Skip to comments.Vanity: The Saddam/Osama bin Laden Relationship
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.
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
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?
Wonderful work. Do you think Katie C. will report on this on SeeBC next week ?
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.
Should be nailed to the top of the thread list.
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.
So what you're saying is, there is NO connection between Saddam and OBL. Got it.
I have heard Hagel and Snow are the two RINO traitors who voted for them to beable to pull this PR stunt
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%.
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.
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.
A "Thank you Peach !!" BTTT !!
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.....
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.
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.
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.