Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vanity: The Saddam/Osama bin Laden Relationship
Peach | September 9, 2006 | Peach

Posted on 09/09/2006 7:25:35 AM PDT by Peach

The media reported extensively in the 90's about the world's alarm at the growing relationship between Saddam and Osama.

Clinton's federal indictment mentions their relationship.

A federal judge finds Iraq partially responsible for 9/11 and finds for 9/11 families.

TOPICS: Anthrax Scare; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqaedaandiraq; enemywithin; iraq; islamofacists; mediaamnesia; msm; osama; saddam; supportthetroops; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last
To: Peach

Nope, no terrorists in Iraq!

Nope, no connection to 9-11!

Saddam didn't even have an AIR FORCE!

Nope...No WMD used here!

Weekly Standard: Intel Report Links Saddam, Usama,2933,103176,00.html

Someone didn't get the memo.....

Document: Iraqi Intelligence met with Bin Laden in 1995 (Re-Post For A Reminder)

Did Russian Ambassador Give Saddam the U.S. War Plan?

21 posted on 09/09/2006 8:14:10 AM PDT by RasterMaster (Winning Islamic hearts and bullet at a time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Wonderful work. Do you think Katie C. will report on this on SeeBC next week ?

22 posted on 09/09/2006 8:15:45 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
"If the administration doesn't understand the importance of countering this report and the leftist's amnesia, I will just throw my hands up.

Your concern is well founded. Hopefully, the party of traitors is being allowed to move far out onto the "limb", then we cut it off.

Your tagline would make a great bumper sticker.

23 posted on 09/09/2006 8:16:55 AM PDT by labette (The land of the Free and the home of the Brave just a little while longer please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Should be nailed to the top of the thread list.

24 posted on 09/09/2006 8:18:11 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Say Leftists. How many Nazis did killing Nazis in WW2 create? Samurai? Fascists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach; ravingnutter

BTT! Thanks.

25 posted on 09/09/2006 8:30:27 AM PDT by PerConPat (A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground.-- Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie


26 posted on 09/09/2006 8:30:35 AM PDT by heckler (wiskey for my men, beer for my horses, rifles for sister sarah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Case Closed
From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
by Stephen F. Hayes
11/24/2003, Volume 009, Issue 11

From the weekly Standard.
27 posted on 09/09/2006 8:31:07 AM PDT by .cnI redruM (The investigation was a hoax. Fitz should be brought up on charges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

The Left now have, in their manual of standard thoughts:
1) The CIA created Al Qaida
2) The US made Saddam what he is

What they have used to create these notions are the following truths:
A) The CIA helped certain factions in Afghanistan when it was a Soviet satellite. There were anti American infiltrators in some of those factions.
B) During the Iran - Iraq War we gave some minor aid to Saddam. After the mid 80s, no more help to Saddam.

Now, these truths are inconvenient to the Left, because they mean that W is right and they are wrong.

28 posted on 09/09/2006 9:13:09 AM PDT by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

So what you're saying is, there is NO connection between Saddam and OBL. Got it.

29 posted on 09/09/2006 9:18:12 AM PDT by aligncare (Hey, democrats: You can't handle the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon

I have heard Hagel and Snow are the two RINO traitors who voted for them to beable to pull this PR stunt

30 posted on 09/09/2006 9:19:57 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Say Leftists. How many Nazis did killing Nazis in WW2 create? Samurai? Fascists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jdm

Actuall Baba WaWA, it is UP TO half the country now. Last year it was down to 36% thought there were ties. NOW it is up to 50%.

31 posted on 09/09/2006 9:21:19 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Say Leftists. How many Nazis did killing Nazis in WW2 create? Samurai? Fascists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Peach
That was a lot of work and thanks very much! I've already used two of those articles to counter the latest Senate report.

If I could make one suggestion: That list would be far more effective to counter arguments on other boards if it had the actual article links next to them, rather than the Free Republic links. We could cut and paste the entire history as a rebuttal.

Do you have that available?
32 posted on 09/09/2006 9:36:21 AM PDT by Republican Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Peach; dinasour

This thread need to get to Tony Snow ASAP. I am very worried that the White House doesn't even have all the articles and info that we have here at FR, at least not at its fingertips.

33 posted on 09/09/2006 10:26:35 AM PDT by Dems_R_Losers (my name is my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dems_R_Losers

When Tony was a radio host I discussed this issue with him a few times and he had the guy on from the Weekly Standard (I'm drawing a blank - Stephen?) who has done such fantastic research into this matter.

I think Tony understands how crucial this is but can't persuade the WH.

34 posted on 09/09/2006 10:30:17 AM PDT by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Peach; All

A "Thank you Peach !!" BTTT !!

35 posted on 09/09/2006 10:35:38 AM PDT by musicman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Looking over the 9/11 Commission Report last night, for mentions of links, I found the following;

Page 61: Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist
agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991.

