Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html

---

This is being reported in MANY, MANY news services across the world today.  But, to keep you Libs from crying too much, I just posted one link.

[Demrepdan]

For crying out loud, we've HEARD that Iraq has in some way or another been involved with Terrorist attacks of 9/11, since September 12, 2001. This information doesn't surprise me, and it's nothing new.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But now it looks like they're proving that the sky really is blue to people like you.  In that case, the WMD question is NO MORE and American's will be much more willing to stay the course in Iraq over the long haul.

[Inmate Trump]

For crying out loud, we've HEARD that Iraq has in some way or another been involved with Terrorist attacks of 9/11, since September 12, 2001. This information doesn't surprise me, and it's nothing new.

It's encouraging to actually see a Democrat acknowledge this.  I also saw you point out the fact in another thread that the economy is getting better.  Too bad not one of your party's presidential candidates supports or believes either of those things.  You're a credit to your party.  :-)

[jravnsbo]

I agree.  Dem Prez candidates are always avoiding the issue.  

I did see Lieberman go for the Jugular with Dean today saying, "If Dean was President Saddam would still be in power"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Wait a second, I think everyone is missing the point (or am i?).

They have uncovered strong proof of Ata's visit and training in Baghdad while under the protection of Saddam.

This is FRESH news, not conjecture.

[jravnsbo]

got any US Sources yet?

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html

---

This is being reported in MANY, MANY news services across the world today.  But, to keep you Libs from crying too much, I just posted one link.

Thank You, I appreciate it, lately I've been crying too much.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

I agree.  Dem Prez candidates are always avoiding the issue.  

I did see Lieberman go for the Jugular with Dean today saying, "If Dean was President Saddam would still be in power"

DEM Prez Candidates do not avoid the issues in every campaign, President Clinton was pretty forthright on the issues during both the 92' and 96' Campaigns. I agree that if Dean had been President, Saddam would still be in power. But, if Clark were appointed President in 2000, we would have captured Osama by November 2001 and Saddam by New Year's, 2002. He and his team would have had a better strategic game plan, to go in, and get out, and get our Trophies, the heads of Osama and Saddam.

[jravnsbo]

Yeah but if Clark had been President in 2000 he would have been a Republican also!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

got any US Sources yet?

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200312141128.asp

[Inmate Trump]

Yeah but if Clark had been President in 2000 he would have been a Republican also!

Haha, I laughed when I read that.  Clark has flipped around so many times I lost count.  No wonder his campaign is falling as fast as it is.

But I disagree that Clark could get Osama and Saddam so easily.  There is no way that ANYONE could have captured either of these men so easily and quickly like that.

[Beet]

If Saddam was behind 9-11, why didn't Bush go after him on 9-12?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

got any US Sources yet?

I also just heard Chris Matthews mention it on Hardball tonight.

[Demrepdan]

I also just heard Chris Matthews mention it on Hardball tonight.

Yes, it was mentioned on hardball. They were saying  that the documents found in Iraq that link Saddam to Al Qaeda, show that Mohammad Atta (the leader of the 9/11 attacks) was supposedly trained in Iraq. But for only three days, evidently.

[Beet]

When did we discover "the information"? THIS information is certainly new. I don't remember Bush every saying

"Yesterday, Ms. Rice informed me that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. Accordingly, we demand Mr. Hussein and other perpetrators turn themselves over or we will be forced to respond..."

[© tweed]

You were five times more likely to be killed by  the flu in 2001 than you were of a terrorist attack.    Roughly 15,200 to 3,000

[NorthernDog]

You were five times more likely to be killed by  the flu in 2001 than you were of a terrorist attack.    Roughly 15,200 to 3,000

Tell that to the families who's loved ones were jumping off the 90th floor of the WTC.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You were five times more likely to be killed by  the flu in 2001 than you were of a terrorist attack.    Roughly 15,200 to 3,000

And just what is that suppose to mean, exactly?!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

When did we discover "the information"? THIS information is certainly new. I don't remember Bush every saying

"Yesterday, Ms. Rice informed me that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. Accordingly, we demand Mr. Hussein and other perpetrators turn themselves over or we will be forced to respond..."

Second chances are for new governments (like the Taliban) with little history of attacking its neighbors.  But you don't give established countries a second chance after helping carry out an attack on the American homeland.  Likewise, if France would have helped with the 9/11 attacks, then we would be at war with France.

As far was when the "information" was discovered...it happened a couple of weeks ago.  It would have been the main headline today but it was overshadowed by Saddam's capture.

Saddam's capture was cool, but tying Saddam to 9/11 is a MUCH bigger story and puts an end to Dem whining about pre-emption and waiting to build a larger coalition.

Also, get ready to hear about how France, Germany, and Russia helped Saddam remain in power over the last decade.

 

[© tweed]

You were five times more likely to be killed by  the flu in 2001 than you were of a terrorist attack.    Roughly 15,200 to 3,000

Tell that to the families who's loved ones were jumping off the 90th floor of the WTC.

Tell that to the families whose loved ones died at bedside with the flu.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Miamiu1027: <<Tell that to the families whose loved ones died at bedside with the flu.>>

Again, what is your point?  

[M]

It should be fairly obvious. The Spanish Flu epidemic following the Great War killed more people than the war itself. We are now seeing that in mini in the war on terror.

So then, How do we avoid a repeat of 1918-19? Simple. Break off the War on Terror, retreat to fortress America, and begin the War on Flu!

[Inmate Trump]

Some of you Democrats are acting as if the information we've found regarding Mohamed Atta and Iraq means that Saddam was actually *behind* the 9/11 attacks himself.  I wouldn't be surprised if he was behind the attacks.  But I don't think he was, and this new memo linking Saddam to al Qeada (sp?) doesn't say Saddam was behind the attacks himself.

I believe he was a conspirator in the 9/11 attacks.  And he's always been a sponser of terrorism.  Add to that the high probability that he was attempting to obtain WMD (plus the fact that he at one time *had* WMD) and you've got yourself a pretty scary situation.  That's why we had to get rid of him.

There was no other alternative.  The only Democrat who gets that is Joe Lieberman, and unfortunately, he has no chance of getting the nomination (he's too conservative and the Democratic Party is now controlled by hardcore liberals).

[TomAtPitt]

If this is true, the Democrats better dump Dean and nominate a pro-war candidate ASAP.