CIA official: "intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made"

flavio

Banned
The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade.

"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote.

There's More.....................
It's ok though right? Totally acceptable behavior.
 

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
Iraqi General: Saddam Flew WMDs to Syria

Webcast News Service, 6 February 2006

Former Iraqi general Georges Sada, who served as second-in-command of the Iraqi air force under deposed dictator Saddam Hussein, says Hussein moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the US-led invasion by loading them into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed. The revelation is made in the newly published book, Saddam's Secrets.

Speaking to The New York Sun, Sada reported that special Republican Guard units led by Saddam's cousin, Ali Hussein al-Majid, nicknamed "Chemical Ali," loaded "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones" in two Boeing jets. The planes made 56 flights to Syria in the weeks leading up to the war. Hussein also sent WMD out on trucks.

"Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming," Sada said. "They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians."

The revelation follows by one month Israeli Gen. Moshe Yaalon's comments that Israel had intelligence showing that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

The term "weapons of mass destruction" is used to describe nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. In the case of Iraq, Hussein was suspected of possessing primarily chemical weapons, although the Iraqis were also working on developing nuclear weapons. As part of the ceasefire in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, Hussein agreed to get rid of his WMDs. However, Hussein's many "palaces" were off-limits to U.N. weapons inspectors, and the dictator kicked the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq in 1998.

A U.S.-led coalition occupied Iraq in 2003, in part because Hussein was suspected of continuing to possess chemical weapons. However, no chemical weapons have been found by the occupying forces.

On March 16, 1988, Hussein attacked the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabjah with a mix of mustard gas and nerve agents, killing 5,000 civilians, and wounding 10,000 more.

Syria, which shares a long border with Iraq, is ruled by the Baath party, as was Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The Baath party was founded in 1945 as a radical, left-wing, Arab nationalist party and came to power in both Syria and Iraq in 1963.

Syria's regime, headed by dictator Bashar Assad, has a long history of supporting terrorist groups. Terrorist groups sponsored by Syria include Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. In addition, Assad has been accused of masterminding the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Sada's book also says that on the eve of the first Gulf War, Saddam was planning to use his air force to launch a chemical weapons attack on Israel.

Source

Check out this interview with Georges Sada.
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
flavio said:
It's ok though right? Totally acceptable behavior.

So what's your point? The data was there...It's the exact same thing every politician does to get what they want. Whether you support the war and the troops, or not, is a moot point. We have been tasked to do a job. STFU and let us do it.
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
I've said it before, but here it is again.
I still believe the stuff was there, if not some still.
I think Bush, and admin, know the value of intel, and are willing to take
a blow or 2 to keep it secret. Hell Bush SR. was the head of it for awhile.
You don't think they are both team players?
I think most all the intel was on the mark, they just don't want outside people
to know how good it is. (I will now refer to the wiretapping e.g.) Then some dumbass
had to expose that. :confused:

Britain had almost the same intel, and they didn't say it was wrong for a long
time after Bush said it. I think he told um he needed um to take a hit also for the team.

These CIA people are THERE getting this info in most cases, putting their life
on the line for it. I don't think they are going to just make shit up.
*takes tinfoil hat back off*
 

chcr

Too cute for words
Sorry, cat but I do believe that the intel was manipulated to justify the invasion. I think the Iraq war was inevitable from the moment Bush was elected. OTOH, I don't think the administration did anything that someone else would not have, jsut as Gato says. I don't think personally that the weaposn were ever there. For instance, the nuclear thing was shown to be in error before the invasion. I wonder would folks like flavio be as outraged if something like this had happened which furthered their agenda. History shows that the answer is no.
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
You can be sorry if you want to chic, but you don't have to be just because we disagree on a point. :D

(ever heard of neuro-linguistics? I think Tony Robbins is the one that made the phrase famous)
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
chcr said:
Sorry, cat but I do believe that the intel was manipulated to justify the invasion. I think the Iraq war was inevitable from the moment Bush was elected. OTOH, I don't think the administration did anything that someone else would not have, jsut as Gato says. I don't think personally that the weaposn were ever there. For instance, the nuclear thing was shown to be in error before the invasion. I wonder would folks like flavio be as outraged if something like this had happened which furthered their agenda. History shows that the answer is no.


The weapons were there. All were verified and accounted for except for 80 tons, or so...still missing, BTW...Before this is misinterpreted, all of the weapons were accounted for before, and after, the first gulf war. That was the reason for all of the sanctions...to get him to destroy all of them. Now before some of you get your panties in a twist over the amount missing, one drop of VX the size of a pinhead can kill you unless you use your injectors in a "timely" manner...
 

Luis G

<i><b>Problemator</b></i>
Staff member
Re: CIA official: "intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already mad

Gato_Solo said:
The weapons were there. All were verified and accounted for except for 80 tons, or so...still missing, BTW...Before this is misinterpreted, all of the weapons were accounted for before, and after, the first gulf war. That was the reason for all of the sanctions...to get him to destroy all of them. Now before some of you get your panties in a twist over the amount missing, one drop of VX the size of a pinhead can kill you unless you use your injectors in a "timely" manner...

Yeah, I watched The Rock :D
 
Re: CIA official: "intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already mad

flavio said:
It's ok though right? Totally acceptable behavior.

A rational person picks the best info available to support a case they are making. Is he supposed to ignore evidence that suggests an unacceptable risk??

They were putting the best pieces together to make the case.

Before the war, and just after 9/11 what was our main goal? It was the War On TERROR. And who did we name as the axis of evil? One of them was Iraq. Now what had Iraq been doing since the 1st gulf war? Ignoring UN resolutions: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/iraqdecade.pdf.

So what do we do as a nation knowing that terrorism is on the march? We look at the information that comes in and assess our situation. Our intelligence says that Iraq is a HUGE danger: Saddam had WMD's. We know this because he used them on the Kurds. He was bragging about using them on us. He was supporting, training, and housing terrorists in his country. Every major nation in the world knew he had WMD's. U.S. senators called for their government to remove the threat: (Boxer, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, etc. etc. etc.) So what do we do? We PREPARE for any and all outcomes. For all the elite bragging, libs just don't get it, do they? This should be common sense.


289667.jpg



And as a bonus, the U.S. is allied with Iraq and Afghanistan, the 2 countries that border Iran. Or, or, or, or MAYBE that was the plan all along!!! BWUHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


Or maybe the Bush admin just should've picked the intelligence that supported leaving Saddam the hell alone---right?


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/13/opinion/13brooks.html?ex=1139806800&en=28e2ca3dffc8ccb0&ei=5070

The C.I.A. Versus Bush
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: November 13, 2004

Now that he's been returned to office, President Bush is going to have to differentiate between his opponents and his enemies. His opponents are found in the Democratic Party. His enemies are in certain offices of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Over the past several months, as much of official Washington looked on wide-eyed and agog, many in the C.I.A. bureaucracy have waged an unabashed effort to undermine the current administration.

At the height of the campaign, C.I.A. officials, who are supposed to serve the president and stay out of politics and policy, served up leak after leak to discredit the president's Iraq policy. There were leaks of prewar intelligence estimates, leaks of interagency memos. In mid-September, somebody leaked a C.I.A. report predicting a gloomy or apocalyptic future for the region. Later that month, a senior C.I.A. official, Paul Pillar, reportedly made comments saying he had long felt the decision to go to war would heighten anti-American animosity in the Arab world.

White House officials concluded that they could no longer share important arguments and information with intelligence officials. They had to parse every syllable in internal e-mail. One White House official says it felt as if the C.I.A. had turned over its internal wastebaskets and fed every shred of paper to the press.

The White House-C.I.A. relationship became dysfunctional, and while the blame was certainly not all on one side, Langley was engaged in slow-motion, brazen insubordination, which violated all standards of honorable public service. It was also incredibly stupid, since C.I.A. officials were betting their agency on a Kerry victory.

As the presidential race heated up, the C.I.A. permitted an analyst - who, we now know, is Michael Scheuer - to publish anonymously a book called "Imperial Hubris," which criticized the Iraq war. Here was an official on the president's payroll publicly campaigning against his boss. As Scheuer told The Washington Post this week, "As long as the book was being used to bash the president, they [the C.I.A. honchos] gave me carte blanche to talk to the media."

Nor is this feud over. C.I.A. officials are now busy undermining their new boss, Porter Goss. One senior official called one of Goss's deputies, who worked on Capitol Hill, a "Hill Puke," and said he didn't have to listen to anything the deputy said. Is this any way to run a superpower?


pillar.jpg


Paul Pillar is a prof at Georgetown U---nothing here but a former employee with an axe to grind. He needs a headline in order to sell his book. We've seen them by the dozens.

This lib is exactly the kind of person who hates this country and wants to do whatever he can to see our enemies defeat us.
 

flavio

Banned
Re: CIA official: "intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already mad

The Other One said:
Before the war, and just after 9/11 what was our main goal? It was the War On TERROR.
So we should have tried to decrease terrorism instead of going to Iraq. Now we have more terrorism.

And who did we name as the axis of evil?
...and why did he do that? Because he was trying to convince the people to go with agenda instead of fighting terrorism.


So what do we do as a nation knowing that terrorism is on the march? We look at the information that comes in and assess our situation. Our intelligence says that Iraq is a HUGE danger: Saddam had WMD's. We know this because he used them on the Kurds. He was bragging about using them on us. He was supporting, training, and housing terrorists in his country. Every major nation in the world knew he had WMD's.
Uh no, that's not what the inspections were showing....and hey they were right.

U.S. senators called for their government to remove the threat: (Boxer, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, etc. etc. etc.)
Whether they were fooled by Bush, just wrong, or in on it has nothing to do with the fact that it is completely wrong for the Commander in chief to mislead the public for his agenda.

So what do we do? We PREPARE for any and all outcomes. For all the elite bragging, libs just don't get it, do they? This should be common sense.
Cons just don't get it. Their lack of common sense makes them blind to this fact over and over...... "that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made".


And as a bonus, the U.S. is allied with Iraq and Afghanistan, the 2 countries that border Iran. Or, or, or, or MAYBE that was the plan all along!!! BWUHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
probably was, which makes this even more bogus.

MB00078.jpg



Or maybe the Bush admin just should've picked the intelligence that supported leaving Saddam the hell alone---right?
Maybe accurate, real intelligence?


Paul Pillar is a prof at Georgetown U---nothing here but a former employee with an axe to grind. He needs a headline in order to sell his book. We've seen them by the dozens.
The cop out of trying to dismiss anyone with facts that show the corrupt administration as someone with an axe to grind has long ago become a transparent ruse.

This lib is exactly the kind of person who hates this country and wants to do whatever he can to see our enemies defeat us.
Hahhahahahaa! That's why he joined the CIA right? Pathetic. :lol2:
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Re: CIA official: "intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already mad

TOO said:
Now what had Iraq been doing since the 1st gulf war? Ignoring UN resolutions

Doesn't matter. It's about sex, not perjury ;)
 

flavio

Banned
Re: CIA official: "intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already mad

Now what had Iraq been doing since the 1st gulf war? Ignoring UN resolutions
Ok, let's check that out as a justification. Gonz always likes that one...........

Ignored UN resolutins mean spend half a trillion to invade right?

The US turned a blind eye to the former Iraq regime's $8bn trade in smuggled oil, a new US Senate report says.

On occasion, the US actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.

Source....
It started with Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director. "The fact is, there's a pretty abysmal relationship between Saddam Hussein and the United Nations," Bartlett commented, adding that Iraq has thumbed its nose at "everything the UN has stood for."

Next, George W. Bush weighed in. "A lot of people understand that this man has defied every United Nations resolution. Sixteen United Nations' resolutions he has ignored."

But sixteen is positively unimpressive against the dozens Israel has ignored over decades, and will continue to ignore, secure in the knowledge that Washington will provide shelter against penalty, including anything as mild as the stationing of UN observers in the occupied territories. And the flow of US taxpayer paid-for arms and subsidies to Israel won't be choked-off by Tel Aviv's flouting of human rights protocols, the Geneva Conventions or "everything the United Nations has stood for."

Washington's own contempt for the UN and international protocols is unrivalled, from its recent efforts to undermine the International Criminal Court, which it refused to sign on to without a blanket exemption for its nationals; to its flagrant defiance of the Geneva Conventions in its brutal and inhumane treatment of detainees at Guatanamo Bay ("abductees" would be a more fitting term); from its refusal to seek UN authorization for its war on Yugoslavia (because it knew authorization would not be forthcoming); to its continued defiance of UN resolutions demanding an end to the blockade of Cuba. The US knows no equal when it comes to having "a pretty abysmal record" with the international community or in flouting "everything the UN has stood for."

