I have no reason to believe so based on your statements in opposition to the facts.
And when you can't argue the facts argue style.


Sure, it would make it much easier for you if we leave out all the other terrorist activities and groups he was involved in, folly but that is all you are left with.

ROFL........oh and THAT was OK.

It has always been the issue, any and ALL terrorist groups.


The same the Clinton administration had.



Your showing your weakness with the fallacious claims.

Here are more incidents of prove contacts proven cooperation proven support of terrorism.

Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror - by Deroy Murdock




Already refuted, go read the actual report.


Taliban for one. Right now none of them want to dare mess with us because they have seen what we did to alQaeda. And we don't know what all our intelligence agencies are doing in covert operations.

They along with alQaeda



After we went in. What happened to the ones he had, he was required to tell you else be removed from office. And as Dr. Kay and Dr. Duelfer stated what we found was even more dangerous that we had imagined. Saddam admitted after he was caught his goal was to reproduce those weapons (he had illegally stashed away the materials he needed) and we know from the documents we have found that as the Clinton administration stated and as the Bush administration stated there was a clear and present danger that he would supply such materials to the terrorist who want to kill you.

Then how did he use them to kill so many people. How did UNSCOM catalog in detail what you claim he didn't have. And what about what we did find, how do you excuse that?

Me>> Originally Posted by Stinger
But where did you get the idea that as long as he had no ready to go WMD everything was fine and he was in compliance?

There you go again refusing to admit it was one of the several reasons from the get-go and dodging the question.

WAS HE IN COMPLIANCE?


It was one of the several reasons.

The compliance with the UN mandates was the KEY issue.

It was a key issue your denial of that shows your ignorance of the matter. It was a key issue going back to 1998. Didn't know that did you.

Ahh go back your attempt to refute the latest study went down in flames. ABC didn't do it's homework and relied on the false assertions of another reporter. You posted hearsay. Fallacious hearsay. I post FROM THE STUDY ITSELF!! I have posted it TWICE and it directly refutes what ABC picked and reported without reading the study themselves. I posted where the study itself totally refutes what this one reporter asserted.

So try again and refute the study based on the facts not hearsay.

I am unconcerned over your beliefs, nor am I concerned with your obvious attempts to label me as a liar.
And you criticize me for "style" arguments...


Pointing out your response is a non-sequitur has nothing to do with style.
Unless you're trying to tell me that making non-sequiturs is your style?


"easier for me"????
Talk about arguing about "style"...

I am talking about my position on this issue.
Heck, how many "terrorists" could the United States be said to be associated with? With funding for guerillas, etc, etc, etc...

If you want to show a non-al Qaeda "terrorist group" which has SIGNIFICANT impact upon the U.S. (which Saddam supported), that would obviously be "not easy" for me.
Can you do that?
Or is your response a meaningless complaint on your part?

I don't see why America should shell out 1-2 trillion dollars over some small-time group that can be labelled as "terrorist"...


Again, you allege my position is something I never even hinted at.
Of COURSE it was not "ok".
But is it worth 1-2 trillion dollars of American tax-payer money?
THAT is the question.


The fact that Bush tried so damn hard to link it to al Qaeda for the American people proves this claim to be false.


1) Do you think that mentioning "Clinton" somehow means something to me?
It doesn't.
2) Since Clinton did not invade Iraq over whatever he thought, I don't see the relevance...

3) You are AGAIN FAILING to show me Bush's evidence...


Irrelevant considering I am talking EXPLICITLY about al Qaeda.
It is Bush's deceit regarding the AL QAEDA connection which is at issue.
And furthermore, that web-site is so poorly put together I don't see how you could consider it as a "credible" resource.


Don't lie.
You have NEVER refuted the Pentagon report with any substance.
Show me what you said in which post which had any REAL discussion on the content of the Pentagon report...


Again, you're trying to re-write history in the JUSTIFICATION for going to war with Iraq.
If Bush had come to the American people with THE TRUTH that Saddam didn't have WMDs, but we didn't know how he disposed of them, so we should invade, costing us 1-2 trillion dollars, he would have been laughed at.


Quit obfuscating.
I am talking about the fact that WHEN WE INVADED IRAQ, he did not have them.
These dishonest tactics of yours to try and misrepresent things are deplorable!



Irrelevant.
If Bush had told the American people THE TRUTH that Saddam didn't have WMDs, but we didn't know how he disposed of them, so we should invade, costing us 1-2 trillion dollars, what would be the response of the American people?

