Bin Laden and Iraq (What the Media Said in the 90's)

FrontPage Magazine ^ | July 14, 2003 | Anonymous

[billbears]

So ABC,CBS,NYT,etc. are right when they parrot what you want them to but wrong when they backtrack because there is no proof to support the claims? Back in the 90s, most of them thought WMDs existed too.

[Peach]

ABC, etc., reported the truth when it supported their guy - Clinton. I don't know why this is difficult for you to understand.

[roses of sharon]

They don't understand because they believe like most consprazoids that Bush and hundreds of others lied about Iraq, for a host of reasons.

And their media backs them up, in the defamation campaign against a President of the US, our troops, and our WOT.

They don't understand because they trusted Saddam and Sons, and the President did not.

[billbears]

They don't understand because they trusted Saddam and Sons, and the President did not.

Who's this 'they'? I don't trust Hussein, and maybe he was a SOB. Maybe not. But for over 20 years he was 'our' SOB. And the 'ties' to Al Qaeda were denied by the President last year but when he sees support for his police action, all the sudden they exist again?

[Peach]

The left never met a dictator they didn't like. Except for President Bush who they claim is a dictator. LOL

[ChadGore]

Saddam was not 'our' SOB.

American troops never set foot in the sands of Iraq or Iran during the 1980 - 1988 Iran/Iraq war, and we where on the liberating side of Kuwait conflict in late 1990 and early 19991.

He arms are all (T72 MBT, AK47, AK74, PRG-7) Russian with some French anti-aircraft stuff.

Why do you lap up the AQ line that we create all our enemies, and then attempt to regurgitate such nonsense as your own ?

[randog]

Actually, I was making a reference to the left's argument, "What did Saddam ever do to us?". Since it's obvious that he did quite a bit to us, you gotta dig deeper....

[dangus]

A while back, I tried to find citations for the training camp in Northern Iraq which was teaching Al Qaeda members how to take over airliners. Did you spot anything about that?

[Peach]

Salmon Pak?

This was all I could find but know it's in the list of articles I gave the link for.

Salman Pak. Satellite discussion about the terror camps in Iraq.
January 7, 2002. Aviation Weekly.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/865435/posts

[roses of sharon]

George W Bush was not President 20 years ago.

The US was not fighting a WOT 20 years ago.

The US fought the Gulf war in 1991, and Saddam signed a surrender agreement.

And since then the US media has reported on Saddam and Sons connections to Islamic Cults, his crimes, his billions, his rogue nation status, his terrorist state status with the State Dept, his refusal to show doc of destruction of his WMD, his science, his attack on our pilots, his assassination attempts, the UN's failure to contain.

And now the US media "reports" everyday that the President of the United States lied about a pretext for war, when he has repeatedly said he could not trust him after 9/11, with US boots on the ground fighting in the ME.

[Dems_R_Losers]

PBS Frontline interview with Sabah Khodadah, former member of Saddam's super-secret Special Operations Group: Khodadah reports on Salman Pak terror training camp

[Peach]

Dangus, see Post #31 which may have the information you were looking for.

Thank you, Dems_R_Losers, for that link.

[dangus]

Thanks

[Voir Dire]

It's still Bush's fault.

[roses of sharon]

Interesting, thanks.

[billbears]

Saddam was not 'our' SOB.

Well that's not necessarily true now is it?

American troops never set foot in the sands of Iraq or Iran during the 1980 - 1988 Iran/Iraq war, and we where on the liberating side of Kuwait conflict in late 1990 and early 19991.

There was more than one regime during the Cold War that was supported on the back end by the US without troop support. Because we didn't send troops does that mean we didn't support them?

Read some of the documents for yourself. This isn't the MSM making it up.

Why do you lap up the AQ line that we create all our enemies, and then attempt to regurgitate such nonsense as your own ?

I never claimed this knowledge was my own. I'm just able to read both sides of the argument without out of hand dismissing the information because the person writing the document doesn't have the right letter by their name. As for your statement that we create our own enemies, I challenge you to remember this conversation in a generation when US forces are either still in Iraq or going back in the same general area again to fix what was created at the beginning of the 21st century.

[billbears]

George W Bush was not President 20 years ago

Thank God. Reagan, with his faults, was actually a conservative. Although he did allow some expansion of domestic spending that shouldn't have happened

The US was not fighting a WOT 20 years ago

No they were not, at least not completely. They were involved in the end of the Cold War. However, there was a WOT going on. Or do you not remember the bombings of the barracks in the ME or Qaddafi's threats in the mid 80s?

The US fought the Gulf war in 1991, and Saddam signed a surrender agreement

The US involved itself in an affair between two nation states, neither of which represented a direct nor present threat to the borders of this nation of states. It was none of our business

And since then the US media has reported on Saddam and Sons connections to Islamic Cults, his crimes, his billions, his rogue nation status, his terrorist state status with the State Dept, his refusal to show doc of destruction of his WMD, his science, his attack on our pilots, his assassination attempts, the UN's failure to contain.

And yet this is the same US media according to you we are not to believe now because as information as been released, some if not all they reported originally was not completely truthful. So we believe them when they support the Republican agenda and not when they report the news that comes in conflict with the Republican agenda?

[roses of sharon]

OK, so NOW you do understand what was happening 20 years ago.

And you have established that you did not mind Saddam taking Kuwait, SA, or Israel, because it was "none of our business".

And you did not read the papers in the 90's, under Clinton, when his media were working diligently to report on OBL, Saddam and Sons, CIA and Justice dept documents, and statements on their possible connections, movements, plans, ect. Just as I said before.

Finally, that you believe the MSM reporting for the last 2 years that the President of the US is just nuts for not trusting Saddam and Sons because he just hated OBL, would have nothing to do with him, or any terrorism, that Saddam was perfectly contained for all time, and that the President of the US lied to go into Iraq to prove he was lying?

OK, if you say so.

[billbears]

And you have established that you did not mind Saddam taking Kuwait, SA, or Israel, because it was "none of our business".

You know, I remember the issue of oil rights conflicts between Iraq and Kuwait (one of the many reasons for their tensions) but for the life of me I don't remember a secular state (namely Iraq) wanting to 'take' Saudi Arabia or Israel...

[roses of sharon]

Ok, ok, Saddam and Sons were wonderful peaceful neighbors, who would not hurt a fly.