Bombshell: Possible Link to Oil-for-Food and AQ

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2...82,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html)

Wow, looks like they've done a lot of work and gotten to the point where they have run out of access to documents, but still...


Now, buried in some of the United Nation's own confidential documents, clues can be seen that underscore the possibility of just such a Saddam-Al Qaeda link — clues leading to a locked door in this Swiss lakeside resort. (To review a series of documents, audits and other stories related to oil-for-food, click here.)

[Tommy Duncan]

Again, it wasn't a choice between removing Hussein or the status quo. The sanctions scheme was breaking down and the Oil for Food program was simply putting billion$ in Hussein's pocket.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

My thinking is if the US has access to more data on this, and is justified, then it slams the door shut on why we went to Iraq.

The next question would probably be when do we invade the UN?

[Yonivore]

"Again, it wasn't a choice between removing Hussein or the status quo. The sanctions scheme was breaking down and the Oil for Food program was simply putting billion$ in Hussein's pocket."
Which he may have been funneling to al Qaeda.

[scott]

My thinking is if the US has access to more data on this, and is justified, then it slams the door shut on why we went to Iraq.

Because all we need is hindsight justification?

I was and still am all for the removal of Saddam... I'm just extremely disappointed by the current administrations "reason of the week" approach to justifying this war. A new take of "Well, this isn't why we attacked them but I'm sure glad we did!" wouldn't do much to settle that disappointment.

[Yonivore]

The initial reason hasn't changed...the reasons just keep piling up. It's called vindication.

[Nbadan]

It's called a vendetta and every soldier that dies in Iraq between now and the election is more blood on the administrations hands. Impeach George Bush now for getting us into this quagmire.

[scott]

The initial reason hasn't changed

So, if the initial reason is wrong, but we come up with a bunch of other reasons later, it makes it all good?

Thanks for the echo.

[Yonivore]

WMD's weren't the only justification and you're too smart a man to pull that kind of crap scott.

WMD's got the most play in the media because it was the most sensational. Iraq had violated the '91 cease-fire agreement over and over and over. Iraq had committed hostile acts agains U.S. and British jets in the no-fly zone continuously...and, just because Clinton ignored it doesn't mean it wasn't a violation of the cease-fire agreement. Iraq had committed genocidal acts agains Shi'ites and Kurds since the end hostilities. Iraq was thumbing its nose at the U.N., ignoring all resolutions and starving its own populace by diverting oil-for-food monies to Hussein and back to France, Germany, and the U.N. in kickbacks -- now we learn possibly to al Qaeda as well. Iraq was a loose cannon in the middle east and a threat to stability in the region. Iraq had tried to assassinate a U.S. President. Iraq was harboring terrorists. Iraq was paying terrorists.

And, while the latest reports there were no stockpiles, it also says there were programs in place to immediately produce WMD's if the sanctions had been lifted. Dual use factories and manufacturers and goods.

By the way, what, exactly, did happen to the tons of WMD's the inspectors catalogued in the mid '90's but Iraq never accounted for?

You're much more reasonable than your flippant statement belies scott.

[Tommy Duncan]

A significant part of the problem was definitely the White House not having a consistent message on the issue. Leaving Hussein in power was not an option. Perhaps they should have made that more clear.

With regards to this possible link between Hussein and al Qaida it does answer the various critics' screeds that the war had nothing to do with the war on terrorism.

[Yonivore]

His message was carried by the media Tommy...who decided to focus on WMD's because they were sensational.

[IcemanCometh]

Don't you mean the "filter"?

[Tommy Duncan]

Listening to the report now. Not sounding good for Annan, to say the least.