Source....
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Re: CIA official: "intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already mad

who was President for a VAST majority of the time Iraq was under sanctions? hint-He is also a friend of Coffee & wished to be the UN President.
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
the son of a drunkard

'grow up to be president'

only in America

land of opportunity!
 
Re: CIA official: "intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already mad

flavio said:
So we should have tried to decrease terrorism instead of going to Iraq. Now we have more terrorism.

Prove it. Show where "We" have more terrorism as a result of going to Iraq.


...and why did he do that? Because he was trying to convince the people to go with agenda instead of fighting terrorism.

I know I have asked this question before, and it is hard for libs to come up with an answer so I really don't know where you guys are at on this, but:


What exactly is the AGENDA you believe President Bush had for going to Iraq and removing Saddam if it WASN'T FOR FIGHTING TERRORISM?

If you answer anything in this post PLEASE make it the above question.


Uh no, that's not what the inspections were showing....and hey they were right.

David Kay said:
The only job the inspectors can expect to accomplish is confirming whether Iraq has voluntarily disarmed. That is not a task that need take months more... That's because the answer is already clear: Iraqi is in breach of U.N. demands that it dismantle its weapons of mass destruction.

What Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), are not doing is even more damning. Recall that Iraq was required to submit a "full and complete declaration" of all its weapons programs to the U.N. Security Council early last December. But that 12,000-page declaration was hardly complete, and its omissions (as well as gaps identified in 1998 -- more about that in a moment) should have become the focus of the inspections process.

By failing to address these concerns, Iraq mocked the United Nations with its declaration. It rejected what the Security Council, in Resolution 1441, insisted it must do -- that is, answer all outstanding questions about the program. And it had the gall to contend that it hasn't had a prohibited weapons program since the end of the Gulf War.


Whether they were fooled by Bush, just wrong, or in on it has nothing to do with the fact that it is completely wrong for the Commander in chief to mislead the public for his agenda.

Then they must've been fooled by Clintoon also, because they were behind his decision to take out Saddam's WMD programs:
"I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisors to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad.”
said Dick Durbin breathlessly in 1998 on Clintoon's actions.

Cons just don't get it. Their lack of common sense makes them blind to this fact over and over...... "that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made".

Libs' lack of common sense would turn this country into the United States of Islam. Fortunately, it will be a long time before a Dem sees himself in the Whitehouse again.

probably was, which makes this even more bogus.

MB00078.jpg

Are you saying the strategic placement of the U.S. on the borders of Iran is a BAD THING?


Maybe accurate, real intelligence?

Isn't it a fact that some of our intellegence data was superceded by foreign intel for various reasons? Just because you don't like the outcome of the intel doesn't change the fact that decisions made were based on it.

spoiled1.jpg


The cop out of trying to dismiss anyone with facts that show the corrupt administration as someone with an axe to grind has long ago become a transparent ruse.

Hahhahahahaa! That's why he joined the CIA right? Pathetic. :lol2:


Very interesting to see this man's philosophy about terrorism. No wonder.

http://www.austhink.org/monk/PILLAR.doc

That such a senior figure in the CIA as Pillar can have missed so much - indeed, can have directly denied ominous realities that had catastrophic consequences - surely warrants very serious reflection....

His book, Terrorism and US Foreign Policy, might have become a standard text on how to understand and handle international terrorism - had it not been for the unfortunate fact that the catastrophe of 11 September, coming immediately after its publication, showed up its oversights and blindspots in quite extraordinary fashion. As the US and its allies are driven from pillar to post trying to cope with the consequences of an intelligence failure for which Paul Pillar was in large measure responsible, it is vital that we reflect on the nature of that failure.
 

flavio

Banned
Re: CIA official: "intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already mad

The Other One said:
Prove it. Show where "We" have more terrorism as a result of going to Iraq.
Terrorism related deaths on the rise

MB00319.jpg


I know I have asked this question before, and it is hard for libs to come up with an answer so I really don't know where you guys are at on this, but:

What exactly is the AGENDA you believe President Bush had for going to Iraq and removing Saddam if it WASN'T FOR FIGHTING TERRORISM?

