Rumsfeld doubts Saddam Laden link

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has cast doubt on whether there was ever a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
The alleged link was one of the justifications used by President Bush for the invasion of Iraq.

In front of an audience in New York, Mr Rumsfeld was asked about connections between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said
WTF? 8O

I'm sure this man was one of the most gobby when ir came to connecting the dots between Saddam and Al-Quaeda.

I'm almost sure he's even on record as saying it.

So first it was "We don't need to control the country to have elections
Now it's "No link between Sadaam and Osama" Well no sh*t Sherlock, you think? Why do you think they all fcuked off to Northern Kurdistan in a hurry?

What's next? No link between Sadaam and 911? Oh we had that. What about "I made up that bit about WMD's being North ,South ,East and West of Fallujah/Baghdad/Todays bad town"


Wonder hiw they'll spin this on MilLockGooseStep.com? :D

Come on America,wake up in November and vote this shower out.

Kerry needs to announce an Administration dream team ,chock full of people renowned for being experts or very experienced in their field.A team America can really trust and get behind. A TRANSPARENT team.

If Kerry announces some serious big guns ,he could swing this now.

Cheney v Edwards debate soon ,the Mil.chods are saying Cheney will bury Edwards ,I'm not so sure now
 
#2
I don't remeber Bush or anyone in his admin saying that there was a definitive tie between Saddam and bin Laden. As for WMD, seems to me that Blix even said he was being obstructed in determining they weren't there and as such assumed they was a strong possibility they were there.

I also recall a resolution by the UN for Saddam to co-operate OR ELSE and it was passed unanimously.

Look you can say the war was not well planned, but you can not say it was unwarranted...the UN failed to act, once again, and the US and others saw it in their best interest to do what the UN refused to do, after saying they would do it...Keep an eye on the Oil for Food program and figure out why the UN failed to act. 8O

Saddam failed to meet the cease fire agreement after GWI...resolution after resolution did not compel him to meet that cease-fire agreement. His failings resoluted in his removal...that is the story as I see it!
 
#3
ctauch said:
Saddam failed to meet the cease fire agreement after GWI...resolution after resolution did not compel him to meet that cease-fire agreement. His failings resoluted in his removal...that is the story as I see it!

And nothing, no evidence, will compell you to see it differently.

Ever.

Keep telling yourself America, you are free, The PATRIOT act has made you free :wink:
 
#4
The White House spin machine tried to plant the idea of an Al Qaeda connection using the fact that members of the Iraq-based Ansar al-Islam group had fought the Soviets in Afghanistan. The group never had more than a couple of hundred members and there is no evidence that it was affiliated to Osama bin Laden's network.

It was based in the north-eastern mountains of Iraq close to the Iranian border and seems to have been little more than an Ali Baba bandit gang.

It suited Bush's purpose to strengthen the case for war, despite the fact it was complete bullshi*. The Spams are a bit like the Arabs in many ways. perception rather than fact is what counts. There are still good ol' boys who firmly believe Saddam had something to do with the September 11 attacks.
 
#5
Yes well, looks like "Clanker" Rumsfeld has done it again. Or is it just that Cheney couldn't quite sing the party line?

Whatever, the Cheney / Edwards bitch session will be good drama if nothing else - it sure as heck won't be worth anything politically! Edwards is an accomplished lawyer so will run rings around Cheney however experienced Cheney believes he is on the world stage.

Bush / Kerry, - the chimp and the trainer!!

:roll:

Edited 'cos my English is crap!

:oops:




 
#6
Next they will be telling us Lee Harvey Oswald didn't do the book store shooting :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
#7
Rumsfeld pops smoke and jinks like hell...

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....U00KA2CRBAELCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=6414689

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday he was misunderstood when he stated hours earlier that he knew of no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda.
"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between al Qaeda and Iraq," Rumsfeld said in a Web site statement issued following remarks he made to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York Monday.

"Today at the Council, I even noted that 'when I'm in Washington, I pull out a piece of paper and say "I don't know, because I'm not in that business, but I'll tell you what the CIA thinks" and I read it'."

In the new statement, issued on the Pentagon Web site, Rumsfeld listed what he said were arguments for suggesting links between al Qaeda and Iraq under Saddam, including what the CIA regarded as "credible evidence" that al Qaeda leaders had sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Rumsfeld, during a question-and-answer session before the Council on Foreign Relations, had been asked to explain the connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network -- one of the U.S. arguments for launching a war on Iraq.

He replied: "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

Nice try Donny ,no cigar :roll:
 
#8
the war was illegal, we were lied to, Bush and Blair deserve to be indited for war crimes and Saddam released to be voted back in to power by his people. (42% said theyd vote for Saddam, 40% said they wouldnt, 18% said they wouldnt vote, Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to the democratically elected president of Iraq, Mr Saddam Hussain).
it was quite an experience to go, but was it worth the loss of those British lives then during the 'war' and now during this total clusterf*ck phase?
 
