http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/
Gee, I guess the whole “Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism” crowd can STFU now…
Did you seriously just cite to an eight-year-old CNN article?
Does the fact that it happened eight years ago mean anything? The left has been screaming for years that Iraq never had anything to do with Al Quaeda and certainly not with Bin Laden.
Is CNN not a reputable news agency, in your opinion?
I thought the thread was about Bush’s ultimatum before the invasion that Saddam leave Iraq.
Though this is not my forum, I believe I’ll edit the title for clarity.
Is this news, in your opinion?
Given that Afghan sources in 1999 weren’t exactly on top of everything, that Osama didn’t take any offered asylum, and ObL was in Afghanistan as of 2001 (if in fact he ever left)…
Yeah, this changes very little.
And if you really wanted to show anything, track down when and how Saddam offered asylum.
By the standard, anyone who talks about Bin Laden has something to do with Bin Laden.
Why would Saddam have offered asylum? Because doing so pissed off the West, not because he had any intention of going through with it (unless you can prove otherwise).
He followed through on his threats to gas the Kurds…
This was widely reported years ago. I know I brought it up several times on this board in the past.
Is it news as in NEW today, of course not. However, it does show a lack of honesty in some quarters.
What are you talking about. There were unverified reports that Iraq used some mustard gas on Iranians during a battle in 1988, and that some Kurds got caught in the crossfire. It was never actually confirmed that Iraq did this and the Kurds were not their target in any case. The US didn’t care at the time. Reagan was buddy-buddy with Saddam and supported him during the Iran-Iraq War (we even gave him WMDs).
Now how does any of that have anything to do with proving a connection to bin Laden or al Qaeda?
What quarters would those be? What do you actually think you’ve proven?
Generally (though not always), a condition of asylum is to cease whatever political activity has caused the person to need asylum. I’ve no doubt that Saddam would have loved to poke a finger in the eye of the U.S.; I’ve equally no doubt that bin Laden would not have been allowed to continue his terroristic activities from Iraq. Saddam never allowed Al Quaeda activity from Iraq, even after the alleged offer of asylum.
Ugh. Can we just can it?
Saddam had no actual links to Al Qaeda. No weapons of mass destruction. No threat to anyone outside of his own borders. The only remaining justification for the war is some vague sense of how a democratic Iraq will somehow influence other nations once they see how great it is.
Any analysis of the Bush administration that doesn’t make them into utter fools or craven bastards who went to war for profit must assume that this was their real intention all along.
Meanwhile, the death toll for American troops killed in the line of duty in Iraq stands at 3,002.
I bet the ones that pointed that old item to you told you in 2003, before the war, that…
… Or do I have to assume once again that you were had and like in hundreds of cases you will not complain to the ones that gave that information with spin and instead will continue to blame “some quarters”?
Dio, yep, it never fails to surprise me how people on the right suddenly want us to buy that they are now concerned about human rights and the massive killings of civilians when they couldn’t have cared less before it was a politically convenient posture, and don’t care less about anything other than those which are politically convenient today.
Yeah, and he was also a Taurus. What’s your point?
As a rule of dumb, your basic Taurus is too simple-minded to be devious. At least, not successfully.