Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda?
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 62 (146373)
09-30-2004 10:57 PM


Hello all,
I am having a debate on various issues with a very right wing friend. I was under the impression that there were no significant links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
He has posited the text info below following in support of his argument.
Has anyone any counter arguments to this stuff or is the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda legit?

The argument that Al Qaeda and Saddam could not have worked together because they had competing ideologies is a bit weak. They both had a common enemy - the US, which, surely, would have allowed them to overlook any differences.
After all Germany and Japan were not the most likely allies. The US was even building Russian tanks and supplying them to the Russians in World War Two. Communism and Democracy has far less in common than Osama and Saddam.
This is a quote from George Tenet, CIA director.
Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank. We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.
Tenet, as Hayes elaborated, has never backed away from these assessments, reaffirming them in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee as recently as March 9, 2004.
October 13, 2001. Based on an apparent leak from the Czech foreign ministry in Prague, Czech newspapers reported that Czech foreign minister Jan Kavan had briefed Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington about a trip Atta had taken to the Czech Republic in April. Kavan said that Czech intelligence had observed Mohamed Atta meeting in Prague with Iraqi Counsel Al-Ani. Since Ani worked as a case officer for Iraqi intelligence, the liaison implied a connection between the hijackers and Iraq.
After the leaked story was confirmed by the State Department, the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers published the story about the liaison.
New York Times published the story on 27 October 2001.
Quote from Tariq Aziz
"Even if such an incident had taken place, it doesn't mean anything. Any diplomat in any mission might meet people in a restaurant here or there and talk to them, which is meaningless. If that person turned out to be something else, that doesn't mean he had a connection with what that person did later."
There has been widespread debate over whether or not this meeting occurred. However, the claims have never been withdrawn by the Czech government whose agents witnessed the meeting. The Iraqi consul alleged to have had the meeting has been expelled from the Czech Republic.
The President of Prague confirmed the storey again in the Prague Post on 17 September 2002. The storey also appeared on CNN's website: CNN.com - Czech PM: Atta considered Prague attack - November 9, 2001
More evidence of the meeting. Also refers to documents found in Iraq linking Iraq with Al Qaeda. http://www.naplesnews.com/...2071,NPDN_14960_2922930,00.html
Other articles
http://www.intelmessages.org/...wboard/messages_04/7235.html
http://www.intelmessages.org/...wboard/messages_04/7234.html
"Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist."
London Telegraph, 14 December 2003.
Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, Al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for Al Qaeda - perhaps even for Mohamed Atta - according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by The Weekly Standard.
Weekly Standard 15 November 2003.
"The Bush Administration was cautious, arguably too cautious, when making its case for the liberation of Iraq. Exhibit A is what it said about the links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Investigators, interrogators and even journalists are turning up evidence of a stronger relationship than the limited ties originally sketched by President Bush and Colin Powell.
That wasn't the big story last week of course. The big news was that Mr. Bush said he has "no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved" in the attacks of September 11, 2001. Predictably, this is being spun as a concession from the Administration, which has been accused of exaggerating the al Qaeda link.
In truth, Mr. Bush has never gone further than what he reiterated last week: "There's no question Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." U.S. intelligence officials, meanwhile, have confirmed that fact once again. Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was being harbored in Iraq; documents recently found in Tikrit indicate that Saddam provided Yasin with monthly payments and a home. According to federal authorities, the Ramzi Yousef-led terror cell that carried out the 1993 bombing received funding from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of the 2001 attack.
Far from exaggeration, what struck us about the case the President and Colin Powell took to the U.N. last fall and winter was its restraint. It focused mainly on a then-obscure terrorist named Abu Mussab al Zarqawi with no alleged 9/11 link, and a small affiliated terror group called Ansar al Islam operating in the Kurdish area of Northern Iraq. Left out entirely by Mr. Bush were the following stories:
* About a month after September 11, reports surfaced that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi embassy official and intelligence agent named Ahmed al-Ani. Al-Ani was a later expelled from the Czech Republic, in connection with a plot to bomb Radio Free Europe/Radio Free Iraq. Despite repeated attempts to discredit the report of a meeting between the two, Czech officials at the cabinet level have stuck by the story. Al-Ani has been captured in Iraq, and the public deserves to know what he's telling U.S. officials about that meeting.
* Also in October 2001, two defectors alleged that a 707 fuselage at Salman Pak, south of Baghdad, was being used to train terrorists in the art of hijacking with simple weapons such as knives. Though no link to al Qaeda was alleged, some of the trainees were said to be non-Iraqi Arabs. The fuselage was clearly visible in satellite photos, and has since been found.
* Press reports, which had begun in 1998, resurfaced that former Iraqi intelligence chief and then-ambassador to Turkey Faruk Hijazi had met with bin Laden and associates on multiple occasions. Hijazi is in U.S. custody too, and has reportedly confirmed some of the alleged contacts.
That these stories never figured in the case for war was partly a function of caution on the part of the Administration. It was also partly a result of skepticism from the CIA, which had wrongly judged Saddam and Osama incapable of cooperation on the grounds that the former was secular, the latter fundamentalist.
Some CIA officials are still flogging this theory through leaks to the media. A June 9 article by James Risen in the New York Times claimed captured al Qaeda planner Abu Zubaydah had told CIA interrogators that al Qaeda had not "worked jointly" with Saddam. But what Mr. Risen's source, according to our own, neglected to mention was that the very next sentence of the Zubaydah debrief describes bin Laden's attitude toward Saddam as considering the enemy of his enemy to be his friend.
According to Insight magazine, the CIA's Paul Pillar, National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, used a lecture at Johns Hopkins University earlier this year to criticize the President's war on terror. He said that there was no evidence of Iraqi terror sponsorship since 1993, and no evidence of its involvement in the World Trade Center bombing that year. Curiously, we hear the agency has so far declined to share the file found in Iraq on Yasin (the 1993 New York bombing suspect) with other branches of the government.
One of the more interesting pieces of postwar evidence was uncovered in Baghdad by reporters for the Toronto Star and London's Sunday Telegraph. The February 19, 1998, memo from Iraqi intelligence, in which bin Laden's name was covered over with Liquid Paper, reported planned meetings with an al Qaeda representative visiting Baghdad. Days later al Qaeda issued a fatwa alleging U.S. crimes against Iraq. At about the same time, a U.S. government source tells Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, Iraq paid bin Laden deputy Ayman Zawahiri $300,000.
As Saddam's very public financial support for Palestinian suicide bombing would suggest, the dictator had no problem working with other fundamentalist groups based on nothing more than their mutual hatred for the United States. Sources tell us the CIA has found 1993 memos from Saddam's government directing Iraqi intelligence to assist Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and to assist Afghan-based holy warriors against the U.S. peacekeeping mission in Somalia. These facts deserve more public disclosure.
Of course, none of this "proves" any Saddam-9/11 link, as Mr. Bush acknowledges. But neither can we be sure there wasn't one. Our point is that U.S. government and intelligence officials ought to be open to the evidence of any links between state sponsors and terrorists. But for many Administration critics, it seems, nothing less than smoking-gun proof that 9/11 was an Iraqi-al Qaeda joint operation will do.
This standard ignores the multiple ways in which states can aid and abet terror--harboring, training, funding, providing false travel documents. What the President's critics seem to want, instead, is to de-link Iraq from the war on terror, and to return to the pre-9/11 practice of targeting terror groups without going after their state sponsors. We think this is short-sighted and dangerous, and that Mr. Bush should begin to call them on it. "
Wall Street Journal 22 Septembers 2003.
I also refer you to a Guardian Article - Spain links suspect in 9/11 plot to Baghdad | World news | The Guardian


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2004 2:13 AM Gilgamesh has replied
 Message 3 by Rei, posted 10-01-2004 3:17 AM Gilgamesh has replied
 Message 7 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-01-2004 4:51 AM Gilgamesh has not replied
 Message 8 by Peal, posted 10-01-2004 8:22 AM Gilgamesh has not replied
 Message 30 by jar, posted 10-04-2004 11:20 PM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 2 of 62 (146397)
10-01-2004 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gilgamesh
09-30-2004 10:57 PM


only one
the only link between Al Queda and the Iraq of Saddam is the whitehouse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gilgamesh, posted 09-30-2004 10:57 PM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-01-2004 3:17 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 3 of 62 (146409)
10-01-2004 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gilgamesh
09-30-2004 10:57 PM


1) Note how the only article on the "Prague Link" from a serious source was from 2001? That should tell you something.
The 9/11 commission went over and over and over the supposed link ad nauseam. There is absolutely no physical way Atta was there.
For one, Atta was in Florida at the time. He never left the country. We have his phone records from the time. There was no plane ticket. We have his credit card records. Etc. It just didn't happen - he was in Florida the whole time. Both the CIA and FBI have released statements to this effect.
The original report was based on the word of one witness, who claimed that he saw them from across the room. That's all it ever was. It's crazy that such a story could be born from such ridiculous circumstances, but it did.
Furthermore, what Milos Zeman (the Czech President) stated they were talking about was the planned destruction of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. This completely contradicts what the BIS stated, in that they did not hear the conversation; it's kind of silly, too, given that Atta was only operating in the US.
The next entry - the supposed "long term training" - is a reference to Salman Pak. Salman Pak is a well known INC fraud. Even well before we visited the site, it was highly suspect. The INC source (Khohada) claimed that the plane on-site was a Boeing 707, which it wasn't (it was a Tupolev 154). How did they come up with that error? A UN document describing the site had mistakenly misidentified the plane, and the INC source simply copied the error. The plane on-site was brought in and set up by the British as a counterterrorism training center, back during the 1980s when Iran was actively trying to hijack Iraqi airlines.
As for Yasin - to the best of my knowledge, there never was even a simple extradition request made on for him by the US. Meanwhile, we and much of europe had dozens of al-Qaeda members living in our countries (and sometimes getting government benefits).
If you need a reference on anything, just ask (if you need refs. for everything, I'll take the time to gather them all, but I'd rather not waste my time if they're not needed. I read a lot of news, but I don't bookmark everything ).

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gilgamesh, posted 09-30-2004 10:57 PM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-01-2004 3:29 AM Rei has replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 62 (146410)
10-01-2004 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by RAZD
10-01-2004 2:13 AM


Re: only one
I expect that is the case.
Any sources?
Please, please, please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2004 2:13 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 62 (146411)
10-01-2004 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Rei
10-01-2004 3:17 AM


Thank you Rei
I have used some of you links, knowledge and wisdom from other links in my discussions with friends.
I will be called to provide sources, undoubtably.
Can you back up the fact that Atta never left the US, and that the contrary report came from only one source?
Can you also back up the Salman Pak INC fraud?
Don't go to too much trouble, but I would be really appreciative of any assistance!
Edited to include: I was just being lazy Rei: I've looked up the 911 commission. If you have naything off the top of your head, that would be great.
This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 10-01-2004 02:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Rei, posted 10-01-2004 3:17 AM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Rei, posted 10-01-2004 4:19 AM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 6 of 62 (146419)
10-01-2004 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Gilgamesh
10-01-2004 3:29 AM


Re: Thank you Rei
Sure. Here's a huge list-o-references for Atta from the 9/11 report - see #69&70.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-539.html
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-540.html
Czech president recants:
Redirecting...
(I think this was the article that mentioned that it was based only on a single source, but it's been moved to pay content; you can still read the abstract).
Here's one article on Salman Pak:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/8194183.htm
Here's another (I can't find the original, but someone posted its content - search for "What kind of plane is this?"):
http://forums.aclu.org/messageview.cfm?catid=121&threadid...
I can't find my main article on this one, though; it was a really nice history of the site. Oh well
Here's a nice site that addresses several of the claims that your conservative friend made:
Edmit Chella Pollo – My personal blog about astronomy and telescopes resources

