9/11 Panel Finds No Collaboration Between Iraq, Al Qaeda

[numediaman]

9/11 Panel Finds No Collaboration Between Iraq, Al Qaeda
Findings Contradict Comments by Cheney, Bush

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 16, 2004; 9:00 AM

There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, including the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackings, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the hijacking plot.

Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990s, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein's secular government, and Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons, the panel's report says.

The findings come in the wake of statements Monday by Vice President Cheney that Iraq had "long-established ties" with al Qaeda, and comments by President Bush yesterday backing up that assertion.

The Sept. 11 panel, which opened its last two-day round of hearings this morning, said in a report on al Qaeda's history that the government of Sudan, which gave sanctuary to al Qaeda from 1991 to 1996, persuaded bin Laden to cease supporting anti-Hussein forces and "arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda." But the contacts did not result in any cooperation, the panel said.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report says. "Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45853-2004Jun16?language=printer

Can we now stop with the silly garbage about Saddam and ObL now? Cheney and those who parrot him (are you listening Sly?) should be ashamed that they purposely continued to spread this lie in order to justify an illegal war.

[skunk]

Can we now stop with the silly garbage about Saddam and ObL now? Cheney and those who parrot him (are you listening Sly?) should be ashamed that they purposely continued to spread this lie in order to justify an illegal war.
One would have thought this would be enough to stop the silly garbage, but it won't be. Never let the truth spoil the clarity of your message. :rolleyes:

[carbonmotion]

9/11 Panel Finds No Collaboration Between Iraq, Al Qaeda
Findings Contradict Comments by Cheney, Bush

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 16, 2004; 9:00 AM

There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, including the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackings, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the hijacking plot.

Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990s, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein's secular government, and Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons, the panel's report says.

The findings come in the wake of statements Monday by Vice President Cheney that Iraq had "long-established ties" with al Qaeda, and comments by President Bush yesterday backing up that assertion.

The Sept. 11 panel, which opened its last two-day round of hearings this morning, said in a report on al Qaeda's history that the government of Sudan, which gave sanctuary to al Qaeda from 1991 to 1996, persuaded bin Laden to cease supporting anti-Hussein forces and "arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda." But the contacts did not result in any cooperation, the panel said.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report says. "Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45853-2004Jun16?language=printer

Can we now stop with the silly garbage about Saddam and ObL now? Cheney and those who parrot him (are you listening Sly?) should be ashamed that they purposely continued to spread this lie in order to justify an illegal war.

Today's Headline-Dept of Home Land Security Renamed to the Gestapo
Tomorrow's Headline-Bush's Gestapo Arrests 9/11 Panel for Lying.

[Sayhey]

Today's Headline-Dept of Home Land Security Renamed to the Gestapo
Tomorrow's Headline-Bush's Gestapo Arrests 9/11 Panel for Lying.

Now, Now, no Nazi comparisons. That is only allowed if you are talking about Michael Moore. You might be let slide if you are referring to some other left-wing activist or John Kerry, otherwise it is verboten! Didn't you get the memo? ;)

[numediaman]

It would be hard to make this stuff up.

Bush backs Cheney on assertion linking Hussein, Al Qaeda

By Michael Kranish and Bryan Bender, Globe Staff *|* June 16, 2004

WASHINGTON -- President Bush yesterday defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion this week that Saddam Hussein had longstanding ties with Al Qaeda, even as critics charged that the White House had no new proof of a connection.

At a news conference with Afghan president Hamid Karzai, Bush stood by his vice president, saying Hussein ''had ties to terrorist organizations," though he did not specifically mention Al Qaeda . . .

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/06/16/bush_backs_cheney_on_assertion_linking_hussein_al_qaeda?mode=PF

[mactastic]

Did I say 'terrorist organizations'? I meant he had ties to 'terrorist organization program related activities'. :p

[wwworry]

Hell, the US had more ties to Al Qeada and the Taliban than Iraq did.

Signed,
waiting to be liberated

[LeeTom]

Please, for the love of all that is sacred, everyone vote Bush out!

Lee Tom

[Chip NoVaMac]

Never mind just voting Bush out, how about all those Republicans that vote only for their own views ignoring the voters that put them in?