Would Bush shouting "he's not in compliance" have persuaded anybody???


It was the MAIN reason.
The one that was repeated OVER and OVER and OVER again.

And now that the MAIN reasons have been proven false, people like you keep trying to point to menial reasons that nobody thought significant as "justification".


Bush disagrees with you...
The MAIN issue was the WMDs, which he DID NOT HAVE.


< yawn >
Are you about to give me ammo on the classic liberal conspiracy theory that Bush was gunning to invade Iraq long before?
< end sarcasm >

There is a difference between something being "an issue" and something being a justification for invading another country and overthrowing the leader of that country.


Let's post "FROM THE STUDY ITSELF"...

This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda.
....

But the similarities ended there: bin Laden wanted-and still wantsto restore the Islamic caliphate while Saddam, despite his later Islamic rhetoric, dreamed more narrowly of being the secular ruler of a united Arab nation. 96 These competing visions made any significant long-tenn compromise between them highly unlikely. After all, to the fundamentalist leadership of al Qaeda, Saddam represented the worst kind of "apostate" regime-a secular police state well practicedin suppressing internal challenges.

....

Some aspects of the indirect cooperation between Saddam's regional terror enterprise and al Qaeda's more global one are somewhat analogous to the
Cali and Medellin drug cartels. Both drug cartels (actually loose collections of families and criminal gangs) were serious national security concerns to the United States. Both cartels competed for a share of the illegal drug market.

Saddam and al Qaeda were more COMPETITORS than anything else.
NOT "collaborating".

Your attempts to change the issue to OTHER "terrorist groups" is an attempt to bypass the fact that BUSH DECEIVED US in claiming that al Qaeda and Saddam collaborated.

Refutes nothing


Refutes nothing.



Nothing to do with style but the fact that you do not have the liberty to decide to not discuss the other threats because you believe in makes your case easier.



Already done so, read the cites I posted.



How much was it worth?

Dose nothing of the sort and falacious anyway.



Using selective history does not refute the facts.

Was the removal of Saddam the official policy of the United States before Bush even took office yes or no?

Had Clinton succeeded in his plan to do what was the next step?

It is public domain.



Yes just as you selectively want to believe that terrorism started with Bush and that the only terrorist groups out there are alQaeda thus having to avod the reality of what we face.

Except we know he was right.


Prove the connections to terrorist the latest report were not true, Refute the facts.


I don't need to it is perfectly clear.

Since the evidence showed otherwise why would he have done so. Since UNSCOM was saying there were materials they had not found or accounted for why would he have done so?

And since his removal was based on not only his poccession of ready to WMD but his desire to use them, his willingness to use them, and the danger he would supply them to terrorist why do you keep harping on that one single item?

Why do you believe that would have ened it, even the previous administration told the American people he would never repeat NEVER give up his desire to have them, to use them and that he MUST be removed from office.


So you admit he had them WMD. So give me the exact date he got rid of them and what he did with them. He was required to tell you else be removed from office.


Dodge.


Dodge.


Ahhh he said that quite often.


Along with all the other reasons.

And simplistic minds think that was it, if he didn't have ready to go WMD then everything was honky dory.



And in this case the United States decided to overthrow the leader of a country. Did so in 1998 BEFORE BUSH!!




Nothing where they jointly carried out a terrorist attack.

Let's look again at what it said.

Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance
of and, in some way, a 'de facto' link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam's use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime."

Among the study's other notable findings:

In 1993, as Osama bin Laden's fighters battled Americans in Somalia, Saddam Hussein personally ordered the formation of an Iraqi terrorist group to join the battle there.

For more than two decades, the Iraqi regime trained non-Iraqi jihadists in training camps throughout Iraq.

According to a 1993 internal Iraqi intelligence memo, the regime was supporting a secret Islamic Palestinian organization dedicated to "armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests."

In the 1990s, Iraq's military intelligence directorate trained and equipped "Sudanese fighters."

In 1998, the Iraqi regime offered "financial and moral support" to a new group of jihadists in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.

In 2002, the year before the war began, the Iraqi regime hosted in Iraq a series of 13 conferences for non-Iraqi jihadist groups.

That same year, a branch of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) issued hundreds of Iraqi passports for known terrorists.

