Does anyone have a link showing that Hussein was not supporting

[Ohio Dem]

al Queda and their ilk? It would be useful if it were a link to a news organization that a right-winger wouldn't automatically reject. Thank you.

[Webster Green]

1. ChimpCo Inc kept asking him to prove negatives.....

The burden of proof should fall to the accusers. How would you prove the lack of a connection to something?

[Trajan]

2. Im not sure where I seen it ...

But sometime during the Nigerian letter fiasco, the CIA under Tenet issued a report which clearly rejected any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda ... It was this report that sent the PNAC nutcases through the roof ...

This report should be dated sometime after the Intelligence Estimate and before Powell's Feb 6th comments before the UN ....

[havocmom]

3. Fact that there is nothing showing he was supporting al Queda

should be conclusive proof to any reasonable person. If there was anything, any tiny scrap of evidence, the junta would have it plastered across every TV and newspaper in the world. But there is NADA.

You don't need to prove a negative to a right winger. Nothing you can say will sink in anyway. Just keep asking them to prove to you that Saddam was supporting al Queda. BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHAAAAA :evilgrin:
It'll make their heads spin.

[Narraback]

4. From another thread...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm


Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link


Bush maintains Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are connected
US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.

Mr Bush did however repeat his belief that the former Iraqi president had ties to al-Qaeda - the group widely regarded as responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington.

[Zorra]

5. Here. Easy to find more evidence through quick research also.

Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam’s secular police state and Osama bin Laden’s Islamic terrorism network were in league. At most, there were occasional meetings.

Moreover, the U.S. intelligence community never concluded that those meetings produced an operational relationship, American officials said. That verdict was in a secret report by the CIA’s Directorate of Intelligence that was updated in January 2003, on the eve of the war.

“We could find no provable connection between Saddam and al Qaeda,” a senior U.S. official acknowledged. He and others spoke on condition of anonymity.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/2004/03/04/news/nation/8101079.htm

WASHINGTON, July 25 (UPI) -- A member of the independent commission set up to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has accused the Bush administration of deliberately delaying publication of an earlier congressional inquiry into the attacks.

Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., told United Press International that the White House did not want the report made public before launching military action in Iraq. He said the administration feared publication might undermine the administration's case for war, which was based in part on the allegation that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had supported Osama bin Laden -- and the attendant possibility that Iraq might supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction.

"The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war," said Cleland. "There's no connection, and that's been confirmed by some of bin Laden's terrorist followers ... What you've seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends."

Cleland accused the administration of deliberately delaying the report's release to avoid having its case for war undercut.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030723-064812-9491r

[Narraback]

6. Thanks... I will save those.

nt

[Ohio Dem]

8. Thanks.

How did you find those? I've been Googling for an hour.

And I'm not in an argument with a freeper. I'm comparing Iraq to North Korea in what may turn into a website. The point being that North Korea has WMD's, can strike the US, sells arms to anyone who wants them, is a member of the "Axis of Evil," and is being run by a brutal dictator. If the reasons Bush gave to invade Iraq are the real reasons, why doesn't he want to invade North Korea? (Oil)

[Zorra]

9. Google: bush iraq saddam bin laden no connection n/t

[Zorra]

7. Here is a good one from a RW publication:

This is a RW news source, and the article was written by someone that voted for Bu$h in 2000.

Yes, Bush lied
Posted: October 6, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks, Bush confessed last month, finally repeating for the public what his own intelligence services had told him a year earlier.

The president's spokespeople say they're shocked, shocked, to learn that seven in 10 Americans tell pollsters they blame Saddam Hussein for the 9-11 attacks. Gee, they pondered, wherever did they get such an idea?

Oh, maybe from all the president's speeches and remarks suggesting Saddam was to blame for 9-11, starting with this one....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34930

[DoNotRefill]

10. He was giving sanctuary to the head of Abu Nidal....

but the guy started plotting against Saddam, so they executed him. This is per a news conference given by Tariq Aziz when Saddam was still in power.

[No2W2004]

11. It is pretty obvious

when you do a bit of reading...

Al Queda is a very radical Muslim fundamentalist group
Saddam killed fundamentalist. He was very paranoid of ANYONE getting more "popular" than him. I've read where a shia cleric was starting to gather a large following. Saddam arrested him and is sister. The cleric was strapped to a chair and forced to watch as his sister was raped and tortured. He was then killed by having nails driven through is skull. There is no way in hell Al Queda would ever work with Saddam and Saddam would never work with Al Queda for fear of being overthrown by them. What I ask myself, is if I can figure that out by doing a little research through google, why can't the US govt. figure it out?

The only logical conclusion is they are lying for their own purposes.

[Ohio Dem]

12. Sure.

I know it's obvious after a little reading, and you know it's obvious after a little reading, but since when does that matter to the non-reading public? You know, the ones that still think Iraq has WMD's and was responsible for 9/11?

Your point is well taken, and correct, but try using common sense and a little reading to convince someone of something.