Iraqi Weekly: Saddam Ordered Training of Al-Qa'ida Members

Ashcroft isn't elected but he is appointed by our President and confirmed by our congress.

http://www.icfj.org/libertad-prensa/shhh-eng.html

But last Thursday, the day of the testimony, the one to draw first was Ashcroft himself, who in a passionate opening statement, equated dissidence with abetting the enemy.

"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve," Ashcroft declared before the dejected senators.

Rumsfeld has said similar things about reporting bad news.

 

Read any of the Bush Lies threads and you will discover Bush lies.
Just because people expose those lies doesn't mean that they sound like OBL.

 

uhmmm, no, you think incorrectly. I'm not a "bush hater," so I didn't think you were talking about me. If you want to continue polarizing and antagonizing, instead of getting at possible information in the article you posted, I wish I could stop you, but you seem to like your current path.

As for a "joke," (I'll pretend along like you meant it as a joke), comparing people to mass murderers is rarely funny really, even to the most thick-skinned people. I've told the same thing to the "Bush is Hitler!" crowd. It's not funny, and it's not accurate. Honestly, it's as useless as it is intellectually bankrupt.

Really, what do you hope to accomplish with the Osama comparison? You want people to shut up? You want other conservatives to slap you on the back? You want someone to hate who's not hidden in a cave somewhere in the middle east? Someone more tangible? I just don't get it. It just seems like the sort of thing someone says when they don't want to have a conversation. Hey, we're all guilty here, but do you realize how few conversations we're really having in this country these days?

 

This whole thing makes me tired. So much information and disinformation, you don't know what's true half the time.

Saddam, a secular dictator, training terrorists for an ultra-fundamentalist only two months beforewe invaded? Just giving us an excuse to do so?

Big-time maybe on that one.

And whether it's true, Bush is still a horrible president...stupid, arrogant, narrow-minded, and interested only in the mega-rich.

 

That's one lame post hoc rationalization. The rank and file can act like assholes, as long as the elected ones are clean everything is cool? Even that qualification is not going to save you though:

Yeah, I guess since they never used the word "unpatriotic"; only just said that he was a traitor by giving aid and comfort to the enemy, then it's ok.

 

My bad. Saw "before" read "after".

 

Although I'm not MacBeth (and since he hasn't even posted in this thread) I was hoping I can ask a question, if you don't mind.

So Cheney insenuated that Saddam was linked to Sept. 11. Then Bush distanced himself from the statement and clarified that while Saddam did indeed have ties to Al-Queda, there was no proof of his direct involvement with 9/11.
I think most everyone accepts this.
This does not change the fact that Bush has given suspect information (this is me being kind) regarding lots of other info on Iraq leading up to the war.
Here's my question: So are you saying that if Bush was correct about an Al-Queda link (which a lot of people haven't disputed) that he must not have lied about anything else? Or am I just misunderstanding your request for MacBeth to "DEFEND HIMSELF"?

 

Curiously, I have posted articles evidencing exactly the same thing as this - that Al Qaeda was training at Salman Pak before the war, even before 9/11. I even posted it before the war. I have posted quite a bit of information indicating a prewar Saddam-Al Qaeda relationship. But when I post it, it's just BS... Right?

Can anyone honestly sit here and tell me that if Saddam was training Al Qaerda before 9/11, that is not reasonable grounds for intervention? And at least suspicion of 9/11 links, considering that the operatives in question were trained in unarmed/lightly armed airplane hijacking techniques on Salman Pak's 707 fuselage?

 

Max Cleland lost three limbs in Vietnam SERVING and DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY.

In 2002 REPUBLICANS ran ads with Cleland, Osama Bin Laden, and Saddam Huissen lumped in together. The message said Cleland is soft on defense.

 

Curiously, I have posted articles evidencing exactly the same thing as this - that Al Qaeda was training at Salman Pak before the war, even before 9/11. I even posted it before the war. I have posted quite a bit of information indicating a prewar Saddam-Al Qaeda relationship. Everything I've posted on it has been summarily dismissed by the Peace Police as total BS. I have repeatedly warned you not to discount it.

Can anyone honestly sit here and tell me that if Saddam was training Al Qaeda before 9/11, that is not reasonable grounds for intervention? And at least suspicion of 9/11 links, considering that the operatives in question were reportedly trained in unarmed/lightly armed airplane hijacking techniques on Salman Pak's 707 fuselage? As was reported before the war???

BTW, what this daily is reporting is almost *exactly* what numerous defectors who used to work at Salman Pak reported before the war. What a coincidence.

(treeman getting ready for another "I told you so")

 

MacBeth, we are eagerly awaiting your self defense. In the absence of a defense, we will be forced to conclude that you have abandoned your position and accepted defeat on the issue. You have for so long made fun of the purported link between al Queda and Iraq. Your credibility is on the line here.

 

Selective memory.

Those stories were told by Chalabi-INC defectors, who have been extensively discredited by the DIA, the CIA, and the State Dep't, among others.

Yes, what a coincidence indeed.

 

Actually, they were not. Not all defectors are associated with the INC.

And they are being corroborated. Did you not read the friggen thread?

 

Actually, they were. I think we got into this on another topic, so I'm not going to bother, you can look it up yourself if you want.

 

Actually, there were a number of defectors coming out of Salman Pak who all said the same thing. Some of them were brought to US intel agencies via the INC. Some of them had no connection whatsoever to the INC. You can look that up if you want.

Defectors say "They're training Al Qaeda at Salman Pak. They've got a plane fuselage that they train them on." US intel says "Yes, we know." Powell lays it out to the UN. A civilian organization, curious if it is true, turns a satellite on the area, and takes a picture of a 707 fuselage laying out in the middle of a field, exactly where the defectors said it was.

I post all of that, and you merely discount it.

Do you not have any fu*king common sense at all? Or are you just taking the Vancome lady approach to this? Or is it both?

And BTW, our intel agencies have *not* discredited everything that the defectors said. They discarded some of it, and confirmed some of it. Look it up.

 

Maybe he was wrong about Iraq, but the campaign ran against him is one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen. There's got to be some karma at work against Saxby Chambliss and the RNC for that one. Assholes.