The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Doc Emmett Brown]

It is working to help Aghfanistan get back on track.? Hopefully they can do something about the flourishing opium trade that exists there now.

Afghanistan is back on track because of opium.? Their recovery began with harvesting heroin fields.? Can anybody read bewteen the lines?

There's a good article about Afghan's drug trade at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5569653/site/newsweek/
It ends with the following:

"U.S. policy toward Afghanistan is now on the right track. America and its allies are extending security outside Kabul, helping to build up the Afghan Army and police, weakening the warlords, strengthening the central government, funding reconstruction projects, offering farmers alternatives to opium. But it might be too late. Instability is rampant, the drug trade is flourishing and the warlords are entrenched. As in Iraq, the administration seems to have learned from its mistakes, but the education of George Bush has been mighty costly."

It seems that Congressman Bereuter is aspiring for a more inclusive role in formulating US-Asia policies than he would have had by remaining in Congress.  Hence, his motivation to speak out against the war so that he can gain allies in his new profession.

[GnRNightrain]

I think our President couldnt allow Suddam to have such weapons if he had them.? I think the evidence showed he had them, therefore Bush made the right decison.

I think your president should've concentrated on getting the guy responsible for 9/11 first and then going after the others.

It wasn't Saddam or his hidden weapons that killed all those innocent people in September 2001.




/jarmo

Yah, but there are more terrorists out there than those involved in 911.  Osama Bin Laden is a figure head, I think it is also very important to go after those that might give terrorists weapons to use against the US.  Even if we catch Osama, that doesnt mean Al Qaeda is done.  Even if we completely defeated AL Qaeda, that doesnt mean that islamic terrorism is done.
More has to be done than go after just Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. 

[GnRNightrain]

I think our President couldnt allow Suddam to have such weapons if he had them.? I think the evidence showed he had them, therefore Bush made the right decison.

I think your president should've concentrated on getting the guy responsible for 9/11 first and then going after the others.

It wasn't Saddam or his hidden weapons that killed all those innocent people in September 2001.




/jarmo

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!

I feel exactly the same way.? Had the Prez concentrated on the "real" enemy, instead of the ultimate Straw Man in Saddam, not only would our country be better off, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that there wouldn't be 1/2 the ill will there is toward the US in the world.? That's ignoring the fact that he'd probably win the reellection in a landslide.

How could the President ignore the fact that numerous intelligence sources showed that Suddam had WMDs and links to terrorists?

Thats like saying North Korea is a bigger problem therefore we shouldnt do anything with Iran.  The war on terror is more than just Osama Bin Laden.

[GnRNightrain]

I still stand by the fact that I think he made the right decision with the information that he has had from sources that I have read.? The fact that many other people made the same conclusions he did (outside the CIA and US, and within).?

from talking to intelligence people, i've heard a different side of the story...that cheney and rumsfeld went to the intelligence community and asked what the link was between al qaeda and saddam...when intel said they weren't sure it existed, they were told to "find a link"...bottom line is from what i've heard, we were looking for any way possible to implicate saddam, even if it meant bending (or breaking) the truth

i realize this is not the best evidence, but i figured i'd bring it up, since the sources are reputable

ed

No offense Elk, but that is a bunch of BS.  The fact is they found links with Al Qaeda, but never once did they say that Suddam was part of 911.  Not once.  No matter how many times people try to level these charges against the administration, they flat out arent true.

[jarmo]

Yah, but there are more terrorists out there than those involved in 911.? Osama Bin Laden is a figure head, I think it is also very important to go after those that might give terrorists weapons to use against the US.? Even if we catch Osama, that doesnt mean Al Qaeda is done.? Even if we completely defeated AL Qaeda, that doesnt mean that islamic terrorism is done.
More has to be done than go after just Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

As far as I remember, many of them were from Saudi Arabia. Other countries were Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Morocco, Algeria.....

So your president decided to attack Iraq....


That's like Britain attacking France because the IRA are killing innocent people. France has nuclear weapons.



/jarmo

[SLCPUNK]

I still stand by the fact that I think he made the right decision with the information that he has had from sources that I have read.? The fact that many other people made the same conclusions he did (outside the CIA and US, and within).?

from talking to intelligence people, i've heard a different side of the story...that cheney and rumsfeld went to the intelligence community and asked what the link was between al qaeda and saddam...when intel said they weren't sure it existed, they were told to "find a link"...bottom line is from what i've heard, we were looking for any way possible to implicate saddam, even if it meant bending (or breaking) the truth

i realize this is not the best evidence, but i figured i'd bring it up, since the sources are reputable

ed

? The fact is they found links with Al Qaeda.....

There are no links! You are nuts!

[pilferk]

I think our President couldnt allow Suddam to have such weapons if he had them.? I think the evidence showed he had them, therefore Bush made the right decison.

I think your president should've concentrated on getting the guy responsible for 9/11 first and then going after the others.

It wasn't Saddam or his hidden weapons that killed all those innocent people in September 2001.




/jarmo

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!

I feel exactly the same way.? Had the Prez concentrated on the "real" enemy, instead of the ultimate Straw Man in Saddam, not only would our country be better off, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that there wouldn't be 1/2 the ill will there is toward the US in the world.? That's ignoring the fact that he'd probably win the reellection in a landslide.

How could the President ignore the fact that numerous intelligence sources showed that Suddam had WMDs and links to terrorists?

Thats like saying North Korea is a bigger problem therefore we shouldnt do anything with Iran.? The war on terror is more than just Osama Bin Laden.

Because we really knew Osama did it.?

The intelligence on Saddam and Iraq WAS questionable, from the get go.? LOTS of other people told us it was.? So, Bush had a choice:

Go after the guy we know did it

or

Go after the guy we THINK MIGHT EVENTUALLY do it.

My money is on the guy who did it, first.?

The fact of the matter is, the intelligence Bush was getting was not rock solid.? He knew it was not rock solid. He chose (for whatever reason...reasoning doesn't matter much to me so I don't dwell on it) to act on it anyways, instead of concentrating on the ACTUAL perpetrator.

It would be sorta like having the cops chase down a guy who MIGHT have the reason and means to murder someone as opposed to someone who was witnessed pulling the trigger.? For my money, I'd prefer they get the known killer off the street first, and commit the majority of their resources in that direction. Is it a risk? Sure it is, but it errs on the side of prudence...and, in this case, apparently it would have been the more correct choice.

Notice, I'm not saying we shouldn't EVER go after the guy with the motive and the means, in order to prevent a crime....just that, when having to choose between the two, I'd rather have our forces committed to getting the dangerous KNOWN, ACTUAL criminal "off the streets", so to speak.  Bush chose exactly the opposite path.  And, in doing so, "sold" the war to the American people on false information, knowingly or not.  And, as I've said a bunch of times, just like any CEO who makes a grave error with the best of intentions (or not).....his fate, for me, should be the same.

[GnRNightrain]

Yah, but there are more terrorists out there than those involved in 911.? Osama Bin Laden is a figure head, I think it is also very important to go after those that might give terrorists weapons to use against the US.? Even if we catch Osama, that doesnt mean Al Qaeda is done.? Even if we completely defeated AL Qaeda, that doesnt mean that islamic terrorism is done.
More has to be done than go after just Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

As far as I remember, many of them were from Saudi Arabia. Other countries were Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Morocco, Algeria.....

So your president decided to attack Iraq....


That's like Britain attacking France because the IRA are killing innocent people. France has nuclear weapons.



/jarmo

Come on Jarmo your much smarter than that.  Your analogy is no where near the same.  The war on terror, terrorists and Al Qaeda arent limited to those people (and the countries they were from) in the 911 attacks. 

[pilferk]

I think our President couldnt allow Suddam to have such weapons if he had them.? I think the evidence showed he had them, therefore Bush made the right decison.

I think your president should've concentrated on getting the guy responsible for 9/11 first and then going after the others.

It wasn't Saddam or his hidden weapons that killed all those innocent people in September 2001.




/jarmo

Yah, but there are more terrorists out there than those involved in 911.? Osama Bin Laden is a figure head, I think it is also very important to go after those that might give terrorists weapons to use against the US.? Even if we catch Osama, that doesnt mean Al Qaeda is done.? Even if we completely defeated AL Qaeda, that doesnt mean that islamic terrorism is done.
More has to be done than go after just Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.?

Osama is much more than a figurehead.  Figurehead means he has no active roll.  That's patently untrue.  He is the mastermind of their every action, and the planner of their every move. This from every leuitenant that we have captured.  The man has his finger directly in every operation, and does much of the military-type strategic planning for them.  To count Osama as a figurehead is dangerous and misleading.