I have had only one Republican representative say that they supported XYZ issue because it was the way the voters wanted. Every single other one said THEY did not support the opposing view.

Time to vote these neo-nazis out!

[zimv20]

bush officially disputes the finding...

link (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sept-11-Bush.html?hp)


Bush Disputes Panel's Conclusion on Al Qaeda-Iraq Ties
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 11:59 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Thursday disputed the Sept. 11 commission's finding that there was no ``collaborative relationship'' between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida terrorist network responsible for the attacks.

``There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida,'' Bush insisted following a meeting with his Cabinet at the White House.

``This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida,'' he said.

``We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida in the Sudan.''

The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday that no evidence exists that al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam Hussein -- a central justification the Bush administration had for toppling the former Iraqi regime. Bush also argued that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which have not been found, and that he ruled his country by with an iron fist and tortured political opponents.

(more)

[IJ Reilly]

What, precisely, are Bush and Cheney disputing? The administration came up to, but as far as I can tell, never crossed over the line to claim Iraqi involvement with 9-11, and apparently the commission agrees with the basic conclusion. They also seem to agree that Saddam and al-Qaida had some sort of "relationship." How the administration characterizes this relationship differently from the 9-11 Commission is completely unclear to me. Aren't they being foolish to even open their mouths on this issue?

[skunk]

What, precisely, are Bush and Cheney disputing? The administration came up to, but as far as I can tell, never crossed over the line to claim Iraqi involvement with 9-11, and apparently the commission agrees with the basic conclusion. They also seem to agree that Saddam and al-Qaida had some sort of "relationship." How the administration characterizes this relationship differently from the 9-11 Commission is completely unclear to me. Aren't they being foolish to even open their mouths on this issue?
I think it's because they keep saying that the occupation of Iraq is part of the War on Terror, knowing full well that their actions have triggered the explosion of resistance.

[Chip NoVaMac]

What, precisely, are Bush and Cheney disputing? The administration came up to, but as far as I can tell, never crossed over the line to claim Iraqi involvement with 9-11, and apparently the commission agrees with the basic conclusion. They also seem to agree that Saddam and al-Qaida had some sort of "relationship." How the administration characterizes this relationship differently from the 9-11 Commission is completely unclear to me. Aren't they being foolish to even open their mouths on this issue?

From the original post:

Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990s, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein's secular government, and Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons, the panel's report says.

The findings come in the wake of statements Monday by Vice President Cheney that Iraq had "long-established ties" with al Qaeda, and comments by President Bush yesterday backing up that assertion.


The administration has been using ties to al Qaeda to justify the military action in Iraq.

Most that truly try to follow the lip service of the administration, have not heard a tie in to 9-11 and Iraq. What we did here was that al Qaeda and Iraq were working together, and that was a threat. We are now seeing proof otherwise. And 800+ American men and women have lost their lives for these lies. Not to mention the lives of innocent Iraqis, and the maiming on both sides. Over $87 billion of our tax dollars are being wasted on these lies.

[zimv20]

over $118 billion now...

http://www.costofwar.com/

[Chip NoVaMac]

over $118 billion now...

http://www.costofwar.com/

WOW, over $450 each for every man, woman, and child....

[IJ Reilly]

I think it's because they keep saying that the occupation of Iraq is part of the War on Terror, knowing full well that their actions have triggered the explosion of resistance.

Yes, but they could easily have said, "The commission verified what we've been saying all along about the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaida," and been done with it. The message they're sending now is a complete muddle.

[Thanatoast]

[IJ Reilly]

Most that truly try to follow the lip service of the administration, have not heard a tie in to 9-11 and Iraq. What we did here was that al Qaeda and Iraq were working together, and that was a threat. We are now seeing proof otherwise.

Right on the first charge, but not on the second. Several administration officials implied a working relationship, but as nearly as I can tell (and I have several of the key quotes), they allowed themselves ample wiggle-room. Now that they could really use the wiggle-room, instead they seem to be boxing themselves in politically by publicly disputing the 9-11 Commission's findings in a way which isn't even very clear. It just makes no sense to me, and worse yet for the administration, it only reminds people who care about these things that Bush steadfastly opposed the formation of the commission.

