International News
See other International News Articles
Title: BUSH WAS RIGHT!! Newly Declassified Iraqi Testimony Shows Why Saddam Had to Be Removed
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/newly- ... to-be-removed/?singlepage=true
Published: Oct 11, 2010
Author: by Ryan Mauro
Post Date: 2010-10-11 13:45:44 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 17425
Comments: 40
September 11, 2001, taught us that it is too costly to allow a leader with a history of aggression and stated intent to harm the U.S. to maintain links to terrorist groups and acquire weapons capabilities to act upon that sentiment. Newly declassified documents about the testimony of Tariq Aziz, Saddam Hussein’s deputy prime minister, reminds us why Saddam had to be removed from power. Contradicting Saddam Hussein’s testimony where he claimed he actually wanted an alliance with the U.S. against Iran, Tariq Aziz describes Saddam as an “anti-American” who was “delighted” when al-Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. The documents do not mention Saddam’s private reaction to 9/11, but we know that his public reaction was to be possibly the only leader to refuse to condemn the attacks, as well as the only leader to openly praise them. His sons and the state-controlled press did the same. This is a critical fact that is often forgotten: Saddam’s regime was the only one to publicly hail the 9/11 hijackers and not hide its desire to see such attacks happen again. Aziz confirms that Saddam’s regime supported terrorists like Abu Abbas, the notorious mastermind of the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro, providing him with a farm for fundraising for Palestinian terrorists and for use as a training center. They even gave him the AK-47s he needed. We also know that Abu Ibrahim, called “the most dangerous bomb maker in the world bar none during my time as a CIA officer” by former CIA case officer Robert Baer, operated a network from his home in Baghdad. The Duelfer Report confirmed that Iraqi intelligence trained terrorists from around the Arab world, including at the Salman Pak facility known to house a Boeing airliner that defectors said was used to simulate hijackings. We don’t know if these terrorists were al-Qaeda members or not, but that doesn’t change the fact that Saddam not only praised 9/11 but trained jihadists in the tactics necessary to repeat it. Aziz says that he only heard Saddam speak negatively about Osama Bin Laden as he “did not trust Islamists” and viewed them as “opportunists” and “hypocrites,” and therefore did not want to work with them. At the same time, though, Saddam viewed al-Qaeda as “effective” and respected their capabilities. And for a man as unprincipled as Saddam, that’s all that’s necessary to do business together. He did, after all, support Hamas, an Islamist group close to his Iranian enemies. The Iraqi Perspectives Project, which reviewed over 600,000 Iraqi documents, did not find any evidence of operational collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but it did show that Saddam actively helped those seeking to carry out those attacks he was so “delighted” over. The study concluded that “the regime was willing to co-opt or support organization it knew to be a part of al-Qaeda as long as that organization’s near-term goals supported Saddam’s long-term ‘vision.’” The Project found that “Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al-Qaeda … or that generally shared al-Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.” What this means is that the debate over whether Iraq supported al-Qaeda or not before the invasion is flawed because of a misunderstanding of what al-Qaeda actually is. A direct link between Saddam and Bin Laden or his inner circle cannot be proven. However, a link to the regional groups that shared Bin Laden’s ideology and operated as affiliates of al-Qaeda can be established. Those that say no link has been proven either are unaware of these findings or define “al-Qaeda” so narrowly that it downplays the breath of the organization’s reach. Critics of the removal of Saddam Hussein will focus on the testimony of Ahmed Samir al-Ani, the consul at the Iraqi embassy in Prague once alleged to have met Mohammed Atta, the ringerleader of the 9/11 hijackers, whose testimony was declassified along with Tariq Aziz’s. The Czechs were initially confident in their reporting and stood by it under heavy pressure, but then some Czech officials expressed doubt and so it is unclear where they officially stand on the issue. The 9/11 Commission expressed doubt about the intelligence but could not rule it out either. Intelligence expert and investigative journalist Edward Jay Epstein notes that Atta’s visa application stated he was a “Hamburg student” and that al-Ani’s seized calendar listed a meeting with a “Hamburg student” in April 2001 — the same month the Czechs’ reporting alleged he met with Atta. In another interesting coincidence, two suspected Iraqi spies were arrested in Germany in February 2001. The Arab press reported that they were arrested after Iraqi intelligence “had drawn up a plan to strike at U.S. interests around the world through a network of alliances with extremist fundamentalist parties.” The German authorities were reportedly investigating groups connected to al-Qaeda when they discovered the two Iraqi spies. Al-Ani denies that the meeting happened, saying it was “ludicrous” to believe Iraq would have anything to do with al-Qaeda or