# Iraq ties to Al Qaeda



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

We have seen numerous postings on this message boards about the hard links between Saddam and Al Qaeda to justify the war in Iraq. I have copied a Reuters story below with quotes from old Rummy himself admitting that there are no hard links between the two.

You will notice that Rumsfeld claims that the number one reason for the war was the potential for Saddam to gather WMDs. This is in contrast to claims before the war that Saddam already had WMDs.

Does anybody else think that they were sold a false set of goods?



> Rumsfeld: No 'Hard Evidence' of Iraq-Al Qaeda Link
> 
> 10 minutes ago Politics - Reuters
> 
> ...


----------



## SniperPride (Sep 20, 2004)

They found a weapons cache, full of weapons, and Al queda training booklets. Harboring terrorists is a WMD imho. Proof enough for me. If you dont believe me, or think I just got it off some propaganda bs, my brother just got back from iraq. He was there for 14 months. He is voting for *BUSH*
:beer: 
:sniper:


----------



## pointer99 (Jan 16, 2004)

yeah what sniper said.

pointer


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Yeah what sniper said, buddy of mine a tour during the gulf war and a tour on this go around.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

another..... yeah what sniper said


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Its amazing this is even considered a topic after the many times it has been discredited, kind of like the Gore won in Florida nonsense, the desperate clinging to falsehoods. Why can't they admit that the whole worlds intel community thought they had the weapons and based on that the decision to go to war made perfect sense. Its truly and sadly because they are so blinded by the irrational hatred of Bush that they wouldn't believe Jesus Christ himself if he said something good about Bush. But they are happy to believe the likes of Kerry and Dan Rather both provem liars, even when they know their lying. Really tells you something about the liberal mindset. Facts don't matter to them one bit.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I didn't post this story to rekindle the debates that Bob and I have had on the War in Iraq. We both know that neither will change their minds. The following excerpt from the article is what caught my eye:



> During a question-and-answer session at the Council on Foreign Relations on Monday, Rumsfeld also was asked what was the "number-one reason for the war."
> 
> Rumsfeld said President Bush (news - web sites) made the judgment that Saddam "ran a vicious regime that had used weapons of mass destruction on its own people, as well as its neighbors, and that it was important to set that right by removing that regime *before* they, in fact, did gather weapons of mass destruction, either themselves or transferring them to terrorist networks."


This is the first time that I have seen a member of the Bush adiminstration state that they invaded Iraq based on the potential for Saddam to gather WMDs, not because Saddam already had them.

I was lead to believe that we had faulty intel that suggested that Saddam had already gathered WMDs and he was ready to use them.

This continued scrutiny of the War in Iraq is not based on a hatred for Bush. That's what hardcore conservatives do not understand. It is based on a disgust for leaders (Republican or Democrat) who initiate a war and put our soldiers in harms way without hard evidence or a darn good reason. I am more concerned with the lack of judgement of any person that decided to invade based on incomplete information (this includes Kerry).


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

In his address to the United Nation Assembly in 2002 Bush stated 


> We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and *gathering *danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.


Your statement


> This is the first time that I have seen a member of the Bush adiminstration state that they invaded Iraq based on the potential for Saddam to *gather WMDs*, not because Saddam already had them.


Squares with Bushes statement perfectly, just because its the first time YOU HAVE SEEN it doesn't make it true that there is a conflict of facts. Its just that you haven't read the speech and are making judgements without being fully informed.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

IRAQ - VERY INTERESTING - DID YOU KNOW?

1. The garden of Eden was in Iraq.

2. Mesopotamia, which is now Iraq, was the cradle of civilization!

3. Noah built the ark in Iraq.

4. The Tower of Babel was in Iraq.

5. Abraham was from Ur, which is in Southern Iraq!

6. Isaac's wife Rebekah is from Nahor, which is in Iraq.

7. Jacob met Rachel in Iraq.

8. Jonah preached in Nineveh - which is in Iraq.

9. Assyria, which is in Iraq, conquered the ten tribes of Israel.

10. Amos cried out in Iraq!

11. Babylon, which is in Iraq, destroyed Jerusalem.

12. Daniel was in the lion's den in Iraq!

13. The three Hebrew children were in the fire in Iraq (Jesus had been in Iraq also as the fourth person in the fiery furnace!)

14. Belshazzar, the King of Babylon saw the "writing on the wall" in Iraq.

15. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, carried the Jews captive into Iraq.

