Reason we went to war with iraq

[bfp]

A high-ranking al-Qaeda operative in custody disclosed that Iraq supplied the Islamist militant group with material to build chemical and biological weapons, the White House said today.

"A senior al-Qaeda terrorist, now detained, who had been responsible for al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, reports that al-Qaeda was intent on obtaining (weapons of mass destruction) assistance from Iraq," the White House said in a report.

The 25 page document was released as US President George W Bush holidayed at his Texas ranch.

The Bush administration cited links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Baath party regime as justification for attacking Iraq to oust Saddam. The administration also insisted Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was pursuing nuclear weapons.

The report quoted the unnamed prisoner as saying al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden turned to Iraq after concluding his group could not produce chemical or biological weapons on its own in Afghanistan.

"Iraq agreed to provide chemical and biological weapons training for two al-Qaeda associates starting in December 2000," the report said.

"Senior al-Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi came to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, along with approximately two dozen al-Qaeda terrorist associates.

"This group stayed in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq and plotted terrorist attacks around the world."

The report, quoting the State Department, also says the fallen regime of Saddam Hussein "provided material assistance to Palestinian terrorist groups, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad".

The Saddam regime, says the report, "posed a threat to the security of the United States and the world. With the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, a leader who pursued, used and possessed weapons of mass destruction is no longer in power."
Since May 1, when Bush declared the combat in Iraq effectively over, occupation forces have found no conclusive evidence of Baghdad's banned weapons programs in spite of intensive searches.

BWHAHAHAHA!!!!

[bfp]

okay?

SOURCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bfp]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...360536966.html

thank you.......come again......

[Adam D]

That article is horrific journalism.

Originally posted by bfp
A high-ranking al-Qaeda operative in custody disclosed that Iraq supplied the Islamist militant group with material to build chemical and biological weapons, the White House said today.

Here's a problem. The article states this, but the report states that Iraq agreed to it, never that the assistance was ever provided. I would actually have to read the document to see what credibility this report has.

"A senior al-Qaeda terrorist, now detained, who had been responsible for al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, reports that al-Qaeda was intent on obtaining (weapons of mass destruction) assistance from Iraq," the White House said in a report.

Intent doesn't prove actions actually occurred.

The 25 page document was released as US President George W Bush holidayed at his Texas ranch.

The Bush administration cited links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Baath party regime as justification for attacking Iraq to oust Saddam. The administration also insisted Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was pursuing nuclear weapons.

The report quoted the unnamed prisoner as saying al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden turned to Iraq after concluding his group could not produce chemical or biological weapons on its own in Afghanistan.

"Iraq agreed to provide chemical and biological weapons training for two al-Qaeda associates starting in December 2000," the report said.

But did they actually do so? This article never says they did. Moreover, nothing in this article, again I'll try and read the report if I can, suggests that Hussein or his associates were directly responsible for this.

"Senior al-Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi came to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, along with approximately two dozen al-Qaeda terrorist associates.

"This group stayed in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq and plotted terrorist attacks around the world."

Well, there were groups of al-Qaeda potting terrorist attacks in Florida but there has not been any calls for cracking down on Florida or turning it into a democracy.

The report, quoting the State Department, also says the fallen regime of Saddam Hussein "provided material assistance to Palestinian terrorist groups, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad".

Ok, I'll buy that. But if we're going to use that as grounds for a military strike, then Saudi Arabia must be next in line.

The Saddam regime, says the report, "posed a threat to the security of the United States and the world. With the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, a leader who pursued, used and possessed weapons of mass destruction is no longer in power."
Since May 1, when Bush declared the combat in Iraq effectively over, occupation forces have found no conclusive evidence of Baghdad's banned weapons programs in spite of intensive searches.

Even this article admits that while Bush claims there was a WMD threat there still is no evidence of such.

[bfp]

adam your an idealogue- and i didnt expect you to actually believe it anyway. does'nt prove the actions eh? a top al-qaeda operative claims it happened. is that enough for you?


i guess proof for you and all of the other puppets would have to be a photo of saddam giving them the weapons himself.

and yet again you avoid the truth about the wmd's.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak...t-novak10.html

[bfp]

LONDON (AFP) - The British government is soon to present new evidence that Iraq had produced biological weapons, it was reported Intelligence officials were producing another dossier on Iraqi arms, and "there is said to be hard evidence of cover-up programmes designed to conceal weapons of mass destruction", the British magazine "The Economist" said in its latest issue.
"We would hope to be able to demonstrate in the fullness of time that almost all the information in the dossier (published by the government last September) was accurate", a government insider told the magazine.