specifically Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Whatever the truth is regarding his alleged meeting with Atta, al-Ani’s testimony simply isn’t credible, as he makes the laughable assertion that he had never even heard of Osama Bin Laden before 9/11. Iraq had previously been accused of supporting Bin Laden by the Clinton administration, something that Al-Ani, as an Iraqi government official, surely would have known about. Best-selling books had been written on Bin Laden and he had carried out high-profile attacks. Thanks to Tariq Aziz’s testimony, we know that Saddam’s attitude towards terrorism against the U.S. was the same in private as it was in public. He may not have been willing to directly engineer a plot like 9/11, but he certainly was willing to help terrorists do it for themselves. And as I’ve previously written, it is now known that Saddam’s regime also had been working on plans to actualize three of the most horrifying scenarios that the West fears the most: the smuggling of chemical and biological weapons into the West, a dramatic attack against Israel that could spark a regional war, and the destabilization of the Saudi royal family, with one 2002 document indicating Saddam actually suggested working with Ayman al-Zawahiri towards this end. The methods can be debated, but Saddam’s regime fit every criteria of a regime that had to go.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
Smirk and Snarl conducted the false flag operations in Washington, D.C. and New York City to change the climate in this country to be receptive to this illegal and immoral invasion. Throwing Saddam out was an internal matter that would of best been attended to by the Iraqi people themselves. Snarl postulated the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms, and Junior thought it was mission accomplished way too early. And no doubt was convinced to go along with this war mongering with enticements to citing the likely shortness of the war, and how it would be paid for with Iraqi oil to convince the weak minded moron to join in and sign onto this foolishness. Sorry Charley, but your second article lionizing hyenas stinks just as foul as your first.
Throwing Saddam out was an internal matter that would of best been attended to by the Iraqi people themselves. Snarl postulated the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms, and Junior thought it was mission accomplished way too early. And no doubt was convinced to go along with this war mongering with enticements to citing the likely shortness of the war, and how it would be paid for with Iraqi oil to convince the weak minded moron to join in and sign onto this foolishness. Sorry Charley, but your second article lionizing hyenas stinks just as foul as your first. 1. You have nothing to support the ridiculous 'truther' viewpoint. 2. Saddam's removal, eventually, was pre ordained by how we allowed the 1st Gulf War to end. Bush the Elder applied Cold War strategy of containment, when it simply wasn't necessary. 3. 'Mission Accomplished' was 100% accurate as it related to that battle group. The mission assigned was to remove Saddam as the leader of Iraq. They did so. 4. Your comment about 'weak minded moron' undermines the first ridiculous assertion related to 'truther' theory. Bush cannot be a 'weak minded moron' and at the same time pulled off this 'hoax' that would be the most complicated in modern history. Final thought. The Iraqi people aren't clamoring for the return of Saddam and Son's. With good reason, he was a homicidal maniac.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Its rather amusing the Left claims Saddam had no 'weapons of mass destruction' in light of the fact we just convicted the Times Square bomber of attempting to use a 'weapon of mass destruction'. (chuckle)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Well, how about some of us paleo-conservatives? GWBush had the ENTIRE US Army looking for WMD in Iraq and what was the end result? NADA, NOTHING, ZIP, ZERO ,,, proving that Smirk was nothing more than a BSer just like yourself.
Yeah, blowing up propane tanks is so... high tech. Here is a great example of how you are too quick to let your verbal hyperbole write a check with words the facts and your ass can't cover.
Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
Using the Owe-bama administrations definition, as I citing here, we did in fact find 'WMD's' Bucky.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Ah, Mikey? Not 'my words'. Its what the terrorist was convicted of. Sheesh. Here's an 'example' of you denying reality.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Who are you kidding? The propaganda spread over Iraq has created an ever-lasting impression that the US intelligence community can not provide accurate data and in fact, was re-organized because of Tenet's BS.
They only attack the liberals cities. Cut all anti terror spending to NYC, LA, SF, Boston, Chicago. We must never respond when they are attacked again.
-----------------------------------------------------------
That is a perfect definition about your methods of discussion. You are nothing more than a chameleon, changing colours at each instance you can.
Actually, you use the moral equivalent of a car bomb as an example of a WOMD on the scale of biological or nuclear WOMDs. You can't seriously be saying we invaded Iraq to go after non-existing WOMDs because people can make bombs out of SUVs, propane tanks and timing devices. Unless you are in the middle of a four-five martini morning, anyway.