There is much, much more. Documents reveal that the regime stockpiled bombmaking materials in Iraqi embassies around the world and targeted Western journalists for assassination. In July 2001, an Iraqi Intelligence agent described an al Qaeda affiliate in Bahrain, the Army of Muhammad, as "under the wings of bin Laden." Although the organization "is an offshoot of bin Laden," the fact that it has a different name "can be a way of camouflaging the organization." The agent is told to deal with the al Qaeda group according to "priorities previously established."""

sorry, please continue,

Yes. Your ad hominem and strawman replies do refute nothing.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
< end sarcasm >


See the title of this thread?
"Harboring al Qaeda"
THAT is the lie George Bush is accused of promulgating.

You want to IGNORE the issue and CHANGE the subject because you can't show George Bush speaking with evidence to substantiate his claims.


Already replied to by USING the cites you posted...


1) Again, you dodge my question while posing your own...
2) I would put the price tag in the low billion range.
Nowhere near a couple trillion.

If only George Bush had been more honest about what this war would cost. He had NO evidence to substantiate the claims on "cost"...


Too many of your responses are little better than "No it wasn't".
Probably cause you can't offer anything better than that...


Nonsequitur.


Quite frankly, you are not only "treading" on the conspiracy theory that Bush wanted to invade Iraq BEFORE he took office...
You are inviting it in, asking it if it would like a cup of tea, and insisting that it sleep with your daughter.


And here are what some people are saying about the public domain knowledge ...
Presidential Lies and Deceptions - US News and World Report
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq
Consortiumnews.com

I have repeatedly tried to get you to SHOW WHERE Bush had any evidence to substantiate his claims of Saddam harboring and collaborated with al Qaeda.
You have consistently refused.

You show an over-abundance of willingness to show Bush's "evidence" AFTER the war started, which you habitually misrepresent.
But your repeated unwillingness to show Bush had any good faith evidence for his claims WHEN HE MADE THEM PRE-WAR is a stark difference...

And each time you open your yap to insist on posting new "evidence", while you refuse to show any PRE-war evidence, only further proves my point!


Strawman.
Nothing I have said hints at that claim,


No. He wasn't.
THAT is the point!
There was no harboring of al Qaeda.
No collaboration with al Qaeda.


I agree.
George Bush himself admits WMDs, which were never found, were the main reason.


WHAT evidence?
I have repeatedly been pressing you to show me this PRE-WAR evidence, and the latest dodge you gave was a statement that it's "public domain".


There are multiple issues I am "harping" on.
Your questions as to my style are irrelevant to the point...


Yeah.
And Bush said he had WMDs, and he was interested in getting to the bottom of the Valerie Plame affair, and his office would cooperate fully.
Pointing to more people who were wrong doesn't make Bush any less wrong.


I would LOVE to see you substantiate the "else be removed from office" crap, but we both know you can't.
And the answers to your questions are irrelevant. An "exact date" is not needed.
He DID NOT HAVE them.


That's not the question.
Would Bush shouting "he's not in compliance" have persuaded anybody???

If Bush had been HONEST and told the American public: "Saddam is *not in compliance* cause while he no longer has WMDs, he didn't tell us how he disposed of them. The war will cost $1-2 trillion, and over 4,000 American lives, and one of your next presidential candidates will tell you he doesn't care if we're there for 100 years. Anybody want to go to war with me?"
The answer would have been a resounding NO.

What you are doing is like having a Used Car Salesman sell a car, have it turn out to be a lemon, but you insist on pointing out that the small print was valid...


Hyperbolic strawman.
NOT "honky dory", but at the same time NOT important enough to justify $1-2 trillion, 4,000 dead soldiers, and a "100 year" occupation.


Yes.
Let's...

This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda.
....

But the similarities ended there: bin Laden wanted-and still wantsto restore the Islamic caliphate while Saddam, despite his later Islamic rhetoric, dreamed more narrowly of being the secular ruler of a united Arab nation. 96 These competing visions made any significant long-tenn compromise between them highly unlikely. After all, to the fundamentalist leadership of al Qaeda, Saddam represented the worst kind of "apostate" regime-a secular police state well practicedin suppressing internal challenges.

....

Some aspects of the indirect cooperation between Saddam's regional terror enterprise and al Qaeda's more global one are somewhat analogous to the
Cali and Medellin drug cartels. Both drug cartels (actually loose collections of families and criminal gangs) were serious national security concerns to the United States. Both cartels competed for a share of the illegal drug market.

Saddam and al Qaeda were more COMPETITORS than anything else.
NOT "collaborating".

Your attempts to change the issue to OTHER "terrorist groups" is an attempt to bypass the fact that BUSH DECEIVED US in claiming that al Qaeda and Saddam collaborated.