Italian Journalist Says She Gave US Uranium Info

AP ^ | July 19, 2003

[Destro]

The case I though was bad as a selling point was that we had to go to war because Iraq was about to get into an lliance with al-Qaeda.

[William McKinley]

About to? We have broken up several of their training camps within Iraq since the end of the war. But even that was not the case that was made- the main case was a long term defiance of the UN resolutions and a breach of the terms of the cease fire agreement that ended the first Gulf War. Only a side part of the case was that Iraq was a state that was aiding and abetting terrorists-- and it was. The very first night of the war, for instance, a Palestinian terrorist was killed in the bombing that was aimed at Saddam-- the group itself said so.

[Destro]

I said: The African nuclear material story was not a case of the Bush White House telling a lie, just a show of incompetence by the Bush White House.

You said: The African nuclear material story is much ado over nothing. It is so much so that it is long past the point where it is more than fair to openly question the motives of those attempting to portray it as something big.

My reply: It was incompetence to include that in the speech. Blame it from the staff that OKed the speech, the speech writers, whoever. If incompetence is too harsh a word I would then call it foolish to have exposed the president to such a thing.

I also call Bush on the fact he continues NOT to fire people over these failures--no one fired over 9/11, no one fired after this speech fiasco..enough already--clean house or the blame will fall on you Mr. President.

By the way, I never give any President, even one I vote for my obedience. My obedience is to my country as formed by the constitution. The suggestion that attacking Bush or any sitting president is un-American is a "Fuhrer principle" I do not subscribe to.

[William McKinley]

You said: "It was incompetence to include that in the speech"

I say: "It is so insignificant that to call it incompetence is pretty over the top." If you consider that to be unacceptable incompetence, then you are never going to find an administration under any party in any nation which will meet your standards.

[Destro]

With all dur respect, those terror camps were WITHIN the Kurdish area no fly zones outside of Saddam's power to control and last anyone told me were were at war with al-Qaeda not Palestinian terror organizations. If that was the case what is the PLO doing meeting the President in the White House?

[Destro]

So we call those incompetant too. Why can't we? If our leaders screw up let's call em out on it. We are not saying we are throwing them out of office. This need to protect our own and even cover for them is alien to me. It is too close to excuses the Dems told to cover Clinton's broad ass.

[William McKinley]

Has the PLO met with Bush?

As for the camps being under Kurdish control- by getting rid of Saddam, they are now under our control. With him, they were able to flourish. Without him, they were broken up. Simple as that.

[William McKinley]

I am a conservative- I do not believe in perfectability.

I prefer to get my rile up when there is something worth getting upset over.

[Destro]

I am not upset. But I will call an F-Up an F-Up and not make excuses. Look I know we invested a lot into the President but we don't have to throw out our ability to critique the man if his office fouls up.

[Jorge]

I think it's already subsiding. They are branching off from the original allegations, trying to broaden it. That is always a sign with these "Bush scandals" that they are on their way out and failed to connect the way they'd hoped.

I noticed this as well..except for a few kooks like Graham, the focus seems to be moving away from Bush in search of other scapegoats.

The idea that Bush's SOTU reference to the Niger uranium somehow makes a case that Bush mislead the country into war seems to be dying down as well.

I always considered the entire "scandal" to be absurd on it's face, a lot of hot air surrounding a very small issue that could not be sustained for long.

It is well known that Saddam had nuclear program and had purchased uranium from Niger in the past.
So whether he might or might not have tried to do so in this particular instance really means very little in the big picture. And it has almost no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the case for war.

[Jorge]

The case I though was bad as a selling point was that we had to go to war because Iraq was about to get into an lliance with al-Qaeda.

And as it turns out, that danger of an Iraqi al Qaeda alliance was not as far fetched as some made it out to be.

Since the war we have seen more and more evidence of a connection, and it seems Bush was ahead of the curve on this as well.

[Destro]

Not really. In fact more of a connection exists in Saudi Arabia....

[Miss Marple]

Cite your case for more evidence in Saudi Arabia. Although the attackers on 9/11 were mostly from Saudi Arabia, the government of Saudi Arabia was not involved...at least from evidence now in the public record.

Are there Al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia? Most likely. Remember, we had 3 cells discovered here in the USA.