16. Ezekiel preached in Iraq.

17. The wise men were from Iraq.

18. Peter preached in Iraq

19. The "Empire of Man" described in Revelation is called Babylon,which was a city in Iraq!

And you have probably seen this one. Israel is the nation most often mentioned in the Bible. But do you know which nation is second? It is Iraq! However, that is not the name that is used in the Bible. The names used in the Bible are Babylon, Land of Shinar, and Mesopotamia. The word Mesopotamia means between the two rivers, more exactly between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The name Iraq, means country with deep roots.

Indeed Iraq is a country with deep roots and is a very significant country in the Bible.

No other nation, except Israel, has more history and prophecy associated it than Iraq.

And also... This is something to think about! Since America is typically represented by an eagle. Saddam should have read up on his Muslim passages...

The following verse is from the Koran, (the Islamic Bible)

Koran (9:11) - For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace.

(Note the verse number!) Hmmmmmmm?! God Bless you all Amen !


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Very interetsing post!
thanks
tc


----------



## Dave K. (Aug 28, 2003)

That was was something else Buckseye!

Very interesting!


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

That quote just didn't seem right so I just did a quick google search on "Koran 9:11"

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/k/koran-war.htm

I really am amazed at how it doesn't bother republicans in the very least that we have not found any WMDs. Boy, thats support.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I already debunked that one several weeks back bass, don't expect too many repubs apologizing for their "mistake". God forbid that we should ever make one though. :roll:


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

I am sorry sea bass and Mt that we have found very little Wmd's. I am sorry we removed an evil dictator that raped and killed his own people. I am sorry you forget how many top democrats said he needed to be removed and that he had wmd's.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Few WMD's you say? I must have slept in that day, what WMD's did we find, exactly? His slaghture of the Kurds wasn't a problem with us until he invaded the kuwaiti oil fields, dont play this off as a humanitarian conflict. Even if you do see it as such, why does that give you credence to blatently lie?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Straight out of the liberal playbook. At the beginning of the war in Iraq John Kerry had the same view on WMDs as did George Bush; ditto for the United Nations and most of Europe. To hear the media and liberals like Seabass and Big Daddy tell it there was only one person in the world last March who felt that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMDs, and that person was George Bush. :eyeroll:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bob, you have jumped to a conclusion without fully reading my post. Check out this excerpt from my second post on this thread:



> I am more concerned with the lack of judgement of any person that decided to invade based on incomplete information (this includes Kerry).


Deciding to invade a sovereign nation based on the potential for them to have WMDs shows poor judgement. I don't care if the decision is made by Bush, Kerry, or Clinton, you cannot and should not invade a country and put our soldiers in harms way without FIRM intelligence that WMDs existed. Because of his lack of patience, courage, and good judgement, Bush simply does not deserve to be reelected. Simply put, poor judgement means that he is not qualified. His poor decision cost the lives of over 1000 soldiers' lives. If Kerry says that he would have invaded Iraq too, he doesn't deserve to be president either.

If the potential for a nation to gather WMDs is our new criterion for preemptive invasions, we better get lots more troops and lots more equipment.

Wars are started by frightened men.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

bump...

Maybe we are done with this one? Seems like it went unanswered.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I don't care if the decision is made by Bush, Kerry, or Clinton, you cannot and should not invade a country and put our soldiers in harms way without FIRM intelligence that WMDs existed.


We had the consensus of the entire free worlds intelligence community including your buddies the French All stating that he had and was making more WMDs, according to your logic nothing less than a WMD being set off in this country is "FIRM" its not Bushs fault that Saddam didn't. But it is Bushes fault that Saddam won't again :lol: :beer: Bush acted appropriatley with the information he had you just won't admit it.
Seabass there is no point of answering you and Big Daddy on this issue your partisanship and hatred of George Bush defies logic.


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

Now, it becomes clear to most of us that there were no warm relationships between Saddam's Iraq and Alquada. However, Alquaeda is in Iraq giving us much troubles there and outside Iraq. Our activities in Iraq provided more recruitment opportunities and publicity for Alquaeda propaganda. :-?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I guess we knocked the crap out of two strongholds for nothing then, they are taking turns raising their ugly faces and we grab'em one way or the other.

I am pretty well convinced this is a religious war to the extremists, they sure are some sick puppies cutting peoples heads off and using it for propaganda. They will be punished severely for this.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Watched John McCain the other day on CSPAN, he echoed that every intelligence service we had connections with agreed with our assessment of Saddam.


----------