Very thin and meaningless logic. We invaded citing the threat of nuclear, chemical and biological WOMDs that were never found.
war disappears and suddenly buckaroo pops up all day.
-----------------------------------------------------------
You mean, Buckeroo; not Buckaroo.
LOL Says the poster that admits using multiple screen names on a forum.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Badeye is silly.
Some forums allow this in their rules. When I was on the Time.com/Politics board, we were allowed two. My first one was Hobbb (They had to be five characters, and 'hob' is a male ferret) and Ferret Mike. You don't clarify as to what context this was allegedly done by Buck for. Was it to create a straw man to pummel? Was it to harass others? Were these returning bannee disposables? How can we judge this if you don't give more information concerning this alleged wrong by Buck? Not to mention, that if it was not done in this forum, what's your point?
Actually, this is a perfect example of why nobody takes you serious, Bucky. The administration, and the state of NY both defined it as a 'weapon of mass destruction'. Its not my definition, its THEIRS. Ironic as hell, maybe, but its not about 'me'.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
I didn't define it, the state of NY and this administration did. You know, Liberals? Those on your side of the political world? Don't shoot the messenger....(chuckle)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
That wasn't anywhere near the only reasons, you know it as well as I do. Anyway, this is pointless. Its done. Saddam and Son's are long dead. We're out of Iraq. Now lets get the hell out of Afghanistan, shall we? I think we agree on that, don't we, FM?
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
I have a friend who's farts are known in our circle as a weapon of mass destruction. Which is similar to your parsing of the term, except you are bat shit crazy enough to try to pass this example of talking apples when you mean oranges off as the truth with a straight face.
Its not the same poster. both are delusional, but thats the only thing they have in common.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Yes, it is warmonger. You will side with any argument that lays bare your own looking glass reflections about your pretty face. Don't you get ill looking at what you post? Man, if anyone has an opportunity to learn about themselves ... it is YOU. You are a god-damned liar shifting the sands to 2010 definitions.
I didn't 'parse the term' FM. Thats what the State of New York alleged, and the administration. And he was found guilty of attempting to use a 'weapon of mass destruction'. Don't shoot the messenger, thats accurately quoting the Left on this.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
I'm still talking Iraq, and it's not truly over until people who illegally invaded that country are taken to the Hague and given the war crime trials they richly deserve.
Like I said, bucky, this is why nobody takes you seriously. I laughed at the assertion when it was made public, in this very forum.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Good luck with that (laughing) That will occur right after they indict JFK and LBJ over Vietnam.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
That is because you are a warmonger. Face it, pal .... your presence is meaningless. All you care about is war and more war. And for what specific end? I wager the protection of your Zionist nation.
Wow, they damn; we need to invade the rest of the world pronto. I mean shoot fire Baddie, theys propane and cotton picking cars all over this durn world. We are all in danger of these potential weapons of mass destruction, n'est-ce pas? I mean, sure you can hold a magnifying glass up to a chicken leg and make it look like a meal fit to feed several, but it's still a Sleight of hand illusion, just like your parsing of the truth, Mr Verbal Prestidigitation.
Actually, the headlines the week Kennedy was murdered by conspiracy conducted by people on high, he was being lamblased for his planned initial pullout of advisors from Vietnam. http://www.history-matters.com/vietnam1963.htm LBJ most certainly deserved to be tried for war crimes concerning Vietnam however, and was involved in the plot to murder JFK.
What, exactly, have I 'parsed'? The State and the Fed cited that punk for attempting to use a 'weapon of mass destruction' in THE INDICTMENT. I didn't write the damn thing out...(laughig)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Well, then work on getting LBJ indicted.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Fine and dandy; after we prioritize properly and go after the more meaningful examples of war crimes that are more recent, and where the criminals still are able to avoid being room temperature because their hearts still beat. We need to find the full extent of influence and meddling of the Israelis in our government and put a stop to it while doing so will still help us. We need to chose our battles wisely, and the full extent of who, what, where, and why in regards to Iraq are still not out and in the open. Let's either get the Israeli meddling into our internal affairs out in the open and deal with it while we still exist as a country, or prove it not true. That's what we truly need to do, and I don't for a minute believe the Israelis were not involved in this war making process, or the conduct of the conflict.
Gee, you sure sound war like to me FM lol Lets just get out of Afghanistan.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
In 1986 Abbas became deeply involved with the middle eastern peace process and was allowed by the Israeli government to enter Gaza to assist in negotiations. So is your argument that we should invade Israel as well?
