Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Lottie

Rumsfeld

9 posts in this topic

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 George W 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.

I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way

Donald Rumsfeld

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."

'Misunderstood'

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says Mr Rumsfeld's blunt admission seems to give added weight to one of Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry's most telling punches, when he accused President Bush of fighting the wrong war for the wrong reasons.

However, he adds that the minds of many voters may already be made up.

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.

No proof

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.

Iraq mistakes

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, he said.

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.

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumsfeld admitiing there are no links

Babs, kellalor, Joc and teh rest.

Theres your proof that Iraq had no links with Bin Laden.

Your beloved Defence Secetary has actually admitted to it.

Now , to the members in particulour that said, "the first thing i thought of after 9/11 was Saddam Husseign", do you now realise you were wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rumsfeld admitiing there are no links

i missed the part where he admits there are no links...

while he had not said there was no evidence, he had suggested the evidence was not strong.

interesting, not only do you twist the article to say something it doesn't

the article fails to provide the question he was responding to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rofl no kidding! hahaha, they'll grab at anything won't they?

No strong evidence is what got OJ off or Scott Peterson or something, I'm distracted atm and can't think of the right case, bleh... But yeah... those OJ lovers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

PROOF .. he says???? blink.gif .... I see no proof.... disgust.gif

Edited by Nxt2Hvn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, this is the part Lottie, me and Wun are seening that you all seem to be missing blink.gif

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

He also said he had seen the intelligence "migrate in amazing ways", without explaining what that meant.

His statement was in marked contrast to what he said in September 2002 when he described the evidence of a link as "bullet-proof."

He did not however provide the evidence on that occasion.

Then then does on to say he's been misunderstood and thats not what he meant, but nonetheless, he said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

care to point out the part "Rumsfeld admitiing there are no links"?

Then then does on to say he's been misunderstood and thats not what he meant, but nonetheless, he said it.

what was the question he was responding to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rofl no kidding! hahaha, they'll grab at anything won't they?

No strong evidence is what got OJ off or Scott Peterson or something, I'm distracted atm and can't think of the right case, bleh...  But yeah... those OJ lovers.

291807[/snapback]

It's the OJ case, and that's a great example. OJ's rich lawyers presented enough of a sliver of a doubt to get OJ off. That certainly doea not mean that OJ did not kill Nicole Brown Simpson. Most people with common sense believe that he did.

Same in Iraq---just because the evidence is not there doesn't mean there was no support. In fact, why would Saddam Hussien harbor Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Gihad, Saddam Fedeyen, Al Aksa Matyrs Brigade, Answar al Islam, and scores of other islamic terrorists organizations, but not support Al Queda???? Logic should tell you that he probably supported or would have eventually supported them, even if we cannot prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the same as someone in another thread stating there was no link based on the 9/11 commission. The intelligence community, the 9/11 commission and Rumsfeld never stated there was no link. You only have to read the article to understand that. rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.