Reasons For Iraq

[dairygirl4u2c]

i decided to get some stuff i posted here in the past, just to leave less doubt. just in case any conservatives are willing to admit what appears to have happened...

[quote]LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses]solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

[url="http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/"]http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/[/url][/quote]

state of union 2002. though i'm sure there are more speeches.
[quote]And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than ninety terrorist attacks in twenty countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror, and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaida have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al-Qaida leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq.
.........
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to the Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.


[url="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/07/...ain524627.shtml"]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/07/...ain524627.shtml[/url][/quote]


here's another clark fellow ironically. better reputation, a general.
[quote]CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."
[url="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842"]http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842[/url]

CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."[/quote]

Edited June 5, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Mercy me]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1288888' date='Jun 5 2007, 06:57 PM']i'm not opposed to us fighting iraq given its weopons and violations. i am only opposed to it under false pretenses. ie, the richard clark stuff and connection between iraq and al queada.

what's interesting is that i've never seen anyone who tries to defend the invasion admit, that given the evidence, it does look like he scewed the iraq and al quida connection. i don't see how you could dispute that. and i've never seen anyone reasonably do it either. the only thing i've seen is people say they didn't think there was a connection and not a protrayal of one either.
it's okay to cast doubt on richard clark, and say we might be taking what was said at the state of the union etc too far, but admit what it appears to be.[/quote]

I do not recall the President ever saying that Iraq was behind the attack on the World Trade Center. I could be wrong but it is irrelevent to my input because I never thought that Saddam had anything to do with the events of that day.

The facts to me are as follow:

Saddam had chemical weapons.
Saddam proved that he had chemical weapons.
Saddam invaded a peaceful neighbor without provokation.
Saddam refused to comply with the mandates of the cease fire following the Gulf War.
Saddam repeatedly fired on patrols enforcing the cease fire.
Saddam threw the UN inspectors charged with certifying that he had no chemical and biological weapons out of the country.
Saddam was an enemy of this country.

The bottom line is this: [b]There is no proof that Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs[/b] Particularly since some have been found in Iraq.

Do I believe that he would have provided chemical weapons to an organization such as Al Qaida? Yes, I do.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1288854' date='Jun 5 2007, 03:58 PM']Answer. It was either a war in Iraq or on our own soil. Which would you prefer more?[/quote]

This is a humorous response, because accordingly if that's your philosophy, we should pre-emptively invade every nation that poses the same or greater threat to our nation, except that we don't have the resources for that, do we? Iraq is one issue, if we invaded Iran, it would be worse, and even more worse with North Korea, etc.

Invading Iraq, absorbed resources that should have been used conservatively on suppressing nations that actually pose a threat, like North Korea.

Reza

[Proud2BCatholic139]

Plain and simple, as Blessed Mother revealed to Lucia, Francisco, and Jacinta that World War II and Communisim in Russia would have been avoided if the world pray the Rosary everyday.

I see the same scenerio here.

[Proud2BCatholic139]

May I add, that if Blessed Mother's needs and requests are not met, (Fatima Message) There will be even greater wars then of the past.