English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Because there is none at all. Anynoe who thinks that is just dumb. That includes Bushlickers. Even William Cohen, Clinton's defense secretary. He was a secret Bush supporter, and probably planned the stolen election. Because he said in testimony before Congress that "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

But then Cohen, the secret Bush supporting Chimp follower, said in testimony before Congress on why Clinton bombed the aspirin factory in Sudan:

2006-09-08 06:05:14 · 6 answers · asked by BrianthePigEatingInfidel 4 in Politics & Government Politics

"bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."

He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, " 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?"

2006-09-08 06:05:35 · update #1

So, not only is there no link between Saddam and al Qaeda, we should hunt down Clinton's secretary of defense and expose him for what he is!

2006-09-08 06:06:57 · update #2

6 answers

Cheney did......Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters at the White House. "He's the person who's still killing."

U.S. intelligence officials have said al Qaeda had some links to Iraq dating back to the early 1990s, but the nature and extent of those contacts is a matter of dispute.

Critics have accused the president and other administration officials of falsely inflating the links between Iraq and al Qaeda in the months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech Monday in Florida, raised eyebrows by reasserting claims that Saddam "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."

Bush said Tuesday that Saddam also had ties to Palestinian militant groups and was making payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

"We did the absolute right thing in removing him from power, and the world is better off with him not in power," he said.

Bush has tried to portray the war in Iraq as the "central front" in the war on terrorism that began with al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

In September, after Cheney asserted that Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," Bush acknowledged there was no evidence that Saddam's government was connected to those attacks.

U.S. officials blame Zarqawi for a series of attacks on U.S. forces, Iraqi civilians and others since the American-led invasion of Iraq, including the April beheading of American businessman Nicholas Berg and the August 2003 bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad

2006-09-08 06:09:28 · answer #1 · answered by dstr 6 · 0 0

US President George W Bush has said that the presence of late al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda...
I guess it's a "surprise" for everyone that there is no link between those 2...Of course it never been...but it was a good excuse to invade Iraq...

2006-09-08 06:11:06 · answer #2 · answered by Tinkerbell05 6 · 0 0

possibly because of the fact it is the actuality? notice that this end became into in accordance with intelligence accrued after the conflict whilst maximum of the guesswork became into eradicated. We additionally found out that the Iraqi militia theory they had WMD and needed permission from Saddam to apply them till he instructed them that it became right into a ruse to make Iran afraid to invade them. He believed the u . s . a . does not invade an earthly Islamic government that became into around the corner to Iran. He additionally believed that became into the only available explanation for President HW Bush giving him each thing he needed after the 1st conflict with infrequently a controversy. normally then no longer, wars take place because of the fact the two aspects are guessing what the different part's intentions are and what their applications are. Does it even make experience for the reported enemies of Al-Qaeda (first the u . s . a ., then the land of three holy cities, then the secular Islamic governments) to help them? We went into Iraq because of the fact we (and the worldwide) theory Iraq had the aptitude and intentions of harming us. Saddam fooled anybody such as himself.

2016-10-14 11:18:52 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

HUH! I got bored after the first sentence!

I'm pretty sure Zarqawi was in Iraq before we went in to topple Saddam...Zarqawi was the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. There were Al Qaeda Training camps...I guess those things don't count.

2006-09-08 06:11:30 · answer #4 · answered by sacolunga 5 · 0 0

A lot of people have been saying that for years now.

2006-09-08 06:10:41 · answer #5 · answered by First Lady 7 · 0 0

i hope this leads to Bush's impeachment

2006-09-08 06:32:26 · answer #6 · answered by Voicekiller 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers