Jan 27, 2008

Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda

A News story tonight caught my attention as an FBI Agent was saying Saddam Hussein initially miscalculated President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998, not believing that we would invade. He apparently was trying to intimidate Iran so they would be afraid to attack. Makes sense to me.
We all know that we didn't invade Iraq because they had WMD's but because they had oil. Bush and his cronies couldn't wait to get their greedy little hands on all that profit.
As for Hussein, he was simply a man who knew to much and Bush had a score to settle.
In other news tonight extra police and soldiers are being deployed to the northern city to strip al Qaeda in Iraq of its sanctuaries and "incubators" there.
My question is why are we even bothering to do this? If the major Al Qaeda threat is in Pakistan why are we still screwing around in Iraq?
We are not making any headway in this 'war on terror' and we never will. There will always be Muslim Extremists ready and willing to fight and die for what they believe in. Seems to me the one thing that really pisses them off is that the US is still in their land and they want us out!


George Vreeland Hill said...
Bush fell for all the lies, as did the people who protect our (U.S.) country. The Republican Party still backs this WMD lie, and it is proof that our government had no clue about what Iraq was doing, so they all had to lie themselves. The result was a complete mess. This war must be on terror, and not in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush and "his people" are full of bs. We should never vote for a Republican again.
I am,
George Vreeland Hill

Steve said...
That's the easy answer to a tough question. That way we could ignore the canisters of sarin gas we found, simply because they were not attached to the warheads we found. Then we don't have to call it wmd.
Of course, that does seem a bit hypocritical based on the fact that we do consider a person carrying a weapon and bullets to be armed, whether they are in the chamber or not.
And as for the ties to Al Qaeda, once again... that's the tough answer to believe, but easy to recite. You see, I have a hard time believing that Al Qaeda and Saddam's administration were talkin about what color turban to wear after Ramadan in those meetings they had. Yea, the ones even the Baker commission admit took place.
The thing that makes that toughest to believe?
The Baker Commission stated that there could have been no ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda because Saddam had an arrest warrant out on Al Zarqawi.
But do you remember how far out of his way Saddam went to kill his sons in law when he wanted their heads?
Then maybe you could explain why Zarqawi was lying injured in a hospital bed in Baghdad Iraq, a hospital controlled by Saddam, in his home town, with an arrest warrant on his head, untouched.
But yea, I suppose if all that adds up to you, then there was no wmd, there was no tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and this was all a war for oil that had nothing to do with terrorism.
I mean, come on, a guy that used chemical weapons on his own people would never associate with terrorists, right?

Sphere: Related Content

4 comments:

George Vreeland Hill said...

Bush fell for all the lies, as did the people who protect our (U.S.) country.
The Republican Party still backs this WMD lie, and it is proof that our government had no clue about what Iraq was doing, so they all had to lie themselves.
The result was a complete mess.
This war must be on terror, and not in Iraq.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Bush and "his people" are full of bs.
We should never vote for a Republican again.
I am,

George Vreeland Hill

Carol said...

Hello ther George Vreeland Hill.
I couldn't have said it better myself and couldn't agree more.
Thanks so much for stopping by and taking the time to leave such a thought provoking comment.
Peace.
Carol

Steve said...

That's the easy answer to a tough question. That way we could ignore the canisters of sarin gas we found, simply because they were not attached to the warheads we found. Then we don't have to call it wmd. Of course, that does seem a bit hypocritical based on the fact that we do consider a person carrying a weapon and bullets to be armed, weather they are in the chamber or not.

And as for the ties to Al Qaeda, once again... that's the tough answer to believe, but easy to recite. You see, I have a hard time believing that Al Qaeda and Saddam's administration were talkin about what color turban to wear after Ramadan in those meetings they had. Yea, the ones even the Baker commission admit took place.

The thing that makes that toughest to believe? The Baker Commission stated that there could have been no ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda because Saddam had an arrest warrant out on Al Zarqawi. But do you remember how far out of his way Saddam went to kill his sons in law when he wanted their heads? Then maybe you could explain why Zarqawi was lying injured in a hospital bed in Baghdad Iraq, a hospital controlled by Saddam, in his home town, with an arrest warrant on his head, untouched.

But yea, I suppose if all that adds up to you, then there was no wmd, there was no tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and this was all a war for oil that had nothing to do with terrorism.

I mean, come on, a guy that used chemical weapons on his own people would never associate with terrorists, right?

Carol said...

Hi Steve,
Although al-Zarqawi was working with al-Qaeda to drive the US out of Iraq doesn't prove that what happened on 9/11 had anything to do with Iraq.
Al-Qaeda took credit for that and they were in Afghanistan. The US was successful back then in driving them out and they relocated to South Tehran and the Gulf emirate of AbuAbu DhabiDhabi.
So why did we invade Iraq?
Saddam Hussein was a terrorist to his own people having nothing to do with us.