I have only one guess where they're headed with this. They might be laying the groundwork for discrediting the commission when their full findings are released.

[zimv20]

from this NYT op/ed piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/opinion/17THU1.html?ex=1088473509&ei=1&en=cb113d1e028b1462)


Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.

[numediaman]

over $118 billion now...

http://www.costofwar.com/

And Bush has requested that the education budget for 2005 be what? (Answer: $57.3 billion)

[Chip NoVaMac]

Right on the first charge, but not on the second. Several administration officials implied a working relationship, but as nearly as I can tell (and I have several of the key quotes), they allowed themselves ample wiggle-room. Now that they could really use the wiggle-room, instead they seem to be boxing themselves in politically by publicly disputing the 9-11 Commission's findings in a way which isn't even very clear. It just makes no sense to me, and worse yet for the administration, it only reminds people who care about these things that Bush steadfastly opposed the formation of the commission.

I have only one guess where they're headed with this. They might be laying the groundwork for discrediting the commission when their full findings are released.

Bush and Cheney best not try to discredit the Commission themselves. Since they refused to testify under oath. Might save them at least one impeachment trial.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Delete

[IJ Reilly]

Bush and Cheney best not try to discredit the Commission themselves. Since they refused to testify under oath. Might save them at least one impeachment trial.

There's already some danger that the commission won't issue a unanimous report. By openly disputing their conclusions now, the administration might be attempting to wedge the commission into partisan camps, so when the report(s) are issued, they can point to the unfavorable parts and dismiss them as entirely political.

[Sayhey]

There's already some danger that the commission won't issue a unanimous report. By openly disputing their conclusions now, the administration might be attempting to wedge the commission into partisan camps, so when the report(s) are issued, they can point to the unfavorable parts and dismiss them as entirely political.

It's interesting that no Republicans on the commission have come out to dispute the staff report. Kean has as much as endorsed it. If Bush is counting on splitting the commission on this issue, I think he may be having false hopes. Divisions will be more likely if the staff is critical of the Bush administration around its lack of activity on terrorism before 9/11.

Off topic. Are you hearing footsteps yet, IJ? This season maybe interesting after all. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Off topic. Are you hearing footsteps yet, IJ? This season maybe interesting after all. ;)

Tiny steps, seem so real...

You were such a gentleman not to mention the recent Dodger free-fall. It's become a three-team division, no question.

[numediaman]

EDIT: I'm deleting my ode to the Giants in order to post the following:

As some of you know, Bush has decided to defend his silly claim that Iraq is involved in terrorism by stating that he didn't really say Saddam was involved in 9/11, only involved in terrorism. Well, try as he might, his own words contradict this:

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 21, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker:

On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.

These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully.

As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

The memo is care of Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/17/185436/985) who credits someone else.

In any case, when will there be an end to the lies? Is this administration incapable of saying two words without lying? (What's worse is they don't seem to care that they are always caught.)

[Voltron]

I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).


Nothing there states that Iraq is included in those nations who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks.

It said "take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations," Which does not exclude those who did not authorize, plan, commite, or aid the terrorist attacks that occured on September 11th. It does not exclude our attacking other countries for other reasons.

[Voltron]

June 17 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said ``numerous contacts'' between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network justified the U.S.-led war on Saddam Hussein's regime.

``There was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al- Qaeda,'' Bush told reporters after meeting with his Cabinet at the White House. ``This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda.''

Saddam Hussein was a threat,'' Bush said when asked about the report. ``He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy of the United States of America, just like al- Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist connections.''

``The world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam Hussein in power,'' the president said.


http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&refer=top_world_news&sid=azMEdM2f.xzQ

[wwworry]

so how did half the country get the wrong idea that Iraq was involved with 9/11? It looks like our president is pulling a is-is.

[mactastic]

so how did half the country get the wrong idea that Iraq was involved with 9/11?
That's cause of how liberal our media is. They spread the liberal viewpoint that Saddam and al Qaeda were in cahoots.... Oh wait, that wasn't the liberal viewpoint at all, was it? In fact that was the opposite of the liberal viewpoint. Yet somehow the public, who gets almost all their news from 'the liberal media', got the impression that Saddam and bin Laden were buddies. Something doesn't add up here... Is it possible the media ISN'T as liberal as some would like us to think? :p

Although FAUX viewers did tend to be the least likely to know the truth about WMD and the Saddam - al Qaeda ties....

