This thread seems ridiculous for three reasons. 1.) The bolded and underlined sentence doesn't say that the "first al-Qaida cell" that he "may have helped establish" was established in 2002. It says he probably entered Iraq in 2002. That'ss really, really, really, really flimsy. 2.) Al-Qaida in Iraq wasn't al-Qaida in Iraq until late 2004. 3.) Aw hell, when did The Guardian become a credible source?!
Do you have more proof? There's been accusations that Saddam worked with Al Qaeda for years and none of it has been proven to be that credible or substantial.
Actually Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to 2004. They even had a base of operations. It happened to be in the Kurdish no-fly zone where Saddam had no control yet oddly enough even though the US could've bombed them didn't until the full on invasion of Iraq.
This is silly. There's plenty of evidence that Al Qaeda has cells in the US and throughout Europe. There are cells in many countries all over the world. That can't be a pretense to invade the country. The only possible acceptable justification (dealing with Al Qaeda) is the claim that Saddam Hussein had a connection to Al Qaeda. The presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq means nothing since Al Qaeda has cells in countries all over the world. Find me proof that Saddam had a connection to Al Qaeda and then you may be on to something but until then, this is pointless.
Why the **** don't you ever get mad that Bush doesn't care about getting Bin Laden? The biggest lie, among many that you've told here, is that you're not a partisan Republican. It is obvious as hell that your enemy is Democrats, not Al Qaida. You love Al Qaida.
well i think its clear that certain al queda members were in iraq before. to the extent who knew what and when? i think its anybodys guess and at the end of the day i think thats all it will be a guess. there were some flags that would create reasons to be concerned, i dont think anyone can argue against that, but there was no hardcore proof either. maybe the better way to approach it would to not consider what connections did exist and to what extent, but what could have developed if left untouched for several years. hard to say really. But i certainly dont think saddam would have stayed quiet until his time came. I would think its fairly reasonable to think that saddam would, at some point in the remainder of his life, try to make something else to show his power but what that is is also unknown.
This logic could be used for several other countries in the world. The Bush administration made the claim that there is an "immediate" threat and that pre-emptive action was necessary in 2003. This is just spin and conjecture. There's no intelligence from international spy agencies that ever showed a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. They had diametrically opposed views on Islam and governance.
To follow up on that point though that logic could be applied to anything. We know that giant gamma ray burst happen and perhaps one could happen in our cosmic neighborhood wiping out all life on Earth so to be on the safe side we need to start building a giant gamma ray shield around the Earth. There are risk in life all the time and most of the time we are operating on limited info. You have to weigh the costs with the benefits though before undertaking especially when it comes to something like war. The problem with this invasion was that the threat was inflated, whether intentionally or not but either way its incompetance or corruption (take your pick), but worst was that the planning for this and how it was presented was almost all benefit without considering costs. We would be greeted as liberators, this will be paid for with Iraqi oil revenue, without the yoke of Saddam the Iraqis will build a secular pro-Western democracy and so on... There was precious little consideration of potential downside.
they were in america too - perhaps we should pre-emtively strike ourselves! MUSHROOM CLOUDS! MUSHROOM CLOUDS!
im all for a revolution. this country needs a serious change and it goes way beyond this administration to every aspect of the political world as well as everyday people.
I'm all for sane voters making reasonable choices. Something they didn't do for years until last Fall. I believe Americans should make political decisions based on reason, and not on fear, which has driven their voting until last Fall. It's terrible that we have to put up with the idiot in the White House for 2 more years, but voters other than myself made that ludicrous decision based, ultimately, on fear. Wake up, America, and drink some more coffee. (or tea, if that's your thing) D&D. The Rockets have Depressed me. Really Depressed me.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODA4M2IyMjQ2YWVlOGNlOWJkMmYwOWY1ODI2MWM5Y2M= [rquoter] May 9, 2007 10:47 AM Tenet’s Tim Time By Fred Thompson I watched George Tenet’s interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press Sunday. Tenet’s new book gives his version of history leading up to September 11. It’s almost obligatory nowadays; after you have been in the inner circles of an administration, you write a “tell all” book, including private conversations with even the president himself. I haven’t read the book, but I have followed the media accounts. My attention was drawn to Tenet’s statements that al Qaeda is here and waiting and that they wish nothing more than to be able to see a mushroom cloud above the United States. Naturally, the media emphasis is not on that. Its attention is on any differences Tenet had with the administration. The media’s premise is that Iraq should not have been considered a real threat to us and that the administration basically misled the country into war. While one may take issue with Tenet on several things, I was intrigued that on some very important issues, Tenet did not follow the media script when answering Russert’s questions. On the issue of al Qaeda’s relationship with Iraq, for example, Tenet said that the CIA had proof of al Qaeda contact with Saddam’s regime; that the regime had provided safe haven for al Qaeda operatives and that Saddam had provided training assistance for al Qaeda terrorists. He went on to say that the CIA had no proof that the relationship was operational or that they had any ongoing working relationship — that it could have been that each side was just using the other. Maybe my recollection is faulty on this, but that doesn’t seem to be inconsistent with what folks in the administration said. In other words, there was clearly contact and a relationship, but no one knew exactly what it meant. On the issue of weapons of mass destruction, although Iraq undoubtedly had such weapons in the past, Tenet acknowledges that everybody got it wrong as to whether they would have them at the time of the invasion. On the nuclear issue, he said that the CIA thought that Saddam was five to seven years away from a nuclear capability — unless he was able to obtain fissile material from another source. A couple of things occur to me here. In the first place, is five to seven years that far away? Since four years have passed since the invasion, that would be only a year from now if we had not invaded. If he had been able to obtain fissile materials, the time could have been much shorter. There are over 40 countries in the world with fissile material sufficient to make a nuclear bomb and much of it is unguarded. The CIA could have been on the short side or on the long side of the estimate. They have underestimated the capabilities of hostile nations before, such as North Korea’s missile technologies. Also, Tenet acknowledged that before the Gulf War, the CIA had underestimated how far along Saddam was on his nuclear program. All of this hardly fits with the notion that Saddam posed no threat. As Tenet made the media rounds, he may have helped the administration as much as hurt it, but he was in no danger of having that fact highlighted by his interviewers.[/rquoter]
^ Once again though in the 60 Minutes interview Tenet didn't cite that as a reason to invade in Iraq and still thought invading Iraq was a bad idea. Tenet in the interview stated that attention should've remained focussed on Afghanistan and that it was the Admin. who were the ones pushing at an Iraq connection not the CIA. Tenet might've stated there were contacts but it appears like he never thought they amounted to any sort of threat from a Saddam Al Qaeda connection.
aq: fuc! you saddam's regime saddam's regime: fuc! you too aq: saddam's regime, we'll hang out in the no fly zone ad you can't do nothing about it saddam's regime: go ahead that's under american control you stupid fuc! aq: saddam, we'll be training in the no fly zone ad you can't do nothing about it saddam: go ahead that's under american control you stupid fuc!
