Jump to content

Mr Rumsfeld


The Crippler
 Share

Recommended Posts

OK, I've just read this on the BBC site:

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has cast doubt on whether there was ever a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

 

The alleged link was one of the justifications used by President Bush for the invasion of Iraq.

 

Mr Rumsfeld was asked by a New York audience about connections between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

 

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said.

 

Donald Rumsfeld's off-the-cuff comments are often very revealing, says the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington.

 

If he really meant what he said, it suggests that the Bush administration is in the process of retreating from previously held positions, our correspondent says.

 

When asked about the putative link during a session at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Monday, the defence secretary said: "I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way."

 

In the past, Mr Rumsfeld has spoken of credible information about a link, while Vice-President Dick Cheney regularly goes further and talks of Saddam Hussein having provided safe harbour and sanctuary for al-Qaeda.

 

Several hours after his appearance, Mr Rumsfeld issued a statement saying his comments had been "regrettably misunderstood" and that he had acknowledged there were ties between Osama Bin Laden and Iraq based upon CIA intelligence.

 

This included "solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad", he said.

 

On Monday, Mr Rumsfeld also said intelligence about weapons of mass destruction before the invasion had been faulty and that the US had been unable to find any such weapons.

 

"Why the intelligence proved wrong, I'm not in a position to say, but the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail," he said.

 

Mr Rumsfeld added that Saddam Hussein's regime was not the "Little Sisters of the Poor" - Iraq had been on the US State Department's terrorist list and made payments for Palestinian suicide bombings, he said.

 

"The relationships between these folks are complicated. They evolve and change over time. In many cases, these different networks have common funders."

 

He also said that although most of al-Qaeda's senior leaders had sworn an oath to Osama Bin Laden, the man suspected to be the principal leader of the network in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had not.

 

Mr Zarqawi's reported presence in Baghdad before the war has been cited in the past by the US administration as evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

 

The former US governor of Iraq, Paul Bremer, said on Monday the US had made two mistakes in the conflict in Iraq - although he was still in favour of intervening in Iraq.

 

One error was not having enough ground troops to take control of the country.

 

The US also made the mistake of not containing the violence and looting quickly enough after Saddam Hussein was ousted, he said.

 

"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he told a conference in West Virginia.

 

LOL, Backtrack! Backtrack!

 

This is getting absurd. First they say they have WMD and they would be found then it turns out that actually, no, there were no WMD found in Iraq. Then, oh, there is a clear link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam but now there is "no strong, hard evidence that links the two". Then they obviously scold Rumsfeld for his comments and so he says "oh sorry, actually there was evidence." Are Americans supposed to believe this government?

 

I'm not saying Saddam wasn't a bad man who carried out some of the most brutal and disgusting acts imaginable and that he needed removing but the US' reasoning behind invading Iraq are now clearly, clearly flawed.

 

While I'm here, what did everyone think of the first presidential debate between Kerry and Bush? I thought Bush did ok. He did better than I thought he would but I still feel Kerry won the debate.

 

Bush's constant talk of making up his mind and not wavering wasn't really valid I didn't think. When circumstances change then your reactions or responses to the circumstances should change. Not changing your reaction to them is both foolish and stubborn.

Edited by The Crippler
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think Bush was just looking for any excuse to get rid of Saddam. To be honest I don't totally disagree with this thinking. I agree with Powell saying the world is better of wit Saddam in Jail. What i've always said on this matter, Is that I agree with the decision to get rid of him, but I don't agree with the way we went about it. No mater what Blair or Bush did, People would have died. Wether they be Americans, British, Iraqi or anyone else. But all this backtracking doesn't really do much to convince the Americans that he knew what he was doing and was competely in control of the situation. And whats going on right now is ridiculous. Although you can't really lay the blame entirely at Bush for that. Maybe if other countries got of thier arse and helped out, more lives would be saved all round.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all making me laugh now. The fact that, majority of americans still belive that there is a link between iraq and 9/11 is laughable. I doubt this slip up by rumsfield will make any diffrence. It amazes me that you keep seeing their argument for war breaking up piece by piece, but in USA, it is largly ignored. I watched various news report which stated that the american media has not picked up on what rumsfield said.