If you answer anything in this post PLEASE make it the above question.
It's hard to say with an administration so full of lies and cover ups. It could be defending the petro dollar, could have something to do with Iraq having the 2nd largest oil reserves, could be strategic military placement, a good way to siphon tax payer money into no-bid contracts, lose track of 9 billion dollars, or a combination of things which all are far more plausible than terrorism.

MB00063.jpg
MB00531.jpg


I've asked the question which is hard for cons to come up with an answer for so I don't know where you guys are at on this, but:

Why after 9/11 would Bush turn almost complete focus on Iraq instead of THE TERRORISTS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11? ...And if you're not so worried about stopping the terrorists responsible why would a war on terror start in Iraq when it wasn't by any stretch the center of world wide terrorism..or even a considerable amount of terrorism when compared with more likely alternatives?

Even if there had been some WMD program there they would hardly be a threat to the US and by all accounts would have been at least several years minimum from any nuclear weapons. There really is no way to make Again there are other countries that should be far bigger concerns. Why don't we ever hear much about North Korea or Pakistan? Any terrorists connected to Saudi Arabia?

MB00185.jpg


Then they must've been fooled by Clintoon also, because they were behind his decision to take out Saddam's WMD programs:
The situation was a bit different. But hell, let's say it wasn't and Clinton fooled them deliberately. How the hell does that make it ok for Bush? That would just make them both wrong.

Libs' lack of common sense would turn this country into the United States of Islam. Fortunately, it will be a long time before a Dem sees himself in the Whitehouse again.
Con's lack of common sense would turn this country into the Fascist States of Satan. Fortunately , it will be a long time before a Pub sees himself in the Whitehouse again.

"the style of governing into which America has slid is most accurately described as fascism, and that the necessary implications of this fact are rightly regarded as terrifying".

MB00184.jpg
MB00298.jpg


Are you saying the strategic placement of the U.S. on the borders of Iran is a BAD THING?
Why does the US need to be on the border of Iran. Is it some reason worth a 100.000 lives?

MB00086.jpg



Just because you don't like the outcome of the intel doesn't change the fact that decisions made were based on it.
Decisions were made before the intel....did you read the article? Hear about the Downing Street thing?

MB00329.jpg





Very interesting to see this man's philosophy about terrorism. No wonder.
So what's his philosophy have to do with this?
 

paul_valaru

100% Pure Canadian Beef
this thread is like the problem that this thread is about.

So CIA dude says they cherry picked information to fit thier needs, well that is what you do with intel, you pick info that you thinks means somthing, and ignore the chaff.

maybe they did overpick, but I am sure this guy cherry picked example to further his OWN case.

you all cherry pick your examples to further your own causes. I know I do.

as to whether he HAD WMD..well I think bush invaded for the wrong reason, he jumped the gun, and said it was about 9/11.

am I against the invasion? sure, I would be for it if they waited for the UN.
 
Re: CIA official: "intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already mad

flavio said:

So who do you think is at fault here? C'mon....say it....you know you want to.


356074.179332.gif



liberal-biased media outlet said:
Since Sept. 11, 2001, according to the analysis, around 1,500 have died in terrorist attacks in Iraq, nearly 700 in Russia, more than 350 have died in Israel, around 200 in Spain and more than 100 in the Philippines. The numbers sometimes are imprecise because of the nature of the attacks, which leave many missing.


1500 have died in a country where there is a war? I'm shocked.

The remaining 1300 is 1700 LESS than the number of Americans that died in 2 hours at the filthy, blood-stained hands of Islam.

But you know what the Kurran compells them to do: "Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war." Qur'an, Sura 9:5

So terrorism-related deaths on the rise since 9-11 isn't really all that much of a surprise.


They start 'em young, don'tcha think?

Peshawar.jpg


The knives are clean---for now.



Flaves said:
I've asked the question which is hard for cons to come up with an answer for so I don't know where you guys are at on this, but:

Why after 9/11 would Bush turn almost complete focus on Iraq instead of THE TERRORISTS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11? ...And if you're not so worried about stopping the terrorists responsible why would a war on terror start in Iraq when it wasn't by any stretch the center of world wide terrorism..or even a considerable amount of terrorism when compared with more likely alternatives?

I guess you don't think that Iraq is the geographic base of al Qaeda?

