Quoting..."
You say because some Al Queda were in Northern Iraq fleeing from Afganistan, Iraq must have been supporting them.
By the same logic, since we had a CIA team in Northern Iraq at the same time, Iraq was also supporting the CIA.
"
End Quote
So hey, as long as Saddam is nto "supporting" al queda is his own country, they are more than welcome to hang out, just like Abu Nidal as well as the jokers training at Salmon Pak.
In any case, are you willing to let Al Queda coast safely into Iraq after Afghanistan and not be willing to overthrow Saddam and basically turn Al Queda into nothingness as our military just did?
I noticed I got no answer there. Same old bullcrap, just like ABC in 1998.
Clinton in office = Saddam, Al Queda, and Bin Laden working together in harmony
Bush in office = OMG not only no connection, no possibility for a connection EVER!.
Quoting..."
So your point is that the CIA's intelligence was Al Queda may have been in Iraq and they left in 2002?
The US invaded in 2003...
"
End Quote
I guess reading 101 was not a course in some colleges. Not even getting into Al Queda, Saddam put quite a track record supporting terrorist as it is. $25,000 bonus checks to families of Pakistan suicide bombers, Abu Nidal living in Bagdad, Salmon Pak. Again I won't get into Czech intelligence STILL TODAY standing by their intelligence that Muhammed Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague before 9.11, the only evidence we have to refute that is his cell phone was used in teh states. Of course you have to assume in his small group that he would never just leave his cell phone with his buddies.
Al Queda flowing into Northern Iraq in 2002, Abu Musab Al-Zarqaqi enters Iraq in 2002... where the hell did you think Al Queda was going to go after Afghanistan in 2002? I would really like an answer on that one even though the answer and the evidence is quite clear, they were going (hell they were already there) into Iraq to link up with Ansar al Islam (very active in Northern Iraq). I know... this is more complicated than "Bush lied, people died", but its very important, and very clear if your mind is open enough to understand why the United States went into Iraq.
As I mentioned before (and Ive never ever gotten an answer to this... ever). In 1999, ABC was sure to do investigative reporting, to the point that they flat out said Saddam and Bin Laden were working together.
Now I don't know about you, but the only thing that changed from 1999 to 2003 was the president, so why the difference in "common knowledge"?
Fact remains in 1999 it was common knowledge that Saddam harbored terrorists and that was accepted by the peons while Clinton was bombing them to cover for his affairs. All of a sudden though, it became "Bush lied, people died".
Don't fall for the politics.