 

Sit down and watch Fox News for an hour and it is disgusting that the amount of lies and bias the channel passes as ''fair & balanced'' news reporting. And this ''news channel'' is the No1 news channnel in america.

 

We must not forget that 10 of the highjackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. We must not forget that Osama Bin Ladin is from Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia was not critisised or attacked by the bush admisnistration. Instead it went and wasted lives in Iraq.

 

This whole war is to capture a major oil sorce and set up a strategic base in the middle east. USA needs to be in control of a oil sorce in the middle east rather than rely on saudi oil.

 

Welshboy, you may say that the world is better with Sadam in jail but you are left with a country on the brink of civil war, muslims seeing muslims killed by the collition troops, iraqi's being governed by an unelected goverment and terrorists are now using iraq as a grooming tool. The world is much more dangerous, this war has devided everyone in a time when this world needs to start working together. Sadam had to go, but it was done in the wrong way and it is screwed that a dangerous tyrant goes and the world gets more dangerous. Iraq is a mess.

 

Also, remeber that Afganistan is being touted by Bush as a sucess but the war is not ovwer in that country, people are still dying and large parts of the country are run by Afgan warlords. The elections there are going to be a sham, because people are not safe enough to vote and it looks like another Bush puppet will be in control of a fragile county.

 

 

(need to stop the bongs, my spelling is going out the window)

Edited by Stoned Cold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether its Al-Qaeda or not there are terrorists in Iraq. No debate about it at all. With Iraq and The Allies now working together we can beat them and make the world safer. As to Iraq having WOMD well they used chemical and biological weapons on the kurds so I dont see why many people say "they havent found any" because thats BS. Saddam used them. As for the oil argument well I dont agree with that. The main producer of oil in the word is Saudi Arabia, and with the oil it sells already to the US they dont need much more.

Yes. Iraq is a mess at the moment but what did you expect? get rid of Saddam and everyone be happy about it? No. The followers of Saddam are the ones who are doing these things (a minority BTW) and if that isnt enough proff they are terrorists what is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If at the time of going to war in Iraq, there were 34 other countries which were more of a danger to world ''peace'' such as North Korea, AND these 34 other countries had more capabilities of developing WMD's, why was Iraq attacked first?

 

Also, why carry on relying on Saudi oil if you can control your own supply?

 

Women,Children, Elderly inocent people are being killed and slaughted in iraq by both sides, due to the illegal war started by america for the benifit of america. Also, remeber the UN was over rulled by USA and the ''collition'' lied and went in alone. When a government lies to the people who put it in power, it is a corupt goverment. The war was illegal and made the world more of a dangerous place to live in.

 

Also, remember it was the USA and the British who supplied Sadam with the Chemical and biological weapons he used on the kurds. But the state he was left in after the first galf war, it was highly unlikley he had the level of WMD that Bush's administration claimed.

 

Opression and disillutionment = terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sick of the whole thing at this stage. This slip by Rumsfeld hasn't really changed my mind one way or the other. I thought their reasons for going into Iraq in the first place were bulls**t, and I still think it now. If they were going in to remove an evil dictator from power, then they should've said that. Why all the lies about weapons that were never found and links to Al Qaeda?

 

Oh I have no doubt that Saddam had weapons somewhere, but there's two things about that;

 

(a) many of those weapons were probably the very same ones that the US, with George Bush Sr. in tow, sold to Saddam in the 1980s to gas Iranians

(b) the UN and their weapons inspectors didn't think there was any threat at all. So how did the all-powerful CIA know different?

 

Everything about this situation stinks to high heaven. American politics causes a knot in my stomach, it makes me think that there's no good guys in the world, and that anyone who thinks so is living in a dream world. How many coups were American governments in on over the years? Pinochet in Chile? Pol Pot in Cambodia? There's so much double-dealing and lies, and it's always been like that. I doubt it'll ever change at this stage :(

 

I look at these things on a human level. I feel so sorry for the Iraqi people who have lost family, lost limbs, because of American bombs. I feel so sorry for Iraqi people who stood up and fought against Hussein back in 1991 only to be left with their balls hanging in the wind when the Americans pulled out and went home. Why not remove Hussein then? Trust a Bush to do a half-arsed job.