Or, in keeping with the conspiracy theory-ulterior motive lib crowd:

Could it be that Iraq is now situated to become a major base of operations aimed straight at Syria and Iran?


Or maybe it's something as simple as:

From the Joint Resolution on the Use of Force Against Iraq (Overwhelmingly Supported by Dems):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021002-2.html

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime...


The facts are that Iraq trained Al-Qaeda terrorists, Iraq was involved with 9-11, Iraq had a deal with Bin Laden, Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. in 1993, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2001.

Iraqi Terrorists Detail Ties To Bin Laden
Dave Eberhart
Monday, March 18, 2002

A terrorist group operating in northern Iraq told the New Yorker magazine's Jeffrey Goldberg that their organization "has received funds directly from al-Qaeda."

If these charges are true," Goldberg writes in the current issue, "it would mean that the relationship between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda is far closer than previously thought."


356074.290705.gif


Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.


Flavingston said:
Even if there had been some WMD program there they would hardly be a threat to the US and by all accounts would have been at least several years minimum from any nuclear weapons. There really is no way to make Again there are other countries that should be far bigger concerns. Why don't we ever hear much about North Korea or Pakistan? Any terrorists connected to Saudi Arabia?

Again with the WMDs? OK---here you go:

Secret Saddam WMD Tapes Subject of ABC Nightline Special
By Sherrie Gossett
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
February 15, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Secret audiotapes of Saddam Hussein discussing ways to attack America with weapons of mass destruction will be the subject of an ABC "Nightline" program Wednesday night, a former federal prosecutor told Cybercast News Service.

The tapes are being called the "smoking gun" of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. The New York Sun reported that the tapes have been authenticated and currently are being reviewed by the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.


Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 10:53 a.m. EST newsmax.com

Saddam on Tape: Terrorists Will Attack D.C.

Five years before Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Saddam Hussein predicted that Washington, D.C. would be struck by terrorists, according to audiotapes set for broadcast tonight on ABC's "Nightline."

On July 21, 2001, less than two months before 9/11, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper Al-Nasiriya carried a column headlined "America, An Obsession Called Osama Bin Ladin." In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the U.S. "with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House."

In 1992, Saddam's son Uday used an editorial in Babil, the newspaper he ran, to warn of Iraqi kamikaze attacks inside America, saying, "Does the United States realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross countries and cities?"

In the late 1990s, according to UPI, "a cable to Saddam from the chief of Iraqi intelligence was transmitted by Baghdad Radio. The message read, 'We will chase [Americans] to every corner at all times. No high tower of steel will protect them against the fire of truth.'"


For his part, Uday flat-out praised the 9/11 attacks, saying, "These were courageous operations carried out by young Arabs and Muslims," according to quotes picked up by the Saudi daily Asharq al-Awsat.

"Nightline's" broadcast tonight will be based on 12 hours of tapes obtained by ABC News. But that's likely only the tip of the iceberg.

In his April 2005 final report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer said he had uncovered "a large collection" of recordings of Saddam chairing his Revolutionary Command Council.

In an ABC Radio report to promote the show, the network's lead investigative reporter, Brian Ross, revealed that the FBI translator who leaked the tapes said they contained "damning evidence that the world should know."

MSM EXCLUSIVE ON SADDAM'S WMD

WHAT SADDAM REALY SAID



The Flavameister said:
Why does the US need to be on the border of Iran. Is it some reason worth a 100.000 lives?


100,000 lives? Whose do you mean?

We have struck a major blow against terrorism by planting a representative government in the middle of the caliphate.



Flavarama said:
Decisions were made before the intel....did you read the article? Hear about the Downing Street thing?

You surely aren't pinning hopes of an impeachment on this, are you:

http://www.anatolia.com/h.asp?i=41248

LONDON - A forged document purporting to counsel British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the legality of the Iraq war was sent to media in London Friday...

The text, which purports to be signed by Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith and appears to warn that military action against Iraq would be illegal, is a "complete forgery", Goldsmith's office said...

The fake memo appeared to have been sent with the intention of inflaming the debate over authentic advice Goldsmith had given Blair two weeks before the British-US invasion, and which was published on Thursday after its summary was leaked to the media.

356074.1057672.jpg
 

chcr

Too cute for words
Re: CIA official: "intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already mad

Your'e really Ann Coulter, aren't you? :lol:
 
Top