#9
Saddam offered Bin Laden sanctuary when Sudan told him to sling his hook in 1998. Bin Basta*d told Sadman to feck off because he was an 'infidel". Not a lot of connection there. :D
 
#10
Filbert Fox said:
the war was illegal, we were lied to, Bush and Blair deserve to be indited for war crimes....
I recall reading that Herman Goering was brought up on a charge of "initiating a war of aggression" at Nuremberg.

Also, the Hitler government contrived a fictitious impending invasion of Germany, by Poland, as pretended justification for launching the war.
 
#11
Not_Whistlin_Dixie said:
Filbert Fox said:
the war was illegal, we were lied to, Bush and Blair deserve to be indited for war crimes....
I recall reading that Herman Goering was brought up on a charge of "initiating a war of aggression" at Nuremberg.

Also, the Hitler government contrived a fictitious impending invasion of Germany, by Poland, as pretended justification for launching the war.
Yes, and didnt Hitler also claim humanitarian justification for his invasion of Czechoslovakia - plight of the Sudeten Germans.
 
#12
Czechoslovakia ceded the Sudetenland under duress; Hitler got it without firing a shot.

I have read that there was considerable tension between the ethnic Germans and the Czechs there. Hitler claimed he was rightfully protecting the Sudeten Germans against discrimination, assaults, and murder.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the idea that Poland was planning on invading a resurgent, rearming Germany was too ridiculous to be taken seriously.

So I suppose the lesson is that then, as now, unscrupulous heads of state will contrive ridiculous excuses for launching wars and they will get away with it.
 
#13
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has cast doubt on whether there was ever a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

:? No shit Sherlock!!!

Saddams regime although rotton to the core was one of the most secular of the region, very, very unlikely that hard core religious fanatics of the OBL variety would have had anything to do with him. I'd go so far as saying that the sudden influx of Islamic fighters/terrorists and the sudden discovery of a hardline version of Islam by sections of the Iraqi population are probably largely to do with the lack of the Baath party's iron (secular) grip on Iraq. In fact if old Donny had got his arrse into Iraq last year I would have been happy to educate him as I seem to remember laughing my bits off at this crap then aswell :evil:

Firkin politicians you've just got to hate 'em.
 
#14
ctauch said:
Look you can say the war was not well planned, but you can not say it was unwarranted...the UN failed to act, once again, and the US and others saw it in their best interest to do what the UN refused to do, after saying they would do it...Keep an eye on the Oil for Food program and figure out why the UN failed to act. 8O

Saddam failed to meet the cease fire agreement after GWI...resolution after resolution did not compel him to meet that cease-fire agreement. His failings resoluted in his removal...that is the story as I see it!

Hmmmm....

No WMD, no link to AQ, no threat.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/principles1970.html

Or, excerpt if you don't feel like reading:

"Having considered the principles of international law relating to friendly relations and co-operation among States,

1. Solemnly proclaims the following principles:

The principle that States shall refrain in their international ~ relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations

Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression."


Saying "We don't like him", or even "His own people will be better off without him" are NOT grounds to go to war. If they were, why did two governments go to such extreme and increasingly unsupportable lengths to find "valid" reasons (WMD, terrorist links etc)? WHY did they lie? Because they HAD to.

You can't break National law just cos you don't agree with it ("Your Honour, the 30mph limit was silly, which is why I was doing 45" 8O ) and the same must apply to International law. Saddam should have complied with the resolutions, but his illegal act does NOT justify illegal retaliation. Especially retalliation out of all proportion to the (now established) facts. (Again, "Your Honour, I attempted to search his house cos someone told me he was dealing drugs. He didn't let me in so I beat the living cr*p out of him, his family and friends. No, Your Honour, he wasn't dealing after all")

Personally, I'm glad he's gone. I DO believe that Iraq has a chance of better stability, prosperity and internal peace as a result. But I DON'T like living in a world where the ends (as judged by whoever holds the biggest stick) justify the means. That sort of world scares the sh*t out of me.

And that's the story as I see it.
 
#15
ctauch said:
I don't remeber Bush or anyone in his admin saying that there was a definitive tie between Saddam and bin Laden. ......
Look you can say the war was not well planned, but you can not say it was unwarranted...the UN failed to act, once again, and the US and others saw it in their best interest to do what the UN refused to do, after saying they would do it...Keep an eye on the Oil for Food program and figure out why the UN failed to act. 8O
WTF!
You, my friend, have watched too many Fox news broadcasts! (remember to wear the tin-foil hat next time - that way the brainwash rays cant get you).

Rumsfeld himself - back in 2003 (thinks) said there was strong, definite eveidence linking Saddam and Al-Quaeda as one of the reasons for justifying the war.