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-01-2004 3:29 AM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 62 (146423)
10-01-2004 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gilgamesh
09-30-2004 10:57 PM


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 Guardian
PE
This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-01-2004 03:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gilgamesh, posted 09-30-2004 10:57 PM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
Peal
Member (Idle past 4699 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 03-11-2004


Message 8 of 62 (146433)
10-01-2004 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gilgamesh
09-30-2004 10:57 PM


From 2004 Debate Transcript
KERRY: What I think troubles a lot of people in our country is that the president has just sort of described one kind of mistake. But what he has said is that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection with Al Qaida, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words.
Now if Kerry said this on national TV and Bush didn’t come back and say something to the effect like: Hey wait a minute, there is conclusive proof of Iraq and Al Quaida connections. But there was no replay from Bush to Kerry’s statement about no connections to Al Qaida. This leaves me to believe there are none.
Ask your right wing friend why Bush didn’t provide the proof of connections during the debate when Kerry said there were none.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gilgamesh, posted 09-30-2004 10:57 PM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 62 (146956)
10-03-2004 6:44 AM


Thanks to all
Cheers for your input.

  
creationistal
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 62 (147211)
10-04-2004 3:44 PM


Iraq and Al-Qaida
Though I would be labelled "right-wing", I'm sure, I would hesitate to propagate any of the stuff about connections between these two entities. There is just too much unknown for any of it to be reliable.
On the otherhand, regardless of how bad (and I mean bad) the president tries to justify the Iraq war, it was, in the long run, a very good thing to do.
Al-Qaida isn't the only terrorist organization in the world, nor the only dangerous one. Far from it, Hamas and Hezbollah fund, plan, and execute a multitude of terrorist operations every week in the Middle East and abroad against U.S. and Israeli interests.
Saddam did, in fact, fund suicide bombing campaigns and many bombers' families in the past. It *is* part of the global war on terror, and regardless of spin, Iraq has pretty much nothing to do with 9/11, except to say that terrorism is terrorism anywhere, and terrorists perpetrated 9/11.
-Justin

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 10-04-2004 5:23 PM creationistal has replied
 Message 12 by Loudmouth, posted 10-04-2004 5:28 PM creationistal has replied
 Message 25 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-04-2004 7:33 PM creationistal has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 62 (147238)
10-04-2004 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by creationistal
10-04-2004 3:44 PM


On the otherhand, regardless of how bad (and I mean bad) the president tries to justify the Iraq war, it was, in the long run, a very good thing to do.
Even if that's true, and I think the jury is very much out on that, don't you think that it's possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons?
And if so, don't you think that's a bad habit, because it's pretty easy to head right to the next step - doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons?
I'm no left-wing nut or anything. I've always been on the fence about Iraq. But if you can look at our conduct there - at the prosecution of this war and occupation - with no unease whatsoever, then you've either been bamboozled by the administration or are too credulous to have a legitimate opinion.
There's absolutely nothing to be proud of here. We took down the bully on the block, yes, but we became the bully to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by creationistal, posted 10-04-2004 3:44 PM creationistal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by creationistal, posted 10-04-2004 5:29 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 62 (147241)
10-04-2004 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by creationistal
10-04-2004 3:44 PM


Re: Iraq and Al-Qaida
quote:
Al-Qaida isn't the only terrorist organization in the world, nor the only dangerous one. Far from it, Hamas and Hezbollah fund, plan, and execute a multitude of terrorist operations every week in the Middle East and abroad against U.S. and Israeli interests.
This is a very good point. Iraq and Israel have been involved in a Warm War (definitely warmer than US/RUSSIA but cooler than all out aggression) for some time. In the 80's Israel bombed a nuclear power plant in Iraq before it was completed because they saw Iraq as a threat. Saddam then returned the "favor" by funding terrorism in Israel. Besides the first Gulf War, Saddam has never overtly attacked the US. In fact, many oil companies, including Haliburton CEO'ed by Cheney, were partners with Saddam during the 80's (the same time that he was gassing the Kurds).
Yes, Saddam was a dangerous man. This is what Kerry believed then and believes now. It was the method by which Bush "rushed this country to war" that Kerry is debating. This has been Kerry's position from day one, that the war in Iraq was reckless and we should have gone back to the diplomacy tables. We had inspectors IN IRAQ two days before the bombs first fell. It was working, but Bush didn't allow it to work. He simply didn't "stay the course" that he told congress he would follow. Disarming Iraq and reducing terrorism did not have to include an invasion. Diplomacy and international pressure were already making inroads when the fighting began.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by creationistal, posted 10-04-2004 3:44 PM creationistal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by creationistal, posted 10-04-2004 5:35 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
creationistal
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 62 (147242)
10-04-2004 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
10-04-2004 5:23 PM


I have a different perspective, sorry.
The "bully" we took down killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. He funded suicide bombers to kill innocent Israelis. He pissed off enough nations to have the U.N. actually do something about it for once, and they passed 16 resolutions to get him to act. He did not. He got one last chance by Bush & Co. He, amazingly, didn't suddenly capitulate. So he's gone.
Have we done some things wrong? Sure, many. Have they somehow made what we did any worse? No.
Kerry's plan is just a shadow of Bush's already active plan. Train them some soldiers, get them elections, get out.
What's the problem here?
Also, my vote isn't cast based on the Iraq war alone, by any means.
-Justin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 10-04-2004 5:23 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 10-04-2004 5:38 PM creationistal has replied

  
creationistal
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 62 (147243)
10-04-2004 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Loudmouth
10-04-2004 5:28 PM


Re: Iraq and Al-Qaida
I can't make myself believe it was "rushing to war" when there are 16 previous resolutions trying to use "diplomacy" as a means to an end.
It was the STATED policy of the Clinton administration as well as the current Bush administration to have "regime change" in Iraq. This is not a new concept.
-Justin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Loudmouth, posted 10-04-2004 5:28 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Loudmouth, posted 10-04-2004 6:31 PM creationistal has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 62 (147244)
10-04-2004 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by creationistal
10-04-2004 5:29 PM


He pissed off enough nations to have the U.N. actually do something about it for once, and they passed 16 resolutions to get him to act. He did not.
He did, though. He let inspectors back into the country and provided documentation that he had disarmed. We played chicken, and he blinked. That was supposed to be it - that's how chicken works.
But we found the pretense to pull the plug on inspections and go in anyway.
Kerry's plan is just a shadow of Bush's already active plan.
What's Bush's plan, exactly? Do you even know?
There's not a general on the ground who doesn't realize that there's only three options here:
1) Change nothing and lose a war of attrition with disasterous consequences for the Iraqi people and our own foreign policy goals. What we're doing is not enough to quell the insurgency.
2) Commit new troops. Since we don't have any new troops, that means a draft, with disasterous political consequences for whoever proposes it.
3) Withdraw. Iraq will almost certainly be split into three ethnic nations.
That's it. Which one of those is Bush's plan? Since you're so proud of his "consistency", I guess you think it's the first plan?
What's the problem here?
What Bush is doing isn't working. That's because nobody in the Administration thought it would take this long. They thought we would be greeted as liberators, and that we would be out of there in six weeks.
Why do I say that? Because that's what Administration officials said in the run-up to war.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by creationistal, posted 10-04-2004 5:29 PM creationistal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by creationistal, posted 10-04-2004 5:50 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 17 by creationistal, posted 10-04-2004 5:54 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024