[GnRNightrain]

I still stand by the fact that I think he made the right decision with the information that he has had from sources that I have read.? The fact that many other people made the same conclusions he did (outside the CIA and US, and within).?

from talking to intelligence people, i've heard a different side of the story...that cheney and rumsfeld went to the intelligence community and asked what the link was between al qaeda and saddam...when intel said they weren't sure it existed, they were told to "find a link"...bottom line is from what i've heard, we were looking for any way possible to implicate saddam, even if it meant bending (or breaking) the truth

i realize this is not the best evidence, but i figured i'd bring it up, since the sources are reputable

ed

? The fact is they found links with Al Qaeda.....

There are no links! You are nuts!

read the 911 commission report.  There were numerous incidents of contacts between the two.

[pilferk]

I still stand by the fact that I think he made the right decision with the information that he has had from sources that I have read.? The fact that many other people made the same conclusions he did (outside the CIA and US, and within).?

from talking to intelligence people, i've heard a different side of the story...that cheney and rumsfeld went to the intelligence community and asked what the link was between al qaeda and saddam...when intel said they weren't sure it existed, they were told to "find a link"...bottom line is from what i've heard, we were looking for any way possible to implicate saddam, even if it meant bending (or breaking) the truth

i realize this is not the best evidence, but i figured i'd bring it up, since the sources are reputable

ed

No offense Elk, but that is a bunch of BS.? The fact is they found links with Al Qaeda, but never once did they say that Suddam was part of 911.? Not once.? No matter how many times people try to level these charges against the administration, they flat out arent true.

There were/are no links between Iraq/Saddam and Al Qaeda.  They did not find them.  From all reports, the international intelligence community has completely discredited the claims made by the Clinton Administration even PRIOR to 9/11.  The fact that the Bush Administration continued to claim there were connections doesn't mean they existed, or that anyone else thought they existed.  The 9/11 Commission buried this dead horse over a month ago....

[pilferk]

I still stand by the fact that I think he made the right decision with the information that he has had from sources that I have read.? The fact that many other people made the same conclusions he did (outside the CIA and US, and within).?

from talking to intelligence people, i've heard a different side of the story...that cheney and rumsfeld went to the intelligence community and asked what the link was between al qaeda and saddam...when intel said they weren't sure it existed, they were told to "find a link"...bottom line is from what i've heard, we were looking for any way possible to implicate saddam, even if it meant bending (or breaking) the truth

i realize this is not the best evidence, but i figured i'd bring it up, since the sources are reputable

ed

? The fact is they found links with Al Qaeda.....

There are no links! You are nuts!

read the 911 commission report.? There were numerous incidents of contacts between the two.

Contact that the International Intelligence community KNEW led no where.  The two sides were so paranoid, neither trusted the other.  There were no links to them any more than there are links between me and Former Govener John Rowland....I've met him twice.  Calling that a "link" would be stretching credibility.

[GnRNightrain]

Because we really knew Osama did it.?

Fair enough, we have gone after him and continue to go after him.

The intelligence on Saddam and Iraq WAS questionable, from the get go.? LOTS of other people told us it was.?

Numerous sources thought that there were weapons.? The evidence pointed in that direction, and Im sure that pretty much every country thought the same.? It was logical from Suddams actions (uncooperating) that he had weapons.? Otherwise why not cooperate?? Even outside any of the specific intelligence that he had, it is just LOGICAL.? We knew he had certain weapons at the end of the Gulf War, 1441 told him to show proof of the fact he destroyed the weapons, which he didnt.? He wouldnt let us into all of the sites.? He wouldnt let us interview scientists.? To me that seems like someone that has weapons that is refusing to give them up.? You act like the evidence was leaning to the fact that he didnt have any. when in fact I think its quite the opposite.

So, Bush had a choice:

Go after the guy we know did it

or

Go after the guy we THINK MIGHT EVENTUALLY do it.

Your question is flawed by the word "or".? Ill admit, I think that we could use more resources in Afghan.? However, if Osama is in Pakistan that there is not much we can do but put pressure on them to go after him (which we are doing).? But both can be done.? And both have been done.
Furthermore, I think there is a different question.? If Bush has all of this evidence that Suddam has WMDs and the guy is supporting terrorists (Hezzbollah and had links to Al Qaeda) that have killed americans.? What makes you think he wouldnt give them WMDs to use against Americans.? So either he could do nothing, or make sure that those weapons dont get in the hands of terrorists.? Im glad he made the choice he did.? If he didnt act with the information he had, I think that would be an impeachable offense.

