• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Saddam Hussein and Iraq were heavily involved with terror

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
Cheney Reiterates Iraq Terror Connection
By Petty Officer 3rd Class John R. Guardiano, USN
American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON, Jan. 12, 2006 – Saddam Hussein's sponsorship of terrorists and terrorism is a matter of open public record, Vice President Dick Cheney said yesterday.
Cheney was a guest on nationally syndicated radio programs hosted by Sean Hannity and Tony Snow.

"The fact is we know that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were heavily involved with terror," Cheney told Snow. "They were carried as a terror-sponsoring state by our State Department for many, many years." He cited two terror organizations in particular -- Abu Nidal and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad - that operated out of Saddam's Iraq. He also noted that Saddam was making payments to families of suicide bombers. "All of this is very well established," Cheney said.

Snow noted that critics of the Iraq war frequently assert exactly the opposite - namely, that there "there's no linkage between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."

Cheney acknowledged this criticism, but said it is factually incorrect and misleading. Prior to the Iraq War, he observed, then-CIA Director George Tenet testified during open session before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda dated back at least 10 years.

"What was never established," the vice president said, "was that there was a link between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11. ... So what some people have done is gotten very sloppy and ... then jumped to the conclusion that there was no relationship at all with respect to al Qaeda."

In fact, captured Iraqi documents, which only now are being reviewed, offer additional evidence of this relationship, Cheney said. But regardless of the exact reasons that the United States liberated Iraq, "significant progress" has been made there, he told Hannity.

The vice president admitted that it's hard sometimes to see this progress, given the continued level of violence. "But when you think of the fact they've made every single political deadline that's been set -- the January elections; (they) wrote a constitution in the summer, ratified it in October; national elections in December -- it has been, I think, a remarkable success story so far," he said.

Acknowledging that much remains to be done in Iraq, Cheney said it's a matter of having the will to do it. "The only way we lose," he said, "is if we pack it in and go home - and we're clearly not going to do that."

Cheney noted "significant progress" in both Iraq and Afghanistan, such as the liberation of 50 million people, the beginnings of democracy in both places and the establishment of indigenous security forces. "It's a remarkable achievement that's due primarily to the enormous capability and courage of the American military and the president's leadership," he said. "And I think history will judge it very favorably."


http://www.dod.mil/news/Jan2006/20060112_3914.html
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Your link doesn't work, but if anyone seriously want's to read drivel from the VP, you can copy and past.

1. It's hysterical to see him citing George Tenent as a reference for accuracy. Tenent, you remember, told Bush that it was a "slam dunk" that Saddam had WMDs. We all know that wasn't true. Colin Powell has said the darkest moment of his career is when he took Tenent's word and assured the UN that Iraq was a threat.

2. He did finally admit there's no proven link between Saddam and 9-11. You see that, everyone? Bush has said it and now even Cheney says it.

3. I saw the actual quote about the captured documents. He says they proved the connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. We can apparently put it right up there with other Cheney claims: (1) They'll welcome us with open arms; (2) the insurgency is in its' last throes. Since the documents haven't been examined yet he doesn't have a clue what they actually say. But Cheney has never been one to let facts stand in his way.

4. We are going to "pack it in and go home." I guess he hasn't been watching the news lately. Bush and the Pentegon both say we're bringing troops home this year.
 

BBJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Messages
607
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Texas
I thought bringing the troops home was what the democrats wanted? Oh well thats just typical of you and your party, want the opposite of what President Bush does. :lol: :lol:

Now on the topic of weapons of mass destruction, may I suggest you steer clear of that because many leaders of your party said the same things and even some stronger words than our President on this. And don't use that line that he gave them only the intellegence he wanted them to see. (are they just a bunch of followign sheep with no mind of their own? If they care about our troops so much why didn't they prove this President wrong and stop all this before it started?) #1 the word Intellegence and democrat doesn't really go thogther anymore. #2 Your President Bill Clinton bombed Iraq on Wednesday December 16, 1998. And I quote, (from CNN.com a liberal media source)"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." This is just a piece of his speech and might I add that this was one day before the IMPEACHMENT hearings. Good timing? :???:
I would like for you right here and now in front of everyone call Clinton a LIAR. .....waiting?

One last thing it is hysterical that Tenet was used as a reference for accurancy after all he was a leftover from the clinton administration.

(P.S. you told me in some other post you could type and think pretty good, OOPS did you mean copy and PASTE or is past right?)
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
BBJ said:
I thought bringing the troops home was what the democrats wanted? Oh well thats just typical of you and your party, want the opposite of what President Bush does. :lol: :lol:

Of course that's what I want.

Now on the topic of weapons of mass destruction, may I suggest you steer clear of that because many leaders of your party said the same things and even some stronger words than our President on this.

I don't need you to tell me what to discuss on this board. Yes, there was broad agreement that Saddam had WMDs. I never believed it, but many other people spoke out and said they did. But they are not the people charged with caring for our troops. It's the Commander in Chief's responsibility to send our soldiers off to die only to protect the interests of this country. Show me where Saddam was a threat to this country.
Bush ran the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq so he could invade! If he had waited two weeks for them to do their job, 30 thousand people would still be alive and we wouldn't be so far in debt to our good friend China.


And don't use that line that he gave them only the intellegence he wanted them to see. (are they just a bunch of followign sheep with no mind of their own?