[Bandit2981]

A significant part of the problem was definitely the White House not having a consistent message on the issue. Leaving Hussein in power was not an option. Perhaps they should have made that more clear.
my problem is with the timing of the whole thing...i dont mind an operation to remove sadaam out of power, but i didnt think it was something we absolutely had to do at that very moment in time...greater progress in afganistan should have been completed first, to me it seemed like we never solidified what we wanted to do there before jumping over to iraq

[spurster]

So invading and occupying Iraq is justifying by a possible link from oil-to-food to AQ? The article says "possible" right? This is insane. At least we knew that North Vietnam was Communist and trying to conquer South Vietnam.

Now I'm more and willing to wait for more evidence, but hardly anything is confirmed at this point.

[Tommy Duncan]

It was justified for a number of reasons which have been stated ad naseum in this forum. The 9/11 Commission report also documented a number of contacts between Hussein's regime and al Qaida over the years.

But I suppose I should defer judgement until CBS News and its fake but accurate journalism looks into this matter.

[Nbadan]

It was justified for a number of reasons...

The Iraq war justified to the American People with the primary reason being 'the immediate and growing danger' that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, had acquire unmanned aerial devices that could reach the East Coast, had active Al-Queda training camps in his area of control, and provided strategic help to the perpetrators of 911 - all of which turned out to be a unequivocal lie.

[Tommy Duncan]

Which every major intel service and the Clinton administration believed. Of course it was not known with 100% accuracy because, again, Hussein had been rather uncooperative with the weapons inspections since the end of Gulf War I.

[spurster]

Probably every intel agency believed Saddam had some WMDs, at least some left over since the first Gulf War. But only the US and Great Britian widely exaggerated the little evidence around (claiming huge stockpiles and "we know where they are"). Any decent university chemistry lab can be used to make noxious materials, but Saddam hardly had this much. In the end, I think our intel were heavily encouraged to make the conclusions that BushCo wanted them to make.

As far as AQ talking with Saddam, there is nothing that indicates that it was more than that. Yes, it's suspicious, but the US also talks with bad characters, with the Taliban before that war, and with Iran and North Korea now (sort of). If we wanted to go after AQ's support, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, which is where a lot of the ideology, money and people came from.

Saddam was certainly not a good guy, but our Saddam-in-a-box was suffiicient to contain the threat, as opposed to North Korea and Iran, who pretty much have a free hand to develop WMDs. And we are having a hard enough time trying to convert Afghanistan into a reasonable country, much less trying to do two messed up countries.

[Tommy Duncan]

Saddam was certainly not a good guy, but our Saddam-in-a-box was suffiicient to contain the threat

How so? He had already been enriching himself through the UN oil sales sham and other members of the security council were starting to do business with him. He was becoming much more of a supporter of Islamist terrorism publicly and there were known contacts between his regime and al Qaida. We know he still had an interest in acquiring WMDs and he had certainly shown a willingness in the past to use them.

At least when some of our elected officials were not running for the presidency they agreed with this assessment.

[Yonivore]

I think someone should put Rather and Mapes on this, Pronto!

[LandSharkII]

But I suppose I should defer judgement until CBS News and its fake but accurate journalism looks into this matter.
:lol

[spurster]

How so? He had already been enriching himself through the UN oil sales sham and other members of the security council were starting to do business with him. He was becoming much more of a supporter of Islamist terrorism publicly and there were known contacts between his regime and al Qaida. We know he still had an interest in acquiring WMDs and he had certainly shown a willingness in the past to use them.

At least when some of our elected officials were not running for the presidency they agreed with this assessment.
I would agree with this assessment, but "more of a terrorist supporter" is not something I'm aware of. BTW, all these arab states (including our great friend Saudi Arabia) have supported the Palestinians to a greater or lesser extent for a long while.

None of what you say really separates Iraq from the rest of that region. Are we going to invade and semi-permanently occupy them all?

[Yonivore]

Spurster, I believe the Fox News story addresses the connections between Iraq, the oil-for-food scandal, and al Qaeda...

Something about front organizations in Switzerland or something.

I'd read the allegations again.