 

The world is reaping a terrible harvest now from mistakes made in the past. Doing deals with Saddam back in the 80s, helping Osama Bin Laden fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, killing innocent Iraqi children as they slept because of the odd wayward bomb or twenty. For "Collateral Damage" read "shit happens". And now you've got innocent people getting their heads sheared off, innocent people getting blown up, and why? Well, if you come into my home and kill my children, then I'm damn sure gonna go looking for payback. If you "terrorise" me, I'll terrorise you back.

 

I think the Americans are a great people and I love their country, but their blind patriotism will stop them (as a people) from ever seeing beyond the lies and the bulls**t and the rhetoric. Dick Cheney basically came right out and said a while back that Al Qaeda would love John Kerry as president because he'll be weak on terrorism. That kinda crap should be treated with the derision it deseves, but unfortunately it's crap like that which scares the crap out of people and that's exactly what will get them elected.

 

It's a damn sorry situation :(

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if they were so concerned and sure that sadam yhad wMD's, why did they not let the UN inspectors find them. USA kept on denying them more time but now that they have sent in their own inspectors, USA keeps telling the world to give them more time. I agree with eveything you said E2K, it is all bullshit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether its Al-Qaeda or not there are terrorists in Iraq. No debate about it at all. With Iraq and The Allies now working together we can beat them and make the world safer. As to Iraq having WOMD well they used chemical and biological weapons on the kurds so I dont see why many people say "they havent found any" because thats BS.?

 

The world is a safer place! Lets see, Saddam is suppose to have killed 5,000 plus of his own people, well we've killed 18,000 plus since we got there, the middle east hates us more than ever and the people of Iraq live in fear, yeah "safer"!

 

These weapons of mass destruction? The ones that could kill us all in 45 minutes, where are they? When where they used? Because there has never been any mention of them before Bush went after the oil, sorry the evil dictator! Fact is the only weapons Saddam had where the ones the US GAVE him to kill the Iranians!

 

Oh as for the oil, yes Saudi Arabia produces alot of oil, this must be good for M Bush seeing as he has investments in it, but isn't it better for Mr Bush when he has investments in both Saudi and Iraq, oh wait im sure thats nothing!

 

The world is a worse place because of Bush and Blair, and your more likely to suffer because of it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what would you have done Walshy. Let him get on with it? There is no right answer on what should have been done. There were, however, quite a few wrong ones. Like I said, there is nothing Blair or Bush could have done that would not have resulted in people dying. This doesn't mean im excusin them over the way they went about i, but it's just something people have to remember. It is true that Iraq is in chaos at the moment, but I have to believe that the fact that there is no tyrant controlling it will lead to peace eventually being restored their. The main problem is that the world is full of a**holes. No matter how many terrorists and militants you stop, there will always be more to take their place. Especially if you fight Violence with more violence. Because then they will feel justified even more in their actions This is true all over the world, not just Iraq. Im also sick and tired of people using the oil argument against Bush. I firmly believe it had nothing to do with it. Simply because even Bush will realise the moment he uses even a drop of it for puposes other than helping Iraq, he'll regret it. The media will be one him like a pack of dogs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys this is a no brainer.

 

For over two thousand years politicians have lied to the electorate and told them what they want to hear, they have just gotten better at it.

 

At the heart of a career politician there is no such thing as beliefs personal or otherwise.

They hire spin doctors to tell them what sound bite to use for maximum effect, this is because they do not truly beleive in their own hearts what they are saying.

In fact all they truly beleive is that the electorate can be manipulated. And thus far, they are being proved right.

 

Whether you think attacking Iraq was the right or the wrong thing to do is truly irrelevant, they will do whatever they like and kill whomever they like with yours and my permission, oh and in your name, because of a presumption.

 

A famous world leader once said, that in order to get everybody on your side, tell them they are under attack and they will fall into line behind you.

 

This is being played out in front of us, with our permission and we will be the ones who bear the brunt of any attack, not these so called leaders who will be safe and cosy in some bunker somewhere, with their loved ones around them.

 

WelshScouser I spend every day dreaming of a better world and every day I wake up to find a way to to make it so, this is not out of our hands, this is playing into theirs, through apathy and being in the comfort zone, oh it's on the telly so it doesn't affect me, well that is the road to oblivion.

 

There is no denying Saddam is an evil bastard but at least he is an honest one, there are many amongst us who are just as evil, but they are devious enough to hide it from the masses and those who elect them King.

So now we have farmers beating ploughshares into swords, I fear for the next generation.

 

And the famous world leader who spoke those words was none other than Adolf Hitler.

And we all know his track record.

 

Spiritchaser

Historical Oracle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm. I seem to hear the head of a nail being hit. You seem to have summed up the entire state of the world in a few easy paragraphs. When we do get retaliated on (Which unfortunatly is bound to happen)The person who riled up the opposition will be cosy miles away with more protection than the rest of us put together. The sad fact is that human nature mean that there will always be someone on this planet who has no regard for human life and will actively see to destroy it. There may well be a way to end all fighting and killing and all of the other problems in the world. But nobody, and certainly not those in power, have any idea what it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what would you have done Walshy. Let him get on with it?

 

Yeap, we have no place in deciding what is right or wrong for other countries, when the people of Iraq were ready, they would have risen up and overthrown which ever dictator was in charge, now Bush & Blair have interfered with the natural progression everyone is now in danger, and its us and them that suffer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as far as i can see (and most of the world) there was/is no link tying Saddam Hussein with Osama Bin Laden. Persoanlly i dont think one will be found either, they may be similar in that they are terrorists or have been harboring such people, but thats about it. Now as for WMD in Iraq, i have just found this on BBC.co.uk:

 

The group hunting for banned weapons inside post-war Iraq is preparing to report that it has found no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. But the Iraq Survey Group will assert that Saddam Hussein had plans to start producing weapons in defiance of UN sanctions, US officials say. Chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer will reveal the findings on Wednesday.

 

Much of the content of the report has been anticipated since a draft of the report was leaked last month.

 

Mr Duelfer is due to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he is expected to confirm that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when the US-led invasion began in March 2003.

 

That verdict has been widely anticipated since the former head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, resigned from his position in January.

 

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the report would show that Saddam Hussein posed a more serious threat than had previously been imagined.

Speaking in Baghdad, Mr Straw said "the threat from Saddam Hussein in terms of his intentions" was "even starker than we have seen before".

Saddam Hussein would have built up his WMDs had he been left in power, Mr Straw added.

His comments were backed by Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Barhem Saleh, who said anyone who doubted that Saddam Hussein had WMDs only needed to visit Halabja - where the former Iraq dictator gassed thousands of Kurds.

"We know Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He used them," Dr Saleh said, adding that in his view Saddam Hussein was himself a weapon of mass destruction.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan acknowledged that no stockpiles of weapons had been found in Iraq, but added: "The fact that he had the intent and capability, and that he was trying to undermine the sanctions that were in place, is very disturbing."

 

US government officials told the New York Times that the report would include new evidence that Saddam Hussein had plans to break UN-imposed sanctions and renew the production of banned weapons.

The officials, speaking anonymously, said the report would detail efforts by Iraq to bypass sanctions while they were still in place, and to undermine international support for them.

Those efforts were reported to include the use of clandestine laboratories to manufacture small quantities of chemical and biological weapons for use in assassinations.

BBC Pentagon correspondent Nick Childs says the report, which runs to more than 1,000 pages, is being billed as the most definitive account yet of Iraq's weapons programmes.

Our correspondent says that with the political stakes in the US so high and Iraq so central to the debate, Republican and Democratic camps in the presidential race will seize on the different elements of the report to argue that it bolsters their case for or against the Iraq war.

However, the document will stop short of offering a final judgement about the situation before the war.