It would be sorta like having the cops chase down a guy who MIGHT have the reason and means to murder someone as opposed to someone who was witnessed pulling the trigger.? For my money, I'd prefer they get the known killer off the street first, and commit the majority of their resources in that direction. Is it a risk? Sure it is, but it errs on the side of prudence...and, in this case, apparently it would have been the more correct choice.

Your analogy doesnt fit the situation at all.? Based on the information we had, Suddam could have been more of a threat that Osama.? Osama was being chased around int he mountains and for sure is a figure head.? However, Suddam supposedly had WMDs and he could give them to terrorist group to use against the US (and he did have ties to terrorist groups).? Therefore, it is quite arguable that he is more of a threat than Osama at this time.?
Besides, again you are flawed because it is not an "or" question.? You are crazy if you want to limit islamic terrorism to 911 highjackers and osama bin laden.? You cant let countries that support such terroritsts have WMDs or harbor terrorists.? It is another part of the war on terror besides Osama.

[GnRNightrain]

I still stand by the fact that I think he made the right decision with the information that he has had from sources that I have read.? The fact that many other people made the same conclusions he did (outside the CIA and US, and within).?

from talking to intelligence people, i've heard a different side of the story...that cheney and rumsfeld went to the intelligence community and asked what the link was between al qaeda and saddam...when intel said they weren't sure it existed, they were told to "find a link"...bottom line is from what i've heard, we were looking for any way possible to implicate saddam, even if it meant bending (or breaking) the truth

i realize this is not the best evidence, but i figured i'd bring it up, since the sources are reputable

ed

? The fact is they found links with Al Qaeda.....

There are no links! You are nuts!

read the 911 commission report.? There were numerous incidents of contacts between the two.

Contact that the International Intelligence community KNEW led no where.? The two sides were so paranoid, neither trusted the other.? There were no links to them any more than there are links between me and Former Govener John Rowland....I've met him twice.? Calling that a "link" would be stretching credibility.

Thats not true at all.  Thats not what they found.  There is also a book out (which I havent read), that discusses many of the links that were present between the two.  Besides, he supported other terrorist groups as well that have killed americans.  Al Qaeda is hardly the only islamic terrorist network.

[pilferk]

Because we really knew Osama did it.?

Fair enough, we have gone after him and continue to go after him.

The intelligence on Saddam and Iraq WAS questionable, from the get go.? LOTS of other people told us it was.?

Numerous sources thought that there were weapons.? The evidence pointed in that direction, and Im sure that pretty much every country thought the same.? It was logical from Suddams actions (uncooperating) that he had weapons.? Otherwise why not cooperate?? Even outside any of the specific intelligence that he had, it is just LOGICAL.? We knew he had certain weapons at the end of the Gulf War, 1441 told him to show proof of the fact he destroyed the weapons, which he didnt.? He wouldnt let us into all of the sites.? He wouldnt let us interview scientists.? To me that seems like someone that has weapons that is refusing to give them up.? You act like the evidence was leaning to the fact that he didnt have any. when in fact I think its quite the opposite.

So, Bush had a choice:

Go after the guy we know did it

or

Go after the guy we THINK MIGHT EVENTUALLY do it.

Your question is flawed by the word "or".? Ill admit, I think that we could use more resources in Afghan.? However, if Osama is in Pakistan that there is not much we can do but put pressure on them to go after him (which we are doing).? But both can be done.? And both have been done.
Furthermore, I think there is a different question.? If Bush has all of this evidence that Suddam has WMDs and the guy is supporting terrorists (Hezzbollah and had links to Al Qaeda) that have killed americans.? What makes you think he wouldnt give them WMDs to use against Americans.? So either he could do nothing, or make sure that those weapons dont get in the hands of terrorists.? Im glad he made the choice he did.? If he didnt act with the information he had, I think that would be an impeachable offense.

It would be sorta like having the cops chase down a guy who MIGHT have the reason and means to murder someone as opposed to someone who was witnessed pulling the trigger.? For my money, I'd prefer they get the known killer off the street first, and commit the majority of their resources in that direction. Is it a risk? Sure it is, but it errs on the side of prudence...and, in this case, apparently it would have been the more correct choice.

