Al Qaeda-Iraqi relationship proven beyond any doubt.

ABC World News Now | 4/27/2004

[FourtySeven]

Cool.

[Burkeman1]

Yep- that pesky "free press". So irratating when "spreading democracy". Oh? You didn't get the memo? That is the reason we are in Iraq now. Now WMDS and AQ links.

[MizSterious]

Thank you! I think there are also some pics floating around the net that show the airliner in particular, and a little more closely, but yes, this is it. I believe the first time I heard of this place was on some of the OKC bombing threads--before 9/11. The date on this one suggests my memory might be accurate.

[MizSterious]

Gee, I don't know. Thread got awful quiet once Quilla posted the pic. (((crickets)))

[Peach]

I'm not sure I follow because that was not a particularly coherent post.

When you can't any longer deny that Iraq and AQ had connections, you change the subject. Like a Democrat.

This is a war on terror. Or didn't YOU get the memo? Considering Iraq's support for terrorists it was a logical place to start.

[Peach]

Yes. The naysayers either change the subject or disappear when little things like facts get in the way of their rather odd world opinion.

[Burkeman1]

I do deny them. Bush and Powell have both denied them publically. Change the subject?

And I meant "not" instead of "now" in my last post.

My bad.

[Shryke]

Now why the Bush administration doesn't talk about these connections more often than it does is a good question and one I have long pondered.

One possible reason mirrors mine: let them dig the hole deeper. Keep diggin'! It's that much easier to then bury them.

[Peach]

What I have heard Powell and Bush deny publicly is that they have proof that Iraq was behind 9/11. Powell has stated also that they just "don't know".

No one here is saying Iraq is behind 9/11. This is a war on terror. Those who harbor terrorists, fund them, etc. Maybe you didn't hear?

Iraq's support for terrorists in general and al Qaeda specifically was why we went there. One of many reasons.

[Peach]

I hope you are right. It's been a continuing disappointment that the administration does not use what they have, which is considerably, to stop the DNC from moving this talking point forward to the point that they have.

[sheltonmac]

If the AQ/Iraq link has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, then why isn't Bush shouting it out at the top of his lungs? Just because a few terrorists may have trained within Iraq's borders doesn't mean there was an official collaboration between Saddam Hussein and AQ.

By the way, I've seen a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein. What conclusions should I draw from that?

[Peach]

We shook hands, literally and figuratively, with Stalin during WWII too. What do you want to make of that?

And now the bar has been raised so if the president doesn't talk about it, it is not important? Is that your position?

Regardless, it does not take away from the central fact that a Jordanian ringlinger of AQ has admitted that he trained with WMD in Iraq with OBL's head henchman.

As far as a few terrorists training inside Iraq, it was more than a few. There was funding provided to PLO terrorists. There was Salmon Pak where terrorists trained on an airplane. Then there was Saddam's advance knowledge of 9/11:

less than two months before 9/11/01, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper “Al-Nasiriya” carried a column headlined, “American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin.” (July 21, 2001)

In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the US “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”

The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the US “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” – an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, “New York, New York”.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion. You want a videotape and until you get it, you won't believe it.

[JohnGalt]

As the President has made clear, there is no link between AQ and Saddam and whether or not a-Z's Ansar al-Islam trained in America's Northern Iraq No-Fly-Zone is not really at issue. It's hardly breaking news and hardly worthy of the hysterical headline. If it was, the CIA on the ground and our "allies" the Kurds could have done something about it.

The headline is typical hysterics by the scaredy-cat crew since nothing new is being reported here, but it certainly offers an insight to how little the soccermoms understand about the situation, which is scary in its own right.

There is nothing new here, which demonstrates the sad state of America's Chalabi Republicans.

As to comments, the gallows for non-military traitors, the firing squad for ex-military.

[JohnGalt]

Should be: The President has made clear there is no link between Saddam and 9.11.

[Quilla]

Somewhere I read (probably on FR) that the Administration, possibly uncovering new information every day, has concerns about implying Saddam was involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001. In this litigious society, suits could be brought against the country of Iraq. Those trodden and tortured, who are now liberated, need their funds for rebuilding Iraq not funding another Peaceful Tomorrow demonstration.

[evad]

I'm trying to break myself of the habit is that I'm quick to believe things in the press that I want to believe and quick to dismiss things that aren't.

Yes..how many times can we fall for the ole Charlie Brown and Lucy "kick the football ploy"??

All we really know at this point is that someone has been captured, almost certainly tortured and is probably saying whatever it is that his captors want to hear.

Like you though, I hope it's actually true.

[JohnGalt]

The CIA has known about Salman Pak since the 1980s. It was Chalabi's men, who were later discredited by the CIA, and Douglas Feith that over-ruled our country's intelligence apparatus and spread their lies in a friendly media.

And who really cares what a radical leftwing judge from New York says? Just who's side are you on? Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link

Rumsfeld sees no link between Saddam, 9/11

No Iraq link to 9/11: Rummy, Rice say it isn't so No links to Saddam, al-Qaeda pair claim
Iraq-al Qaeda links weak, say former Bush officials
Leaked report rejects Iraqi al-Qaeda link
Bush overstated Iraq links to al-Qaeda, former intelligence officials say

“The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.” [NY Times, 6/27/03]

"U.S. allies have found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.'We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda,' said Europe's top investigator. 'If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.’" [LA Times, 11/4/02]

Experts scorn Saddam link to al-Qaeda
Experts doubt Iraq, al-Qaeda terror link

[Peach]

I read that too, Quilla. In fact, there was already a lawsuit filed in a court of law against Iraq in terms of 9/11:


http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm

[Peach]

The president has not said there is no link between Iraq and AQ, although he hasn't lately argued that there is a link.

What he has said is there is no link between Iraq and 9/11.

I know you have been asked by the moderators of this forum to stop talking the way you are right now. I am one second from hitting the abuse button.

I know it's hard for you to admit that a terrorist stating on television that he trained with WMD in Iraq with OBL's head henchman is a bitter pill for you to swallow, but try.

[Peach]

No one here is saying there is a 9/11 link. This is a war on terror. Which part of that don't you understand. That Iraq worked with AQ is undeniable.

And I'll match my links against yours anyday.

of newspaper article in the 90's linking OBL and Saddam: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946809/posts?page=1

Son of Saddam coordinates OBL activities:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts

The AQ connection (excellent):http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944617/posts?page=2

Western Nightmare: http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html

Saddam's link to OBL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts

NYT: Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts

Document linking them: http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297

Iraq and terrorism - no doubt about it: http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp

A federal judge rules there are links:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/986293/posts

Wall Street Journal on Iraq and AQ:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987129/posts

Iraq and Iran contact OBL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/981055/posts

Proof: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml

Saddam's AQ connection: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts

Further connections: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts

What a court of law said about the connections:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm

Some miscellaneous stuff on connections:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/989201/posts