Is there a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

According to a recently declassified document, the CIA found no credible information that the April 2001 meeting occurred, and in fact, that it was unlikely that it did occur. Carl Levin questioned Cheney on this in the Senate.http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=225368(This page contains a link to the declassified document, but I can't get it to work) The author of this article, David Rose, later confessed that most of the articles he wrote in the run-up to the war were based on information supplied by the INC which he should not have trusted:Iraqi defectors tricked us with WMD lies, but we must not be fooled again | Iraq | The GuardianPEThis message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-01-2004 03:51 AM

Cool - does that mean that you think Nicaragua should invade the US for funding the Contras?PE

Gotcha. Not suicide, so good guys. Lucky for all concerned that the 9/11 bombers didn't bail from the planes, else Creationistal would have to support them. PEeta:attributionThis message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-04-2004 06:49 PM

Indeed. This is particularly timely: BBC NEWS | Americas | Rumsfeld questions Saddam-Bin Laden linkPE

I've been exposed as a commie raghead lover. When Rumsfeld said of Saddam and Al-Qaeda: What he actually meant to say was: all of a sudden.Rumsfeld: Iraq/al-Qaida remarks 'misunderstood' | World news | The GuardianGlad that's cleared up then.PE

He was misunderstood by the liberal pinko media, and you are an evildoer trying to take away our freedoms for trying to suggest otherwise. Obviously.PE

One of the things which I don't think gets the coverage it deserves is the effect that sanctions had on the people of Iraq. Several high ranking members of the UN, including the then Assistant Secretary General, Denis Halliday, resigned in protest accusing the US and Britain of a deliberate policy of genocide. Madeleine Albright, when questioned about the Unicef report which had 500,000 children dying in Iraq as a direct result of sanctions remarked that "the price was worth it".Iraq was getting mixed messages about how and when sanctions would ever be lifted. The UN resolution had words to the effect that sanctions would only be lifted when Iraq complied with its disarmament requirements (whatever that means) but subsequent remarks by the US administration, including Clinton, indicated that sanctions would remain until Saddam was gone. Given that you'd have to prove a negative anyway and sanctions would not be lifted while he was in power, of course it was in Saddam's best interests to keep inspections (and therefore sanctions) going for as long as possible, even though Scott Ritter, a member of Unscom, declared Iraq effectively disarmed in 1998. When it was discovered that some of the Unscom inspectors were reporting back their findings to the Isreali governement, then of course it was obvious to all in the Iraqi regime that the inspections were to be a never-ending sham.From what I recall, the UN resolution called upon all nations to reveal any intelligence they had about weapons to Unscom and then Unmovic, also something that was never done, as Hans Blix himself said. No other nation was admonished for non-compliance with the resolution.Personally, I don't think there is anything anyone outside the US administration, least of all Saddam, could have done to prevent a war.PE

You're obviously brainwashed. I bet you've got posters of Hitler and Bin Laden on your (toilet) wall.PEedit: had to put the 'i' in HitlerThis message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-05-2004 12:17 PM

Do people really say that? (Sorry, I'm a Brit and can't really fathom the appeal).Mind you (OT, and sticking my neck out here), do you think that Kerry would have done things differently if he'd been in office this term? From my restricted-view vantage point, I'd say that apart from not reading books about goats to schoolkids at crucially important times and possibly enlisting more countries to support the US in the invasion of Iraq, there's very little to choose between them, in foreign policy terms. Is this fair?PE

Just the amount of media coverage that the damage caused by sanctions get is shocking. One would think, in a democratic society the fact that the UN people on the ground, humanitarian co-ordinators, hardly apologists for Saddam, quit in disgust after accusing our countries of genocide (on a scale comparable to Rwanda) is at least grounds for a public discussion, but it seems to be the norm that the excuse that Saddam caused the suffering by spending the oil for food money on palaces is accepted uncritically and without further explanation.PE