Instead, the Iraq Survey Group is expected to continue translating and evaluating an estimated 10,000 boxes of documents seized in Iraq.

 

Now according to that, there were no WMD in Iraq before we all went in guns a-blazing. It claims that Saddam had plans to start producing illegal weapons, do plans really warrant a full scale assualt on the country? Obviously something would have had to be done, but going in on very wrong information was a big mistake and in doing so lost a few allies which we would need in rebuilding the country. Dont get me wrong, i supported our troops in the war, but through love of my country and fellow countrymen and women, not because i believed the reasons were just and true. We should have done our best to get valid information rather than going in on a "sexed up" dossier full of rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeap, we have no place in deciding what is right or wrong for other countries, when the people of Iraq were ready, they would have risen up and overthrown which ever dictator was in charge, now Bush & Blair have interfered with the natural progression everyone is now in danger, and its us and them that suffer.

 

Sorry, but there isn't a single word in there I agree with. Natural progression? You think it was natural progression for Saddam to be there in the first place? Unfortunatly you, along with the majority of the western world, seem to have adopted the 'if it aint happening here im not interested' stance. Why should they have been denied help just because it's happening the other side of the world? And I don't believe Irag would have eventualy rebelled. They were living under fear 24/7 and anyone who put a foot out of line was killed. If you were in their shoes would you have attempted to start a rebellion? Im sick and tired of the 'Us' and 'Them' attitude when it comes to different countries. It's exactly this kind of thinking that causes most of the worlds dissagrements in the first place. What if we got attacked tomorrow, would you want America and everyone else to stand back and let it happen because it wasn't their problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry' date=' but there isn't a single word in there I agree with. Natural progression? You think it was natural progression for Saddam to be there in the first place? Unfortunatly you, along with the majority of the western world, seem to have adopted the 'if it aint happening here im not interested' stance. Why should they have been denied help just because it's happening the other side of the world?[/quote']

 

 

I agree with you in theory, in a perfect world we would help everyone living under a ruthless dictatorship but that's just not possible. There are dozens of just as ruthless regimes as there was in Iraq around the world. America couldn't possibly get them all out. How many troops would you need to do that? You'd be effectively trying to take over the whole world. They are having enough trouble in Iraq, imagine how much trouble they'd have in China or North Korea. Once again, in theory it's a nice thought but it just can't be done. Mankind is a joke, and as long as its still around you will have people living in fear. That's life I'm afraid.

 

I still think America could do worse than drop a nuclear bomb on the entire middle east and be done with it, but then where would we get our oil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys I'm running for Prime Minister appreciate your vote, now these are my proposals.

1) Abolish Income Tax and create a truly consumer society, we would soon find out who wanted to buy weapons instead of food and clothing or a roof over their heads.

2) It will become Law that the health and well being of one another would be paramount, as that is the life blood of this country, i.e. the working man.

3) Criminals would become subject to sentences passed down by their victims and would be overseen by an impartial ombudsman.

4) Tyrants and Dictators would be summarily ridiculed and pariahed, thus removing their power base as that is what a bully thrives on, the fear of others.

5) People from all walks of life would learn each others jobs on a list of similar jobs, and jobs would be given on a rota basis, to prevent boredom and to create an understanding of other peoples lives. This includes Politicians. Every five years there would be a six month paid holiday working on a rota basis.

6) Freedom would come with a responsibilty, the well being of each other.

7) House prices would be capped to prevent those trying to buy homes being priced out of the market.

8) Money would be put into the NHS to find preventions and cures, rather than the alleviation of pain.

9) Equality would become more than Law it would become second nature.

10) I would only work for £20,000 a year opposed to the £50,000+ the PM gets now.

 

Spiritchaser.

Leading with the Heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world is a safer place! Lets see' date=' Saddam is suppose to have killed 5,000 plus of his own people, well we've killed 18,000 plus since we got there, the middle east hates us more than ever and the people of Iraq live in fear, yeah "safer"![/quote']

Facts show he killed over a million of HIS OWN PEOPLE. Now with evil people like that yes, we are safer. So are Iraqis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...