Page 134: In February 1999,Allen proposed flying a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had coverage. Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible.He wrote Deputy National
Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.” Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually
impossible” to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.134 Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight,but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and “Pak[istan’s]
intel[ligence service] is in bed with” Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: “Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.”135Though told also
by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight.

Still looking through it, but it seems as if even the Clintons had sufficient reason to fear a Bin Laden/Saddam Hussein link.
36 posted on 09/09/2006 10:37:13 AM PDT by DakotaRed (The legacy of the left, "Screw you, I got mine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach; All

This topic brings back a freeper post durring the anthrax incident after 9-11. I can't remember the freeper's name, but I won't forget this "theory" on the topic.

His(or her)post came up with this possible answer:

What if the anthrax letters were actually a not-so-subtle threat by Saddam after 9-11??

The reasons for the "mini" anthrax attack, was to threaten the Bush administration if we were going to invade Iraq, because of the tie-ins with Al-Queda and Saddam's BIG role in training them and letting them use Iraq as a "terrorist basic training site" to attack the US.

Saddam was playing the Oil-For-Food (OFF) thing, and had no way to retaliate against the US in any open attack that could be traced back to him.

Therefore, the Anthrax was the way to go. The US was still smarting from 9-11, had the "Gorelick Wall" still in place,Homeland Security was in BARELY underway, and we didn't have ANY idea if a large scale attack was already set to go here with nothing but a "GO" signal to set it off.

If you were the Bush administration at that time, how would you respond to a threat like that?? The airlines were all going broke because of so many people afraid to fly after the 9-11 attacks. Can you imagine a country wide coordinated anthrax attack, with the USPS as the main vehicle, and major ventalation systems in some of the larger buildings, and then in say the major public transportation systems ALL AT THE SAME TIME??

The Bush administration could have been "blackmailed" very easily by Saddam and Al-Queda, by saying they would do a full blown attack if Bush tried to pin the first attack on him. The attack would have been very hard to prove and connect it on Saddam and Al-Queda in the UN arena, due to the state of our intellegence apparatus at that time, and all the UN member countries involved in it, who could have also been "blackmailed" by Saddam and Al-Queda by threatening to expose them in the scandal if they didn't keep obstructing the US from gathering international support for the US and coalition almost certain retaliatory invasion because of the 9-11 and anthrax attacks.

The Bush adminisration could also NOT GO PUBLIC with this information. It would have devestated the US economy, not to mention the mass panic and fear. No US mail delivery for an extended period of time,due to the leaking of information like that is almost unimagionable. The incubation period alone is such an effective weapon, that by the time we realized that a wide spread attack had taken place,.....well let's just say it would be a major "problem".

And what if this "theory" really was true???

I would have to consider a major anthrax attack on the US in the WMD catagory. Why haven't we found out who did it yet?? IIRC, the "type" of anthrax used was only available to approximately four different locations in the world, with one of the four being in Iraq.

Can you imagine being President Bush, knowing what he knew, but not being able to go public with it?? Knowing for the VERY SURVIVAL OF THE US, HE HAD TO RETALIATE, or the "mudlums" would know they were on their way to our total destruction because we DID NOT RESPOND.

And worse yet, having to take all the crap he's taking since then, because the WMD reason given for our invasion of Iraq, didn't find ANY "Weapon's of Mass Destruction" in Iraq, according to the MSM, and the Dems, and all the Bush haters.

And one more thing before I close...can you imagine if some of the major Dem politial anti-Bush bunch DO know about the situation Bush is in because of his not being able to expose it as yet, and are using it AGAINST HIM by painting Bush as a liar with this NO-WMD's in Iraq, so Bush is a liar mantra??.....

Sorry for the "rant", but IMHO, I considered that freeper's post kinda interesting.....

37 posted on 09/09/2006 10:41:09 AM PDT by musicman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: musicman

I remember that and the theory was given some juice when Woodward's first book came out "But at War".

In the book somewhere is a quote from Cheney who is talking to Rice and someone else that says something to the effect:

"No, we can't discuss that yet because we're not anywhere near ready to go there". It was even more interesting than that and I'm sorry I've forgotten so many details.

But it was as though they knew their words were being recorded, which they were, and we weren't in a position to take on Saddam yet.

Anyway, there are lots of articles and links on FR that the silica (sp?) used in the anthrax was so sophisticated that even our labs couldn't reproduce it and that Iraq was the only country known to be able to make airborne anthrax like the kind put in those letters.

38 posted on 09/09/2006 10:45:04 AM PDT by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Thank you for your reply to my post, and thanks again for all the great links!!

In a perfect world (Mine!!) my above post would be the sole reason for GWB's 9-11-2006 address to the nation.

They could put the dem "response" on PPV, at their mass vein opening ceremony.

39 posted on 09/09/2006 10:52:59 AM PDT by musicman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Peach
(I'm drawing a blank - Stephen?)

Stephen Hayes?

Stephen Hayes-The Connection

40 posted on 09/09/2006 11:28:30 AM PDT by lysie ("Lowering the price to be paid by aggressors virtually guarantees more aggression." Dr. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson