Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rice stands by claims of Al-Qaeda-Saddam links. Says Qaeda developed WMD's

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 02:58 PM
Original message
Rice stands by claims of Al-Qaeda-Saddam links. Says Qaeda developed WMD's
Edited on Sun Sep-10-06 03:09 PM by bigtree
Rice stands by claims of Al-Qaeda-Saddam links

51 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted that Al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq were developing weapons of mass destruction prior to the ousting of Saddam Hussein.

"There were ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda," she said on Fox News Sunday.

Rice specifically linked Al-Qaeda's presumed leader in Iraq at the time, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to the effort to develop chemical arms.

"We know that Zarqawi was running a poison network in Iraq," she said, reaffirming statements made by President George W. Bush and herself prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq linking Baghdad with Osama bin Laden's group.

Rice stood by the claim Sunday despite a February 2002 report from the Defense Department's intelligence arm which was just released by a Senate Committee and stated that Iraq was "unlikely to have provided Bin Laden any useful (chemical or biological) knowledge or assistance."

more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060910/pl_afp/usattacksiraqqaedarice



Iraq used chemical weapons in 1983-1984, during the Iran-Iraq war. It has been reported that some 20,000 Iranians were killed by mustard gas, and the nerve agents tabun and sarin.

In 1988, Iraqi soldiers invaded Kurdistan and rounded up more than 100,000 Kurds and executed them. In March 1988, in the town of Halabja, more than 3,000 civilians died from chemical gas attacks by the Iraqi military.

Iraq has been rightly condemned by the U.S. and most of the international community for these and other deadly actions against its citizens and its neighbors. But Iraq did not operate against its enemies alone or without our knowledge, and in many instances, U.S. support.

Nightline, in Sept. 1991 reported that the Atlanta branch of an Italian bank, BNL, was able to funnel billions, some of it in U.S. credits, to Iraq's military. The U.S. apparently knew of the transfers and turned a blind eye.

"Sophisticated military technology was illegally transferred from a major U.S. company in Lancaster, Pennsylvania to South Africa and Chile and, from there, on to Iraq. The Iraqi-born designer of a chemical weapon plant in Libya set up shop in Florida, producing and then shipping to Iraq chemical weapon components. The CIA, the FBI and other federal agencies were made aware of the operation and did nothing to prevent it."

The report further states: "During the 1980s and into the '90s, senior officials of both the Reagan and Bush administrations encouraged the privatization of foreign policy, certainly toward Iran and Iraq. They made a mockery of the export control system; they found ways of encouraging foreign governments to do what our laws prohibited. They either knew or, if not, were guilty of the grossest incompetence, that U.S. companies were collaborating with foreign arms merchants in the illegal transfer of American technology that helped Saddam Hussein build his formidable arsenal."

It summarizes that, "Iraq, during much of the 1980's and into the '90s, was able acquire sophisticated U.S. technology, intelligence material, ingredients for chemical weapons, indeed, entire weapon-producing plants, with the knowledge, acquiescence and sometimes even the assistance of the U.S. government."

The New York Times reported in Aug. 2002 that during the Reagan administration, the U.S. military provided Saddam with critical intelligence that was used in Iraq's aggression against Iran, at a time when they were clearly using chemical and biological agents in their prosecution of that war.

The United States was an accomplice in the use of these materials at a time when President Reagan's top aides, including then- Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and Gen. Colin L. Powell, then national security adviser, were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially after Iraq attacked Kurds in Halabja.

The classified support reportedly involved more than 60 military advisors from the Defense Intelligence Agency who provided detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.

A retired intelligence officer recalled that, in the military's view, "The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern."

A 1994 Senate Banking Committee report (http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html), and a letter from the Centers for Disease Control in 1995 (http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2002/nf20020920_3025.htm?db), revealed that the U.S. had shipped biological agents to Iraq at a time when Washington knew that Iraq was using chemical weapons to kill thousands of Iranian troops.

The reports showed that Iraq was allowed to purchase batches of anthrax, botulism, E. coli, West Nile fever, gas gangrene, dengue fever. The CDC was shipping germ cultures directly to the Iraqi weapons facility in al-Muthanna.

The National Security Archive at George Washington University has a collection of declassified government documents that detail U.S. support of Saddam's regime. This is the collection that contains a photograph of Saddam Hussein shaking hands with Ronald Reagan's Middle East envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, who apparently said nothing to Saddam about his nuclear weapons program or his use of chemical weapons. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/index.htm)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. are you saying that because he said this, it is true?
discuss...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flashman2006 Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. you tell me
That's what I'm asking you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. You are asking me if I think you think this is true?
How about you just tell me what you think, what you are getting at, then we can discuss that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Well, how about you tell us your thoughts? Then we can discuss.
This is the polite form of discussion. You say what you think, why, ask what we think and why, we respond.

What do you think? Did the pres believe in what he said at the time? Did it turn out to be true?

And 1 more question, have we met here before?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Thank you
1. No he didn't believe it, he was lying.
2. No, it did not turn out to be true, not the WMDs, not the nukes, not the world being better off.
3. Not sure.

The problem with how you are going about this is that people come here with the primary purpose of disrupting. They ask loaded questions, they copy/paste rightwing/bush quotes, and refuse to share what they think. So, when this seems to be happening, it is common to question the poster posting such. And right now there seems to be an influx of disruptors, so the questions. Thank you for answering.

Welcome to DU, may your stay be productive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Good think Clinton made it impossible for Saddam to have WMDs/nukes
Edited on Sun Sep-10-06 03:51 PM by uppityperson
in 2002. Why did Mr.bush say the same thing? Did he believe it? Did it make the world safer?

You do realize that the same words can be spoken at different times and situations, and sometimes they are true, sometimes not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
BushOut06 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. Clinton didn't invade Iraq, did he?
Besides, you're not going to find anyone on these forums who agrees 100% with everything Clinton said or did. But even going back to his actions against Iraq, he obviously didn't think it was enough of a threat to send hundreds of thousands of American troops into Iraq, did he?

We were told by Bush that Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to the United States. That was a boldfaced LIE. If anything, Saddam was a stabilizing force in Iraq. Don't believe me? Look at all the sectarian violence going on now that he's gone.

It's been proven again and again that Bush deliberately stretched and misused intelligence to make his case against Iraq. Nice try pal, thanks for playing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. Clinton didn't invade and occupy Iraq.
that's the nub of the opposition to Bush's actions

Clinton advocated for regime change through peaceful means. Chalabi, the same person who fed the Bush administration their lies was responsible for the lies that led up to the letter Clinton signed advocating regime change.

Following testimony from Ahmed Chalabi, and defense policy executive and present ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, and sanctioned the new U.S. policy of regime change. Almost $100 million in taxpayer funds was provided to the group.

The leader of the dissident organization, Chalabi, is a wealthy, U.S.-educated banker whose family fled Iraq when the monarchy was overthrown in 1958. Chalabi's CIA contacts led to the formation of the Iraqi National Congress in 1992. Chalabi's influence in Washington came from conservatives in and out of the administration who have been advocating for the deposition of Hussein and who are closely associated with the right-wing American Enterprise Institute and the Project for a New American Century.

Chalabi has been tried in exile by a Jordanian court and sentenced to 22 years in prison on 31 charges of embezzlement, theft of more than $70 million, misuse of depositor funds and currency speculation. Chalabi's nephew, Salem Chalabi, has associated himself with the so-called Iraqi International Law Group, whose site boasts that their "clients number among the largest corporations and institutions on the planet."

And that: " . . . they have chosen IILG to provide them with real-time, on the ground intelligence they cannot get from inexperienced local firms or from overburdened coalition and local government officials." Salem was also placed in charge of Saddam's prosecution.

Here is a family (Chalabi) that has ingratiated themselves with monied influences, in and out of our government. Their administration benefactors spread our tax dollars around the world with abandon, yet treat the most urgent of our basic needs here at home with miserly neglect. Consistent with Ahmed's U.S. military escort back to his homeland, the Chalabis will assume whatever mandate for power, money, or influence that their Pentagon cabal will provide.

Some of Chalabi's influential friends in the White House included, twenty-year friend Richard Perle and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Director of Iraq reconstruction Douglas Feith, who was one of Chalabi's main shills in the Pentagon. Feith used Chalabi's web of misinformation about Iraqi WMD's to develop a rationale for war against Saddam; including the ‘intelligence' that Saddam was conspiring with bin Laden.

Feith is known for a 1996 paper he co-authored and presented to President Clinton advocating the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The letter was also signed by Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and others. In the letter they argued that, "In the present climate in Washington, some may misunderstand and misinterpret strong American action against Iraq as having ulterior political motives. We believe, on the contrary, that strong American action against Saddam is in the national interest, that it must be supported, and that it must succeed."