[Tommy Duncan]

Hussein was beginning to embrace the Islamist cause more openly. This goes to the heart of the original claim against making Iraq a part of the war on terror since the secularist Hussein who had no problem oppressing the Iraqi Shiites was an enemy of bin Ladin. Bin Ladin had in the past shown a willingness to work with 'the enemies of his enemies' when the US was supporting the mujahdeen fight against the USSR. Given Hussein's long hatred for Israel and the US it's not too implausible to see him and bin Ladin eventually reach some kind of operational relationship.

Again, it's the totality of the matter. Hussein had WMDs in the past and he used them. It was assumed by the world that he still had them, was bent on acquiring them, and perhaps would use them again. He was positioning himself more with the Islamist cause, had contacts with al Qaida, and certainly had the resources to finance terrorism.

Lest we forget that bin Ladin's fortune has been vastly overstated per the 9/11 Commission findings.

[Nbadan]

Which every major intel service and the Clinton administration believed. Of course it was not known with 100% accuracy because, again, Hussein had been rather uncooperative with the weapons inspections since the end of Gulf War I.

So many lies, so little time. Leading up to the war and well before Hussein was giving U.N. weapons inspectors unfeathered access to where ever they wanted to inspect. It was the Bush administration in its rush to war that pulled the weapons inspectors out of Iraq.

[Tommy Duncan]

The "rush" to war (nevermind that Hussein had been playing his cat and mouse game with the inspectors for well over a decade) was certainly justified and whatever concessions Hussein made was too little, too late.

Don't talk to me about lies, you've got the market cornered on those.

[Nbadan]

Don't talk to me about lies, you've got the market cornered on those.

Right. Tell me, who was lying about the Swifties when a Navy report recently concluded that John Kerry medals were awarded in procedures consistent with Naval regulations?

[Tommy Duncan]

1. I'm not a member of the Swift Vets.
2. Just like with the Bush Nat'l Guard "issue" I could give a **** less about what Kerry did in Vietnam.

Try again.

[Nbadan]

Tommy Duncan is a lot more like W than he would like to admit. Neither can admit when they have made a mistake.

[Tommy Duncan]

What "mistake" would that be other than ripping most of your claims to shreds?

[Nbadan]

Nah, you just repeat the same old party rhetoric. There is very little real substance in any of your posts that try and discredit mine.

[Tommy Duncan]

I belong to no party save for the party of reason. You might want to rethink your allegiance to the party of Michael Moore.

[Yonivore]

Speaking of the prick:


Mike's Words : Mike's Message (http://michaelmoore.com/words/message/)

He has sensed the discouragement and he's rallying the dejected.

Don't you know John Forbes wishes he'd just shut the **** up.

[SpursWoman]

Yes, they found the frequency in Dan Rather and ran with it


:lol :rollin :lol :lol


That was pretty funny, though. :lol

[Yonivore]

Damn, woman! I didn't mean for you to actually read it!!!

:)

[SpursWoman]

It's like the that major traffic accident you pass on the highway, you can't stop yourself from looking for dead bodies.



8o



It was funny, though. But Tony Robbins he is not. :wink

[Yonivore]

I hear ya, beautiful! :makeout

[scott]

I just checked back in this thread and I apologize Yoni.

[Yonivore]

No apology necessary. I appreciate the gesture, however...you may, yet, garner my vote.

[Nbadan]

I belong to no party save for the party of reason. You might want to rethink your allegiance to the party of Michael Moore.

You belong to an out-dated ideology that lacks reason, logic, humility, and empathy. It would be easy to say it is all just you (cause it is), but you are the product of a society whose citizens lack the ability to put their own selfish interests and desires aside, and understand what is driving your enemy. This is why the * administration hasn't a clue as to who or even why they are still fighting in Iraq.

It would be amusing if it wasn't so self-deficating to our troops and our country.

[Tommy Duncan]

Random question for you: what ideology do you think I belong to?