Government sources "say that several new bits of information will emerge including evidence based on interviews with Iraqi scientists that biological weapons had been produced in quantity", the Economist said.

Britain was the staunchest ally of the United States in the war against Saddam Husseins regime launched in March. Both countries used Baghdad's refusal to give up its alleged weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for military action.
No such weapons have yet been found, while a September 2002 dossier on Iraq published by Britain has prompted hotly disputed claims that the government beefed up intelligence reports to justify war.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...2411&printer=1

[Adam D]

None of the quotes from the report, only from the journalist, claim that Iraq gave the WMDs.

As far as Kay's evidence...well, I keep being told I'll see it, but I keep waiting. As I told you before, I'll believe it when I see this mystery evidence. The issue for me, and most of the anti-war advocates, isn't whether or not Iraq had WMDs or WMD programs, but that the administration lied and distorted evidence to suggest that the threat was more immediate than it was (Condi Rice admitted this on Meet The Press) and suggested that they knew where the WMDs were, and that is what they were after. They keep changing their mind as to whether the war was for actual WMDs or WMD programs or liberation...that sort of shifting advocacy indicates their failure to prove their own arguments.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by bfp
LONDON (AFP) - The British government is soon to present new evidence that Iraq had produced biological weapons, it was reported Intelligence officials were producing another dossier on Iraqi arms, and "there is said to be hard evidence of cover-up programmes designed to conceal weapons of mass destruction", the British magazine "The Economist" said in its latest issue.
"We would hope to be able to demonstrate in the fullness of time that almost all the information in the dossier (published by the government last September) was accurate", a government insider told the magazine.

Government sources "say that several new bits of information will emerge including evidence based on interviews with Iraqi scientists that biological weapons had been produced in quantity", the Economist said.

Britain was the staunchest ally of the United States in the war against Saddam Husseins regime launched in March. Both countries used Baghdad's refusal to give up its alleged weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for military action.
No such weapons have yet been found, while a September 2002 dossier on Iraq published by Britain has prompted hotly disputed claims that the government beefed up intelligence reports to justify war.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...2411&printer=1

Yes, we know how accurate British intell has been.

[bfp]

Originally posted by Adam D
None of the quotes from the report, only from the journalist, claim that Iraq gave the WMDs.

As far as Kay's evidence...well, I keep being told I'll see it, but I keep waiting. As I told you before, I'll believe it when I see this mystery evidence. The issue for me, and most of the anti-war advocates, isn't whether or not Iraq had WMDs or WMD programs, but that the administration lied and distorted evidence to suggest that the threat was more immediate than it was (Condi Rice admitted this on Meet The Press) and suggested that they knew where the WMDs were, and that is what they were after. They keep changing their mind as to whether the war was for actual WMDs or WMD programs or liberation...that sort of shifting advocacy indicates their failure to prove their own arguments.

adam... . would you rather see small pieces of evidence? or see it all compiled to make a complete case? there are thousands of documents to go through, and many people to interview; obviously this journalist does'nt comprehend the krux of the matter.

[bfp]

Originally posted by Adam D
Yes, we know how accurate British intell has been.

and im sure you are briefed with the intel on a daily basis.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by bfp
adam... . would you rather see small pieces of evidence? or see it all compiled to make a complete case? there are thousands of documents to go through, and many people to interview; obviously this journalist does'nt comprehend the krux of the matter.

It's irrelevant. If the war was justified on something of the WMD issue, and my understanding from Bush's words is that it is, then the administration should have had solid evidence, already compiled and ready to point to, before they ever went to war. Before they ever went to the public to garner support. There's something inherently unjust and outright wrong about going to war and then trying to build a case for justifying it after the fact. I cannot and will not support a war that cannot be justified before it begins.

[bfp]

Originally posted by Adam D
It's irrelevant. If the war was justified on something of the WMD issue, and my understanding from Bush's words is that it is, then the administration should have had solid evidence, already compiled and ready to point to, before they ever went to war. Before they ever went to the public to garner support. There's something inherently unjust and outright wrong about going to war and then trying to build a case for justifying it after the fact. I cannot and will not support a war that cannot be justified before it begins.

after having intelligence about saddam's regime supporting al-qaeda with chem weapons training(which has been known for quite some time), what more do you need to justify a war against a country capable of training our enemies? it's really not that hard to understand. try thinking outside of your ideological realm of thought and come to grips with reality.