So prove to me that Saudi Arabia was more involved with bin Laden than Iraq, who had a newspaper list of honors which included the name of a man who was the official liaison to bin Laden.

[Jorge]

Not really.

Yes, really;

Iraq and al Qaeda
| 4/15/03 | WSJ

Wall Street Journal BAGHDAD AFTER SADDAM REVIEW & OUTLOOK Iraq and al Qaeda Terrorists now have fewer places to hide. Monday, April 14, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

"Among the illusions now being exposed in Iraq is the assertion that toppling Saddam Hussein would "disrupt" the war on al Qaeda and global terror. With the war less than a month old, we've learned that Iraq and terrorism have the same address.".......

"Start at the various terrorist-training camps that coalition forces have been locating. The camps are already yielding a trove of information on the links between Saddam Hussein's regime and external terrorist organizations."........

"In the north, a large compound run by Ansar al-Islam (Supporters of Islam) has been overrun. Among the document cache is a list of followers, including about 150 foreigners--Turks, Pakistanis, Algerians, Iranians, Yemenis and Palestinians. Another find produced a phone directory of militants in the U.S. and Europe. A sweep of Ansar's "poisons factory" uncovered traces of what is thought to be the same batch of deadly ricin that surfaced in London this past January.".............

UK Newspaper Says Documents Link Bin Laden to Iraq

Sat April 26, 2003 05:13 PM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - "Britain's Sunday Telegraph newspaper said it had discovered documents showing Iraqi intelligence hosted an envoy from Osama bin Laden in 1998 and sought to meet the alleged September 11 mastermind in person."

"The finding, if verified, would appear to support Washington's assertion of links between ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and bin Laden, one of the justifications for the U.S.-led war in Iraq."

"The paper said the documents, which its correspondent found in the wrecked headquarters of the Iraqi Mukhabarat intelligence service, showed Iraq brought a bin Laden aide to Baghdad in early 1998 from his former base in Sudan to arrange closer ties."............

Growing Evidence of a Saddam - al-Qaeda Link

By Stephen F. Hayes
The Weekly Standard | July 15, 2003

"The document shows that an Iraqi intelligence officer, Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, assigned to the Iraq embassy in Pakistan, is ''responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group.".....

"..the Bush administration's claims that al Qaeda was cooperating with the "infidel" (read: secular) Saddam Hussein while he was still in office are now also gaining support, and from a surprising source. Hamid Mir, bin Laden's "official biographer" and an analyst for al Jazeera, spent two weeks filming in Iraq during the war. Unlike most reporters, Mir wandered the country freely and was not embedded with U.S. troops. He reports that he has "personal knowledge" that one of Saddam's intelligence operatives, Farooq Hijazi, tried to contact bin Laden in Afghanistan as early as 1998."

[Destro]

How about reading a book, Babe?

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com
In the global search for culprits and causes in the rise of terrorism, former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations Dore Gold shines a spotlight on a nation many think of as a close ally of the United States: Saudi Arabia. As he explains in Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism, Gold believes that the Saudi government is greatly influenced by the Islamist sect known as Wahhabism and, he explains, that influence has lead to Saudi support of terrorism in the Middle East, Europe, the United States and around the world. The historical portion of Gold’s argument, where he traces the emergence of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the changing face of Saudi leadership, is admirably extensive and detailed. His modern research is a little more uneven, relying on statements by various Muslim clergy members, letters to the editors of newspapers, opinion pieces, and other evidence that is rarely damnable. Curiously, mentions of Israel and the long-standing Arab-Israeli conflict are much more infrequent than one would expect from an Israeli diplomat and scholar. But regardless of one’s opinion of Gold’s research or his alarming conclusions, the book offers something not often found in modern political nonfiction: a coherent structure, exhaustive research, and a clear and consistent perspective on the ongoing threat of terrorism. --John Moe

Book Description
In Hatred’s Kingdom, Dore Gold has the goods on Saudi Arabia, proving how it is actively supporting terrorism. Using previously unpublished documents, Gold, former Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. and internationally known Middle East strategy expert, pieces together the links between the current wave of global terrorism—from the World Trade Center to Bali, Indonesia—and the ideology of hatred taught in the schools and mosques of Saudi Arabia.

Gold reveals:
1. How September 11 was only the most dramatic example of a new breed of terrorism, even now poised to strike again, that was born and nurtured in Saudi Arabia and quietly unleashed on the international community. 2. The deadly recipe that creates the new terrorism: a broad financial and military network mixed together with a strong motivating ideology that could compel people to sacrifice their lives and commit mass murder. Both of these ingredients grew together in Saudi Arabia, in a movement called Wahhabism.

3. How Wahhabi preachers in the main mosques of Saudi Arabia justify and support continued hostile acts against the U.S. and the West (translated sermons included). 4. How prominent Saudi Wahhabi clerics actually justify the 9/11 attacks in publications, which are revealed here and translated.

5. Shocking evidence of how the Saudis have financed the world’s most dangerous terrorist organizations, including Al-Qaeda and Hamas. Gold reveals the discovery of cancelled Saudi checks found in a Hamas headquarters in the West Bank. Internal Palestinian intelligence and political reports explicitly tie Saudi Arabia to radical Palestinian terrorist groups engaged in suicide bombings. Similar proof of Saudi backing for Islamic militants in Afghanistan, Chechnya, the Balkans, and the U.S. are presented.

Dore Gold connects the dots. He combines a rich knowledge of the history of the Middle East with a decade of hands-on diplomatic experience. If there is a single book that clearly explains Saudi Arabia, the complexities of the Middle East, and the rise of the new global terrorism in one volume, this is the one.

[Miss Marple]

So, as evidence you cite an Amazon book review? Pretty weak.

And do NOT call me "babe." It is insulting. I have been courteous to you and I expect the same treatment in return.

[Destro]

"The finding, if verified,"......so why has it not been verified yet? Has the Telegraph not sent it on to the White House? Has the White House asked for it? Why no press conference on this? White House Press releases on these documents? If the articles are correct and this has not been used as a smoking gun to end debate is this another example of the Bush White House incompetance I typed about?

To me, the fact that we uncovered parts of a banned nuclear weapons program buried in a scientists rose garden is ALL the justification we need for the war. But why has the Bushies not even published a picture of the find with cameras taking pictures and video tape of the digging up of this banned component of a WMD program?!!

You can say that they are stupid not to but I think they are not hyping that find because they went to war based on the notion that Saddam had nuclear weapons about to be ready to go into production.

In reality what Saddam looks like he was hidding was not stockpiles of WMD ready to use but the programs and components to re-start up production once the world's gaze was averted. But the Bushies sold the war on the basis of existing stockpiles of WMD not on the continued existance of a WMD production program which the evidence now indicates was all that Saddam had nad was what he was protecting.

If the WH sold the war just on non-compliance and told us flat out we don't think they have WMD stockpiles (but with a better safe than sorry provision) I think that would have been more--honest---and would not have gotten us into the PR problems the WH is having now with this issue.

I hope what I said sounds resonable and as you can see is more reasoned than what you would think I was thinking.

[William McKinley]

If the WH sold the war just on non-compliance and told us flat out we don't think they have WMD stockpiles

Why the 'and' there?

They sold the war on non-compliance. They also sold the war on them having some WMD and seeking others-- it so happens that many of the non-compliance issues deal with them producing what they had admitted to having so that we could verify their destruction.

They had WMD. That is only in doubt among those trying to discredit the administration for other (read: political) reasons. Where are they? Good question. We need to find them- just as we need to find the caches of rocket propelled grenade launchers that are being used against our troops. Weaponry, unfortunately, is easy to hide.

[Destro]

No, I did not cite the Amazon book review BUT THE ACTUAL book! Written by a respected Israeli ambassador and STUFFED full sourced refrenced material. You know--evidence. Shame on you for not conceding the point when I presented your requested evidence. It may require lengthy book reading on your part but I think your smart enough to do it. You can either purchase the book direct from Amazon.com or visit your local lending library.

The book review was so you can see that background of the book and judge its author's credentials and authenticity. For you to suggest otherwise was disingenuous of you.

[McGavin999]

With all dur respect, those terror camps were WITHIN the Kurdish area no fly zones outside of Saddam's power to control and last anyone told me were were at war with al-Qaeda not Palestinian terror organizations.

Some of them were, some of them weren't. Either way, most of the No Fly zone was still under Saddam's control. No Fly meant "No Fly" and not No Go. The Kurds daily watched the forts of Saddam just over the line and Saddam still ran, and received revenue from the Mosul wells.