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

I've heard some say yes and others say no. I have my own opinion on the matter but I want to hear what people think.

Facts/statistics/etc... please! With links to valid information.

Best answer to whomever has the best links to facts and explains their opinion the best.

2006-12-10 06:38:29 · 11 answers · asked by ? 5 in Politics & Government Military

11 answers

According to the Republican Congress’ report on pre-war intelligence released this fall, the answer is no. In fact, they document that Hussein actually hated AQ before we did and that he did not try to hide al-Zargawi, he tried to have him arrested. Their report states that there were no terrorists or terrorist camps in Iraq before Bush invaded.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14728447/


*****************************************

Professor SHIRAZ PHD -



The Cole incident occurred October 12, 2000.

President Bill Clinton declared, "If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable".

Clinton sent 100 FBI agents to Yemen to investigate the bombing.

The conncetion to Bin-laden was established in January, just as Bush was being ignagurated. Bush immidiately withdrew the FBI agents, closed the investigation, and let his idiot followers blame Clinton.


Here, in comparison, and stark contrast, is how Clinton handeled the Trade Towers bombing which occurred only weeks after he took office in 1993:

within a month, four people were arrested,
 they went on trial that September,
 the trial lasted 6 months, and
 they were all convicted .

And, he did not blame former President Bush for the attack. In fact, he worked tirelessly, even obsessively, trying to prevent further attacks – which he accomplished.

President Clinton led the fight against terrorism over strong opposition from Republicans in Congress and the pro-Republican Media. Here's a partial - yet incredibly long - list of accomplishments against terrorism for which the Clinton Administration gets almost no credit or even recognition. President Clinton:

-- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

-- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

-- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton:

-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.

-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.

-- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

-- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

-- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

-- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

-- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"

-- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "

-- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

http://www.mikehersh.com/
*********************************************************


Here, in contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:

-- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

-- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.

-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.

-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

-- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

-- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

-- By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millennium plots.

-- Blamed President Clinton for 9/11.

http://www.mikehersh.com/

******************************************************

libshatem...

Where is it exactly that there are "babies burrning the bible"?
I would like to see that. it sounds really funny.

2006-12-10 06:45:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

No, because their was no indication that Al Queda wa there prior to 9/11 or the "War" in Iraq, and Saddam would've rooted them out if they were there because they would've been a threat to his own government

2006-12-10 06:47:40 · answer #2 · answered by FootballFan1012 6 · 1 0

Depends on what your choice of news is. Some say yes, some say no. Either way, at this point it is academic.

But, in direct answer, I would have to say that while AQ operatives were reported as moving through Iraq back as far as 1998, they didn't have any real base of operations there.

This does not mean that Iraq and AQ did not cooperate at times though.

As I said, at this point, it is academic. What is, is.

2006-12-10 06:58:12 · answer #3 · answered by Rich B 5 · 0 0

Saddam didn't like Al Qaeda. So the answer is no. The administration must have known this before the war, which makes it more likely that they actually thought there would be WMD's.

2006-12-10 06:42:07 · answer #4 · answered by Wocka wocka 6 · 3 1

Well we will never really know for sure since we can't really rely on our government to give us the truth anyway no matter what party is in power. But given the character of Sadam I would say its a pretty fair bet they were. But given the fact that things are already in motion does it really matter at this point?

2006-12-10 06:54:44 · answer #5 · answered by ikeman32 6 · 1 0

for the same reason that they have got centred basically on the unfavorable because of the fact the beginning up. The media despises something beneficial that doesn't jive with their liberal time table. while any of them are reporting some thing unfavorable they are in a position to rather administration the glee of their voices and expressions. bear in mind Dan somewhat's unfounded tale approximately Bush and his protection rigidity provider? the guy ought to rather get the words out with a right away face because of the fact he believed he had stumbled on the silver bullet. And, his "apology"? - properly somebody else screwed up!

2016-10-18 01:53:30 · answer #6 · answered by scharber 4 · 0 0

I would say few if any. They were being trained in Afghanistan. Prior to the Iraqi invasion we had no intelligence agents in the country.

2006-12-10 06:40:49 · answer #7 · answered by trigunmarksman 6 · 2 0

No they were not.In fact al-Qaeda were enemies of Saddam

2006-12-10 06:41:27 · answer #8 · answered by rosbif 6 · 5 2

Yes there is a strong strong connection between osama's alQuida and saddam.

read the book "the Connection" it illustrates it pretty well.

2006-12-10 06:48:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

well of course they were Saddam was training the members of al-qaeda... where have you been the past 5 years if you say ur a dumb liberal that loves gays killing babies burning the bible

2006-12-10 06:48:49 · answer #10 · answered by libshateme 3 · 0 4

Yeah, they has secret cells there--like in the US.

2006-12-10 06:42:10 · answer #11 · answered by ? 3 · 4 1

fedest.com, questions and answers