Then why does your hero, George W. Bush, concede there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

Care to provide the quote (in context please)?

So, where is al qaeda most active presently?...(your answer shall betray you, or you will lie and obfuscate)

For a complete discussion of connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda, see the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda

As a pre-emptive strike to your calling this "leftist media propaganda," note that the article has links to all the claims it makes.

I must confess, I have not read the entire article. I don't think I need to. I know what it says:

"The CIA's report on Iraq's ties to terrorism noted in September 2002 that the CIA did not have "credible intelligence reporting" of operational collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda."

Even Aljazeera is reporting al-Qaeda's demise in Iraq. How telling it is that this story will run on Aljazeera but not the New York Times or the Washington Post. But they are quite active elsewhere in the world and the news media plays that down.

Neither have other important assertions been retracted, including those by CIA Director George Tenet. As journalist Stephen Hayes reiterated earlier this month, Tenet, on October 7, 2002, wrote a letter to Congress, which asserted:

-- Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank. We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

-- Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

-- We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

-- Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.



NationalReview

There was no terrorism in Iraq, except for Saddam terrorising his own people, until we started a war there and invited all the terrorists in.

From the link...

Instead, it suggested that fighters were being weakened by US raids and propaganda, and proposed ways to counter this - for example by infiltrating Iraq's armed forces, recruiting new members and making more weapons.

But I thought Murtha said we were losing in Iraq?...I thought it was time to give up, cut-and-run, and retreat in typical democrat style?....Go figure...We are winning, as Bush said, afterall.

Then how did they set up shop and become accepted and sheltered so easily in a country they obviously want to tyrannize and a country where they murder innocents on a daily basis?...Foreigners don't just enter a foreign country and set up terrorism unless they have some pre-established infrastructure.

Whether they were there or not, pre-invasion, they are there now...This requires our presence as it would be irresponsible and incompetent to retreat.

they are terrorists mull, they lie, deceive and use propaganda, to get their twisted views accepted... a bit like you


they do actually , especially if the target country has been destabilized by a foreign invader, one who failed to establish control, left the populace without law, order, food , medicine and as a result chaos became a fertile breedingground for "mujahedin"...


it's easier to go unnoticed and do yer dirty business in the rubble ,remnants and afthermath chaos of a war , then under a totalitarian regime such as that of Sadam

i bet Al Qaeda sent a thank you note to the White House for that oen

mul:

No matter what you personally think about AARP, their current issue has a lengthy interview with Colin Powell. You might want to read it before you make irrational, unsubstantiated statements. I believe Powell is credible and his accounts of the activities in the White House leading up to the Iraq invasion are very interesting.

I do not think the general public wants to see a retreat. However, I also feel that the Iraqui leaders would, if not "threatened" with a withdrawal, continue to allow coalition troops to carry the heavy load ad infinitum rather than step up to the plate. Therefore, setting an ultamatum may not be a bad idea. The date could always be changed leter if circumstances change.

Translated captured Iraqi documents show plans for Saddam's chemists to train 'Arab Fedayeens' in the construction of IEDs as far back as 1999. Another document from early April 2003 showed Saddam authorized payment to the "Arab Fedayeen" volunteers--i.e., terrorists--just as he paid members of Iraq's own military. Most of the terrorist organization was already operating within Iraq when the war started.

Easy, we removed the government and didn't provide a replacement.

Sure they do, especially since we removed all traces of law and order

It's been concluded that they were not there pre-invasion. Yes, they are there now. This discussion is not about retreat. But what you are saying is "We broke Iraq, now we have to stay and fix it." There is some truth to the statement "it would be irresponsible to retreat." But I wish we hadn't broken it in the first place. On the other hand, we opened the door to the terrorists, and now we can kill them there instead of here. We've just made innocent Iraqi civilians the "collateral damage" instead of our own innocent civilians.

In response to the topic of the thread, "No, it was on CNN, don't watch CNN anymore"

It seems to me that we are much more vigorously opposed in Iraq than in Afghanistan, it makes me wonder why that should be. If the US and the leader of Al Queda both say that Iraq is the center of the war on terrorism, what makes you guys say, "Nah, don't think so"

As far as WMD's go, he had them, he used them, and a lot of them are unaccounted for, they must be somewhere. IF he had disposed of them, he would have done it on camera with a big smile, to end sanctions(though he was making out pretty good during the sanctions, he could bleed his people dry, and point the finger at the West) I am betting that some went to Syria, some are in containers buried in the sand

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that if we didn't go into Iraq, we would be killing them here.......

Nope, he wanted Iran, Isreal, etc, to think he had them so they wouldn't attack his country, with his military weakened by years of sanctions.

Good point.

psst.....Indonesia

I agree, however they were already 15 years old with a ten year shelf life and just a few semi's full. All made with the aid of Reagan era US technology and supplies.

CNN's "Dead Wrong." ...........I saw most of it late last night, said so in an earlier thread. Although I missed the last 15 minutes of it, it looked pretty tame compared to what I would of put together. They just skimmed over the Downing Street Memos, then I lost interest.

Wow! There's some brilliant liberal logic. That's like trying to prove that if we didn't go into WWII we would be speaking German. Kind of hard proving something that never happened.