WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/
2007-12-01 04:34:58 · 17 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Mel (below) {huuuugggggg}
2007-12-01 04:40:02 · update #1
Terror in the name of the Islamic radicals or any other ideology of hatred and domination by any other name, AlQaeda, Humas, Revolutionary Guards, Hezbollah, etc...etc..., is still terror, regardless of any parallels between the groups.
Any leader who disposes of his opposition by creating mass graves, gasses his own citizens and pays rewards to the families of psychos who strap lethal shrapnel stuffed bombs to their body and detonates them in areas crowded with innocent men, women and children is a terrorist - by any reasonable person's standard.
A venomous snake may have no relationship with a venomous spider, but I doubt you would be inclined to invite either one to your next cookout.
In my opinion, Dick Cheney's statement is right on target if one is not too pedantic.
2007-12-01 05:00:59 · answer #1 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Al Qaida did have a relationship with Saddam. Hillary said so herself;
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
2007-12-01 04:39:11 · answer #2 · answered by PNAC ~ Penelope 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
They had some kind of relationship as Saddam allow al Qaeda to have land for training so he must have approved of it or was paid very well.
(hi Chi)
2007-12-01 04:38:11 · answer #3 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
About as correct as Hillary and Bill Clinton when they stated the same thing.
Saddam never supported Bin Laden
He was however a big supporter of terrorism.
2007-12-01 04:37:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Who cares. There's overwhelming evidence that al Qaeda has a relationship with Saudi Arabia, and there's no way in hell we're bombing them.
2007-12-01 04:40:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Where's the evidence Cheney? Bring it out in the open!! Oh that's right, Saddam and bin Laden were ideologically opposite and hated each other. Shhhhh! Don't tell anyone!
2007-12-01 04:38:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
No he was not. It was just another lie to justify attacking Iraq.
Any country they plan to attack, is either developing WMD or supporting Al Qaida or both. It's old.
Regards.
2007-12-01 06:26:12 · answer #7 · answered by iceman 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Wahhabism is totally inimical to Ba'athism - there is much more evidence of links between Wahhabism and the West- not to mention links between the Bin ladens and the Bushs of course.
2007-12-01 04:47:13 · answer #8 · answered by celvin 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Well his main evidence was a torture victim.
Bin Laden's chauffeur's third cousin's brother once dated the sister of a women that had been raped by one of saddam's officers. Can't you see the relationship.
2007-12-01 04:46:43 · answer #9 · answered by nathan f 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Cheney scares me.
2007-12-01 04:36:40 · answer #10 · answered by MadLibs 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