[Chip NoVaMac]

Nothing there states that Iraq is included in those nations who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks.

It said "take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations," Which does not exclude those who did not authorize, plan, commite, or aid the terrorist attacks that occured on September 11th. It does not exclude our attacking other countries for other reasons.

Man, I am not sure what you are reading, but you can not separate that sentence from the context of the total sentence. Either that, or Bush has the dumbest bunch of speech writers. And I doubt that. Those words were crafted quite purposefully to evoke a response from Congress and the people that Iraq had some sort of involvement in 9/11.

[Chip NoVaMac]

so how did half the country get the wrong idea that Iraq was involved with 9/11? It looks like our president is pulling a is-is.

I was thinking the same thing. Though Bush wasn't a dumdum here though. Why else did he and Cheney refuse to testify under oath? Now we know because he and his administration has been lying all the time about the war on terror, and Iraq.

[Voltron]

Man, I am not sure what you are reading, but you can not separate that sentence from the context of the total sentence. Either that, or Bush has the dumbest bunch of speech writers. And I doubt that. Those words were crafted quite purposefully to evoke a response from Congress and the people that Iraq had some sort of involvement in 9/11.
Can't be dumber than the ones that had Kerry say "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it." :D

I remember the media and democrats kept saying "but he's not an immediate threat." as if Powell said that. But I listening to Powell speak in the UN know he never ever said he was an Immediate threat. He did say it would be stupid and short sighted to wait for him to become an immediate threat and that he could become an immediate threat to us. I also personally believed he was an immediate threat to his neighbors except for the fact that we were blowing too much money keeping track of somebody who should've died in the Gulf war.

People put words in their mouths and they did not counter those folks every single time they did it. Say a lie enough times and everyone starts to believe it.

[Voltron]

I was thinking the same thing. Though Bush wasn't a dumdum here though. Why else did he and Cheney refuse to testify under oath? Now we know because he and his administration has been lying all the time about the war on terror, and Iraq.
Guess you have a hard problem understand the seperation of powers stuff.

[3rdpath]

so how did half the country get the wrong idea that Iraq was involved with 9/11? It looks like our president is pulling a is-is.

sadly, there was a daily poll on AOL yesterday that stated 53% of AOL'ers believed there was a connection between iraq and 9/11.

it's as if a large part of the nation believes the first thing they hear and won't change their view regardless of the presentation of conflicting new information. i guess that's why it's so important to be the first to get the story out.

it's not politics...it's advertising.

" all the war with half the carbs "

[mactastic]

I remember the media and democrats kept saying "but he's not an immediate threat." as if Powell said that. But I listening to Powell speak in the UN know he never ever said he was an Immediate threat.

Do you remember when Rumsfeld (http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/03/ana04004.html) said it? ;)

`No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'
Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.

[IJ Reilly]

Man, I am not sure what you are reading, but you can not separate that sentence from the context of the total sentence. Either that, or Bush has the dumbest bunch of speech writers. And I doubt that. Those words were crafted quite purposefully to evoke a response from Congress and the people that Iraq had some sort of involvement in 9/11.

Some sort of involvement, but what kind? I got the impression that the administration was playing this as cagily as possible, offering up the implication of a connection between Saddam and 9-11 for the benefit of those who were prepared to believe it, but never actually specifying a connection. It's the raw meat approach -- you wave around a steak long enough and all of the meat-eater's juices will start flowing even if you never serve it up on a platter.

[3rdpath]

Do you remember when Rumsfeld (http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/03/ana04004.html) said it? ;)

thanks for the link...how i enjoyed rummy getting caught in an outright lie.

i laughed my butt off when that show originally aired...suddenly rummy loses his command of the english language. no wonder he and bush get along so well...they can verbally disfunctionate together.
;)

[skunk]

disfunctionate ;)
Nice word. I think I'll use that... :p

(Maybe with a 'y', though...)