YOU SUCK BUSH'S TINY ONE!! SLURP, SLURP, SLURP... Bush SPENT TRILLIONS of dollars and WASTED THOUSANDS of AMERICAN LIVES FOR NO REASON. The happy bride... Bush is a war criminal who should be given the Mussolini treatment.
That's all Obama and his inept administration have produced.
You fuckers just can't stop. You go quiet. Then when you think that the coast is clear, you dump this toxic filth out and call it 'history'. bush43: "I hit the Trifecta!"
and yet Bush awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#2. To: Ferret Mike (#1)
Smirk and Snarl conducted the false flag operations in Washington, D.C. and New York City to change the climate in this country to be receptive to this illegal and immoral invasion.
#3. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
#4. To: Badeye (#3)
Its rather amusing the Left claims Saddam had no 'weapons of mass destruction' in light of the fact we just convicted the Times Square bomber of attempting to use a 'weapon of mass destruction'.
#5. To: Badeye (#3)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#6. To: buckeroo (#4)
#7. To: buckeroo (#4)
Its rather amusing the Left claims Saddam had no 'weapons of mass destruction' in light of the fact we just convicted the Times Square bomber of attempting to use a 'weapon of mass destruction'.
#8. To: Ferret Mike (#5)
Yeah, blowing up propane tanks is so... high tech. Here is a great example of how you are too quick to let your verbal hyperbole write a check with words the facts and your ass can't cover.
#9. To: no gnu taxes (#6)
#10. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
Liberals are now pro nuclear proliferation and in support fundamentalist religions that are against homosexuality.
#11. To: Badeye (#7)
Using the Owe-bama administrations definition
#12. To: Badeye (#8)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#13. To: Badeye (#7)
"Using the Owe-bama administrations definition, as I citing here, we did in fact find 'WMD's' Bucky."
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#14. To: Badeye (#8)
Liberals are now pro nuclear proliferation and in support fundamentalist religions that are against homosexuality.
#15. To: WhiteSands (#14)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#16. To: buckeroo (#11)
That is a perfect definition about your methods of discussion. You are nothing more than a chameleon, changing colours at each instance you can.
Liberals are now pro nuclear proliferation and in support fundamentalist religions that are against homosexuality.
#17. To: Ferret Mike (#13)
#18. To: WhiteSands (#16)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#19. To: buckeroo (#11)
#20. To: Ferret Mike (#12)
Actually, you use the moral equivalent of a car bomb
#21. To: Ferret Mike (#13)
Very thin and meaningless logic. We invaded citing the threat of nuclear, chemical and biological WOMDs that were never found.
#22. To: Badeye (#19)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#23. To: WhiteSands (#14)
#24. To: Badeye (#19)
Its not my definition, its THEIRS. Ironic as hell, maybe, but its not about 'me'.
#25. To: Ferret Mike (#22)
Which is similar to your parsing of the term
#26. To: Badeye (#21)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#27. To: buckeroo (#24)
Its not my definition, its THEIRS. Ironic as hell, maybe, but its not about 'me'. Yes, it is warmonger.
#28. To: Ferret Mike (#26)
#29. To: Badeye (#27)
I laughed at the assertion when it was made public, in this very forum.
#30. To: Badeye (#25)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#31. To: Badeye (#28)
"That will occur right after they indict JFK and LBJ over Vietnam."
"The 1990s saw the gaps in the declassified record on Vietnam filled in—with spring 1963 plans for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces. An initial 1000 man pullout (of the approximately 17,000 stationed in Vietnam at that time) was initiated in October 1963, though it was diluted and rendered meaningless in the aftermath of Kennedy's death. The longer-range plans called for complete withdrawal of U. S. forces and a "Vietnamization" of the war, scheduled to happen largely after the 1964 elections."
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#32. To: Ferret Mike (#30)
#33. To: Ferret Mike (#31)
#34. To: Badeye (#33)
Les personnes faibles ne peuvent être sincères.
#35. To: Ferret Mike (#34)
#36. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
Aziz confirms that Saddam’s regime supported terrorists like Abu Abbas
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#37. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
BUSH WAS RIGHT!!
#38. To: Ferret Mike (#30)
but it's still a Sleight of hand illusion
#39. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
#40. To: buckeroo (#9)
The propaganda spread over Iraq has created an ever-lasting impression that the US intelligence community can not provide accurate data and in fact, was re-organized because of Tenet's BS.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]