Your analogy doesnt fit the situation at all.? Based on the information we had, Suddam could have been more of a threat that Osama.? Osama was being chased around int he mountains and for sure is a figure head.? However, Suddam supposedly had WMDs and he could give them to terrorist group to use against the US (and he did have ties to terrorist groups).? Therefore, it is quite arguable that he is more of a threat than Osama at this time.?
Besides, again you are flawed because it is not an "or" question.? You are crazy if you want to limit islamic terrorism to 911 highjackers and osama bin laden.? You cant let countries that support such terroritsts have WMDs or harbor terrorists.? It is another part of the war on terror besides Osama.

1) And numerous sources said he did not have WMD's, upto and including: Powell, Isreali intelligence, Russian Intelligence, French Intelligence, German Intelligence, and even the UN Inspectors themselves.? As I said, it was not a cut an dry issue...and, come to find out, Bush was wrong. You can not dispute he was wrong because, lets face it, there are no WMD's, right?? Bush chose to hear one side, and lend limited (I'd say no, but I won't) credence to anyone other than British and US intelligence, no matter how much contrary evidence there was. That is fact.? One you seem to patently ignore over and over again....

2) Was it logical that Saddam had WMD? Maybe.? Logic is not always proof.? Logic based on faulty and incorrect information is faulty, at it's base.? I would say that Saddams actions were suspicious.? Suspicion is not proof.


3) My arguement does not say that the evidence leans toward their not being WMD's.? My arguement is there was sufficient doubt in what we called "evidence", given it's credibility and largely circumstancial nature, as to render the evidence inconclusive.? Inconclusive is not the thing to build a war on, IMHO.

4) One more time, with feeling.? There were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.? That's fantasy.? As for Hezzbollah, I'm not as sure.? I seem to remember reading relations between them and Iraq had soured, considerably, and again, the Intelligence community was aware of that.? However, I'll have to look around for that source, since I'm unsure.?

? Edit: I was incorrect about Hezbollah.? It was a different group who's relationship had soured. Even so, Hezbollah is neither as active, nor as well funded, nor as widely spread as Al Qaeda.? Again, going after the larger, more imminent threat seems a better course of action.

5) OR is absolutely appropriate, given a limited amount of resources.? If our military was an unending infinite body, sure, you'd have a point.? But the fact remains, we only have so many troops, so many vehicles, and so many Commanders.? To fight a two front war is, as any military strategist will tell you, a dangerous proposition since you are dividing your forces.? You can only commit a majority to one front.? Which front did we choose? Hint: It was the one that had zero to do with Osama.? OR is the most appropriate article you can attach to the process.? Osama or Saddam.? Iraq OR Afghanistan.? The Guy who did it OR the Guy who might.

6) Based on flawed, questionable information he MIGHT have been more dangerous than Osama.? Based on 9-11, where Osama actually successfully launched an attack on our soil, for the SECOND time, (something Iraq has never done ONCE, and, we knew at the time, would never have been capable of doing, directly), I would say that conclusion is, at best, flawed.? In addition, you keep insisting there were ties to terrorist groups.? How about providing a credible source that has NOT been contradicted by the 9-11 comission?? I'd like to see it.? In addition, I don't see how any reasonable person can label Osama a figurehead.? Care to explain that logic, all things considered?

7) As I said, I'm not suggesting we ignore the countries with terrorist ties.? I'm suggesting lets FIRST catch the immediate threat (Osama) who has already struck.? I'm suggesting committing the majority of our resources to THAT task, instead of committing them to fight a war based on assumptions, faulty logic, and poor information.? Again, I'll point out there is a difference between KNOWING and BELIEVING.? We KNEW Osama was "the bad guy".? We THOUGHT Saddam might be. Big difference.

[pilferk]

I still stand by the fact that I think he made the right decision with the information that he has had from sources that I have read.? The fact that many other people made the same conclusions he did (outside the CIA and US, and within).?

from talking to intelligence people, i've heard a different side of the story...that cheney and rumsfeld went to the intelligence community and asked what the link was between al qaeda and saddam...when intel said they weren't sure it existed, they were told to "find a link"...bottom line is from what i've heard, we were looking for any way possible to implicate saddam, even if it meant bending (or breaking) the truth

i realize this is not the best evidence, but i figured i'd bring it up, since the sources are reputable

ed

? The fact is they found links with Al Qaeda.....

There are no links! You are nuts!

read the 911 commission report.? There were numerous incidents of contacts between the two.

Contact that the International Intelligence community KNEW led no where.? The two sides were so paranoid, neither trusted the other.? There were no links to them any more than there are links between me and Former Govener John Rowland....I've met him twice.? Calling that a "link" would be stretching credibility.

Thats not true at all.? Thats not what they found.? There is also a book out (which I havent read), that discusses many of the links that were present between the two.? Besides, he supported other terrorist groups as well that have killed americans.? Al Qaeda is hardly the only islamic terrorist network.

That is absolutely what they found.? If you'd like, I'll pass off the links from the Washington Post, the NY Times, and other reputable news sources that report exactly that.?

There were? reported meetings between Iraq and Al Qaeda officials. Both sides were distrustful of the other, so those initial meetings never went any further.? Clinton had heard of the initial meeting, and that's when he made the statements he did.?

Here's a freebie:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Edit: Oh, and FYI, Spanish Intelligence, French Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice ALL have, in various interviews, etc, stated the same thing:  No link.  Yahoo/Google is a wonderful thing.

[MCT]

There are plenty of people (judging the size and post count on the political threads of past) that are interested in an adult conversation. In the time preceding the election I think it is important to talk about issues. Again, so do many others, no matter what their political stance.

If this is boring to you,? I suggest you look elsewhere or maybe troll your local Jr. High where the discussion may be at a level that is more interesting to you.

In fact it was directed towards the rather drab political discussions that have been pervading the Jungle as of late.

haha, like this one:

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=12569.0

That was simply a 'copy & paste' job that was meant only to entertain people. Besides, I said - 'as of late' - whereas that particular article was posted on May 22............ ..........

Well like any other topic, if you are not interested, there really is no need in posting.

I already covered that...........so don't try and put words in my mouth............

Thanks for sharing though. I like the big words you use, you really impress me. LOL, you are so insecure.

(Note to self, for future reference) Reverting is much more difficult than converting.......

What seems to be the problem here Jason? Did you find my previous post a little contrived perhaps?.....Hmmm?......Please, tell me what's on your mind............and take a step back with the seemingly whimsical insults..............

[gnrvrrule]

Nightrain, you're right, there is a book that shows the links between the two.? And here is a link that has the book title and its description: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp

This should make you non-believers doubt yourselves.? These are facts by a political science professor who did extensive research.? So, next time, SLCPUNK, why don't you stop calling people "nuts" when someone disagrees with you?? This is why debates and conversations get nowhere.? People like you start personally attacking others with names and crap and that gets nothing done.? I believe this information is more than a coincidence: this shows there was at least some link between Saddam and al Qaeda.  You said there are no links;  you're minus one on that one so far.

[jarmo]

Come on Jarmo your much smarter than that.? Your analogy is no where near the same.? The war on terror, terrorists and Al Qaeda arent limited to those people (and the countries they were from) in the 911 attacks.?

It was a joke, I even put a smiley after it. 

Well, you don't think it's interesting that none of them were from Iraq yet, Iraq is the enemy?




/jarmo

[pilferk]

Nightrain, you're right, there is a book that shows the links between the two.? And here is a link that has the book title and its description: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp

This should make you non-believers doubt yourselves.? These are facts by a political science professor who did extensive research.? So, next time, SLCPUNK, why don't you stop calling people "nuts" when someone disagrees with you?? This is why debates and conversations get nowhere.? People like you start personally attacking others with names and crap and that gets nothing done.? I believe this information is more than a coincidence: this shows there was at least some link between Saddam and al Qaeda.? You said there are no links;? you're minus one on that one so far.

The 9-11 Commission, who had access to ALL intelligence on the matter (something the author of the above mentioned book did not have) said there was no link.? Every major intelligence agency on the planet, EXCEPT ours and Great Britain's, said there was no link.?

FYI, The Weekly Standard is a conservatively biased rag with no editorial credibility.? The author of the book, a reporter for the Weekly Standard, is hardly an unbiased researcher.? In addition, in reading the reviews from CREDIBLE news sources of the book, it sounds like the author strings together largely circumstancial evidence and unverifiable fact to make his "point".? From the sounds of things, it sounds like a conservative version of a "Micheal Moore" job (and NO, I'm not a fan of his).? I'll make you all a deal: I won't use liberal rags and Michael Moore's film as my sources in this discussion. They're of obviously poor credibility.   You all might want to consider doing the same.

 I just can't take an author's word, who has an obvious political bias, over the above mentioned sources.?