If he hurries now - he could get the other foot in while his mouth is still open!


And yes it was unwarranted as a war.. totally.

*Was Saddam a dictator - yes. So are countless others around the globe and the Shrub and B Liar arent out kickin ass elsewhere... but maybe that is because of no oil, no revenue to be gained from rebuilding infrastructure and no increase in share value for Haliburton.

*Was Iraq a risk to the US or the 'west'. Well not until we created the unstable power vacuum that we have now. Unless you call thumbing your nose at the Shrub a threat!

*And dont come out with Saddams humanitarian offences - like we really believe this war is to free Iraquis from oppression. Most of Saddams large scale human rights abuses took place in the mid-late 80's - a time when he was propped up, funded and supported by both UK and US.

This war is a crock of the brown smelly stuff and we all know it.


That said. Now that we are in the mess - through BLiar being so far up Bush's ass he cant see daylight - we should finish the mess we have made of it and the troops deserve all the support and help they need. Still doesnt make it right though.

I mean - if you wanted to shoot-up wedding parties couldnt you just do it in Kentucky or something.

 
#16
Little Jack H said:
ctauch said:
Look you can say the war was not well planned, but you can not say it was unwarranted...the UN failed to act, once again, and the US and others saw it in their best interest to do what the UN refused to do, after saying they would do it...Keep an eye on the Oil for Food program and figure out why the UN failed to act. 8O

Saddam failed to meet the cease fire agreement after GWI...resolution after resolution did not compel him to meet that cease-fire agreement. His failings resoluted in his removal...that is the story as I see it!

Hmmmm....

No WMD, no link to AQ, no threat.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/principles1970.html

Or, excerpt if you don't feel like reading:

"Having considered the principles of international law relating to friendly relations and co-operation among States,

1. Solemnly proclaims the following principles:

The principle that States shall refrain in their international ~ relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations

Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression."


Saying "We don't like him", or even "His own people will be better off without him" are NOT grounds to go to war. If they were, why did two governments go to such extreme and increasingly unsupportable lengths to find "valid" reasons (WMD, terrorist links etc)? WHY did they lie? Because they HAD to.

You can't break National law just cos you don't agree with it ("Your Honour, the 30mph limit was silly, which is why I was doing 45" 8O ) and the same must apply to International law. Saddam should have complied with the resolutions, but his illegal act does NOT justify illegal retaliation. Especially retalliation out of all proportion to the (now established) facts. (Again, "Your Honour, I attempted to search his house cos someone told me he was dealing drugs. He didn't let me in so I beat the living cr*p out of him, his family and friends. No, Your Honour, he wasn't dealing after all")

Personally, I'm glad he's gone. I DO believe that Iraq has a chance of better stability, prosperity and internal peace as a result. But I DON'T like living in a world where the ends (as judged by whoever holds the biggest stick) justify the means. That sort of world scares the sh*t out of me.

And that's the story as I see it.
Hello...IT WAS A CEASE FIRE...we were legally still at WAR. CEASE FIRE NOT PEACE TREATY. Do you get it? A UN negotiated cease fire that the UN said it would enforce, and failed to do so. Saddam violated the cease fire, numerous times, there fore the gloves came off.

Riddle me this which other nation is still at war with the UN??????
 
#17
ctauch said:
Hello...IT WAS A CEASE FIRE...we were legally still at WAR. CEASE FIRE NOT PEACE TREATY. Do you get it? A UN negotiated cease fire that the UN said it would enforce, and failed to do so. Saddam violated the cease fire, numerous times, there fore the gloves came off.

Ohhh it was a cease fire, well thats alright then, it's all become clear, never mind that your government and our government have been blatently lying to us.

never mind that the very companies that the US administration used to run are making money hand over fist 'reconstructing' Iraq.

don't worry about the Iraqi oil reserves at a time when the Saudis are giving out hints that their reserves might not be as extensive as they thought (water assisted extraction anyone)

a cease fire, well cool, obviously we were all wrong, has the Bush/Cheney Junta used that one yet?

any more oil rich countries that we can 're-educate' about where their oil should be flowing that we have a cease fire with?
 
#18
Jesus Ctauch, when will you lot twig and catch on that you have been horseshitted all the way on this one and accept that there were ulterior motives for this bullshit war.

Its OK that everyone screams for impeachemtn when Clinton tells a porky about a blow job from a fat bird, but send over 1000 troops to thier deaths for the wrong reasons and blokes stand up willing to argue the point and try and sweep it under the carpet.

Fox news, Hitler was less extreme is his cover up propaganda.
 
#19
ctauch said:
Riddle me this which other nation is still at war with the UN??????
That would be North Korea then. :roll: Ahh but they might have a nuke and can fight back. :?
 
#20
and the US have already had their fingers burnt in that neck of the woods.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top