Co-author Feith was one of about five members of the Bush administration who formed a separate ‘special plans office' in October 2001, whose purpose was to collect information from the CIA and the intelligence community to develop their own strategy for the war on terrorism. The group highlighted "interrelationships among terrorist organizations and state sponsors." They claimed "strategic alliances between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, despite the argument that such an alliance would have to withstand deep ideological and religious differences.

There's way to much tying conservatives to the reckless course Bush took. None of the previous presidents thought it was a good idea to invade and occupy Iraq, includung Bush's father.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. If Bush believed what he said he had completely ignored his own
intelligence agents who were saying the opposite.

There were no WMD'S, no chemical weapons left; just some flimsy (and mostly refuted) claims about 'programs' and intentions discovered in documents they're still trying to translate. There were some old chemical weapons found this year that didn't amount to anything that would threaten us. The new releases from the intelligence report suggests that Saddam destroyed these when he was told to, along with the evidence of their destruction. There were also reports that he may have believed he had these capabilities and was duped by his own people.

Here's what the president said at the time: (my writings)

Bush claimed that: "Iraq is (was) expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons; Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons; is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons; Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons; It is seeking nuclear weapons; Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program; the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sabin nerve gas, VX nerve gas; Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas; Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States; Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past; Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes for gas centrifuges, used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," President Bush warned the nation.

"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East," President Bush counseled. "It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al-Qaida.

The danger is clear," he warned. Using chemical, biological, or one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other."

The deception in the president's warning was in his knowledge of the nature of the evidence provided, that of which appears to have been cobbled together from dissidents and informers who had little or no contact with the regime, or were motivated by offers of money or asylum, or to satisfy some personal vendetta against the Iraqi government; and used to bolster the administration's preconceived tilt toward war. (see Chalabi)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrotherBuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Mission accomplished, no?
Seems President Hussein capitulated and he was contained without invading. Big bang for the buck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. 1. Did the President believe in what he said at the time?
Edited on Sun Sep-10-06 03:58 PM by FLDem5
No, as evidenced by his failure to make securing munitions in Bagdad a top priority.

2. Did it turn out to be true?

No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. Everyone except Condiliar
Edited on Sun Sep-10-06 03:51 PM by malaise
has conceded that this was not true.
sp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazzgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. This is not history.
This is BS. What * said was an out and out lie. Thats all the discussion needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
21. and to accomplish goal #1 they chose to guard THIS building:
Edited on Sun Sep-10-06 03:54 PM by FLDem5

The Iraqi Oil Ministry -

instead of protecting munitions - which you would think was a top priority, considering your quotes:

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/729465911.html?dids=729465911:729465911&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+4%2C+2004&author=Mark+Mazzetti&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=A.1&desc=Soldiers+Describe+Looting+of+Explosives
<snip>
"The witnesses' accounts of the looting, the first provided by U.S. soldiers, support claims that the American military failed to safeguard the munitions. Last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency -- the U.N. nuclear watchdog -- and the interim Iraqi government reported that about 380 tons of high-grade explosives had been taken from the Al Qaqaa facility after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003. The explosives are powerful enough to detonate a nuclear weapon."

Not to mention that the Bush Administration, who were so concerend about WMDs wouldn't let the IAEA, who wanted to help secure this stuff - assist.

So, Bush lied. Big surprise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
countryjake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. How does what Clinton said in '98 have any bearing on Defense Department's
intelligence conclusions in 2002? The page you've linked to & the Clinton quotes you've posted have been used ad infinitum as right-wing attempts to place the blame for the WAR & INVASION we are currently waging in Iraq on some other administration. Congressional investigations & committees have proven that the information available to the prez, at the time of his push for serious action against Saddam Hussein, did NOT support any of the intelligence estimations he & his cronies were pretending to be receiving. He buffaloed his own Cabinet members, our entire Congress, dedicated intelligence-gatherers at the CIA, & the American people with his make-believe "intelligence".

Now if you'd like to discuss the possibility that Clinton may have been under the sway of these very same forces, who may have been skewing the intelligence he received, in order to achieve the agenda that hawks in our government have been drooling for so long, I believe that may require a whole other separate investigation, but I certainly wouldn't put it past those neo-cons & their fascist tendencies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarlVK Donating Member (632 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. Do these people just lie as a pure reflex action?
It boggles the mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monkeyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Pathological Liars t this is their MO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. Yes they do! They lie purely as a reflex.
I first noticed it with crackheads I had the misfortune of dealing with in the past. The Bush administration does the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. Condi?Cheney: Al-Qaeda-Saddam links-YES - Saddam & 9-11-NO...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
16. Rice: just more reason to vote this crew out in November!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC