers was a political attempt to boost his
popularity. This was not support for Al Qaeda which
is the point of the report. Toad boy, you need to
get a brain.

By ramputanSeptember 8, 2006 - 10:31pm

Show me a link that Iraq and

Show me a link
that Iraq and Saddam supported terrorism
Submitted by hufflarry2000 on September 8, 2006 - 2:51pm. | reply | email this comment

He asked for it, i provided it. I never once claimed that saddam had any links to bin laden or al qaeda, but he did have links to terrorists and that is a fact.

By jfroggSeptember 9, 2006 - 11:39am
12next

Comments

(150)