Of course he did. They have minds; they are also bound by their security clearances not to discuss secret information. Some members of the Senate Intelligence committee saw things they didn't believe, but they were not able to discuss them with other members of the Senate that didn't have security clearances or the media. Unlike Carl Rove, they felt leaking secret informtion was wrong.

If they care about our troops so much why didn't they prove this President wrong and stop all this before it started?)

Because the Senate, in general, didn't have the same information that Bush did. They believed the President of the United States back then.

#1 the word Intellegence and democrat doesn't really go thogther anymore.

ROTFLMAO! That's weak.

#2 Your President Bill Clinton bombed Iraq on Wednesday December 16, 1998. And I quote, (from CNN.com a liberal media source)"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." This is just a piece of his speech and might I add that this was one day before the IMPEACHMENT hearings. Good timing? :???:

Well, apparently it worked, since Bush's invasion of Iraq hasn't turned up any nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs. Guess Clinton did something right, huh?

I would like for you right here and now in front of everyone call Clinton a LIAR. .....waiting?

One last thing it is hysterical that Tenet was used as a reference for accurancy after all he was a leftover from the clinton administration.

(P.S. you told me in some other post you could type and think pretty good, OOPS did you mean copy and PASTE or is past right?)[/quote]

Yes, Clinton appointed him, Bush kept him in his job and gave him the President's Metal of Freedom after he resigned in disgrace for the poor job his agency did in the run up to Iraq.

Not only do I type and think pretty good, I can cut and paste, too.
 

BBJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Messages
607
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Texas
Excuse me I wasn't telling you what to discuss, I was merely suggesting you steer clear of something that makes you look ignorant.

Man you mean to tell me that YOU never believed Saddam had WMD's and nobody in the adminstration consulted with you??? Boy there's grounds for impeachment if I've any seen any.

He ran those doe-doe (sp?) bird, UN inspectors out of there for their own safety.

Since you are such a master of cutting and pasteing do me a little favor. Look up how many UN resolutions there was on Iraq and how many years the world has been waiting for them to comply. You are interrested in the truth right?
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
BBJ said:
Excuse me I wasn't telling you what to discuss, I was merely suggesting you steer clear of something that makes you look ignorant.

Of course you'd like to run things. I won't steer clear of the bad intelligence Bush used for his excuse to invade Iraq. That makes my case, as does this: (There's more at the link; I'll put it at the bottom; my emphasis.)

"A congressional report made public yesterday concluded that President Bush and his inner circle had access to more intelligence and reviewed more sensitive material than what was shared with Congress when it gave Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq".

Man you mean to tell me that YOU never believed Saddam had WMD's and nobody in the adminstration consulted with you??? Boy there's grounds for impeachment if I've any seen any.

Yep. If he had WMDs, he'd have used them.

He ran those doe-doe (sp?) bird, UN inspectors out of there for their own safety.

What was the hurry? He could have waited two more weeks, but no, they might have actually found there were no WMDs and then he'd have no excuse for his little war.

Since you are such a master of cutting and pasteing do me a little favor. Look up how many UN resolutions there was on Iraq and how many years the world has been waiting for them to comply. You are interrested in the truth right?

UN Resolutions! Weren't you just telling me that you didn't give a smidgen about the UN? So exactly when did you decide it was up to the US to enforce UN resolutions? ROTFLMAO!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501813.html
 

BBJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Messages
607
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Texas
Who said I wanted to run things? (or do you feel like I'm running you? :wink: )
You can talk in circles better than any politician I have ever seen. You know why we went to war and you know it was the right thing to do you will just never agree with anybody but a democrat.

Do your research he used WMD's against his own people in the past. IF he was so innocent and there were no weapons why wouldn't he let us in, excuse me the "UN" inspectors in.

The hurry we had been telling him for something like 11 years to comply and he didn't. Appease= to pacify.(2 weeks at a time for how many more years?)

It was our responsibility to enforce UN resolutions when we got attacked on 9/11 and the world changed.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
BBJ said:
Who said I wanted to run things? (or do you feel like I'm running you? :wink: )
You can talk in circles better than any politician I have ever seen. You know why we went to war and you know it was the right thing to do you will just never agree with anybody but a democrat.

I'll never agree with a liar. And Bush is a liar. Even you can't deny he went around the country telling voters they didn't have to worry about being wiretapped because it required a warrent. And all the while he was standing there with that smirk on his face, he was illegally listening in on their private conversations.

Do your research he used WMD's against his own people in the past. IF he was so innocent and there were no weapons why wouldn't he let us in, excuse me the "UN" inspectors in.

Where did he get the WMDs he used on his own people? From the United States of America. We gave him the technology that was the basis for his WMD program! And you need to do your research: the UN inspectors were in Iraq "In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the recommendation was given late Sunday night both to his Vienna-based agency hunting for atomic weaponry and to the New York-based teams looking for biological and chemical weapons
." (my emphasis; link below)

The hurry we had been telling him for something like 11 years to comply and he didn't. Appease= to pacify.(2 weeks at a time for how many more years?)

It was our responsibility to enforce UN resolutions when we got attacked on 9/11 and the world changed.

Why? Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. So show me the reason Bush was in such a hurry to attack him? UN resolutions are being ignored in other countries; is it our responsibility to enforce those in Dufar?

Link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm
 

Latest posts

Top