Despite Findings, Bush Sees Iraq Tie to Al Qaeda

[IJ Reilly]

The administration could so easily spin this to their advantage, but instead go stubbornly in the opposite direction. Why? The ongoing story, and the ongoing mystery....

WASHINGTON — President Bush insisted Thursday that Saddam Hussein had "terrorist connections" to Al Qaeda — despite a finding by the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks that there was no credible evidence of cooperation between the ousted Iraqi dictator and the global terrorist network.

In a television interview later in the day, Vice President Dick Cheney challenged the commission's finding more strongly, arguing that the evidence of Hussein's ties to Al Qaeda and other terrorists "is overwhelming." Cheney criticized what he called "outrageous" and "irresponsible" media reports for distorting the issue.

The comments marked the latest in a series of disputes between the White House and the bipartisan panel. The Bush administration has repeatedly sparred with commission members over their requests for documents and interviews with key officials and an extension of the panel's deadline for completing its report, now scheduled for release July 26.

The White House made Hussein's alleged terrorist ties a key part of its argument that deposing the Iraqi leader was necessary to protect the United States from future attacks.

Speaking to reporters after a Cabinet meeting Thursday, Bush argued that "numerous contacts" over the years between members of the former Baghdad regime and followers of Al Qaeda proved that a "relationship" existed between Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Bush said.

"Now, he was a threat because he had terrorist connections, not only Al Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations," Bush added.

Bush and his aides cited a 1996 meeting in Sudan between Iraqi intelligence officers and Bin Laden. They also cited Baghdad's offer of safe haven to Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal and members of the anti-Israeli Islamic Jihad, as well as Hussein's reported $25,000 payments to the families of Arab suicide bombers in Israel.

They also cited Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan who runs the Al Tawhid terror network and has claimed responsibility for deadly attacks in Iraq and elsewhere. Zarqawi was based in a Kurdish-controlled area of northern Iraq before the war. But his organization is said now to be based in Baghdad and appears to have grown substantially in size and lethal capability since the invasion.

Zarqawi's ties to Bin Laden remain murky. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters Thursday that Zarqawi "may very well not have sworn allegiance" to Bin Laden — "maybe because he disagrees with him on something, maybe because he wants to be 'the Man' himself, and maybe for a reason that's not known to me."

Commission staff investigating the Sept. 11 attacks announced Wednesday that they had found "no credible evidence" of cooperation between Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda in targeting America or its allies. A senior CIA analyst and a senior FBI official, both of whom appeared at the hearing, said they concurred with the finding.

Thomas H. Kean, the commission chairman, told reporters Thursday that the panel did not dispute that Hussein's government and Al Qaeda had been in contact. But Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, said investigators determined "that there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were in any way part of the attack on the United States."

In his comments Thursday, Bush said his administration "never said" that the Sept. 11 attacks "were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda." Bush had first denied that linkage last September, six months after the invasion. His comments then were in response to Cheney's assertion that U.S. success in Iraq would strike at "the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Cheney appeared reluctant to abandon that position Thursday. Asked if Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attack during an interview on CNBC's "Capital Report," he replied, "We don't know. You know, what the commission said is they can't find any evidence of that."

Cheney said "the one thing we have" indicating Iraqi support for the attacks is a Czech intelligence service report saying that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague on April 9, 2001.

"That's never been proven," he said. "It's never been refuted."

The commission report said it had reviewed FBI evidence, Czech and U.S. intelligence data and interrogation reports from the Iraqi official Atta supposedly met, among other evidence. "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred," the commission staff concluded.

Many counterterrorism and intelligence officials had questioned administration claims about Iraq's ties to terrorism before the war.

Polls show that a plurality of Americans still believe that evidence clearly shows Iraq had supported Al Qaeda attacks. But critics insisted that the administration had misrepresented the threat.

"Every time I asked, I was told there was no collaborative relationship," said Greg Thielmann, a former director at the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research. "If anything, it was a hostile relationship, because Saddam understood that Bin Laden wanted to do away with his kind of secular regime."

"At this point, the White House position is just frankly bizarre," said Daniel Benjamin, a terrorism expert who served in the Clinton White House. "You've had a bipartisan committee sift through all this intelligence. There is no indication that they have anything different at their disposal than the White House has…. They're just repeating themselves, rather than admit they were wrong."

White House officials gave no ground.

Scott McClellan, the president's spokesman, repeatedly insisted Thursday that the commission report was "perfectly consistent" with the administration's public statements about Iraq over the last two years.

"If you look back at what we said, we said all along that Saddam Hussein's regime supported and harbored terrorists and there were ties to terrorism, including Al Qaeda," McClellan said.

...


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-na-bush18jun18,1,507345.story

[3rdpath]

so many of the quotes in this article are just beyond belief.

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Bush said.

there ya go. no need to get muddled with any facts to support your view.

Asked if Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attack during an interview on CNBC's "Capital Report," he replied, "We don't know. You know, what the commission said is they can't find any evidence of that."

well, don't let the absence of evidence stand in your way. by this logic, wasn't every country potentially involved with al-qaeda?



ironically, this administration has proven there is indeed a parallel universe...

[Voltron]

so many of the quotes in this article are just beyond belief.

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Bush said.

there ya go. no need to get muddled with any facts to support your view.

Asked if Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attack during an interview on CNBC's "Capital Report," he replied, "We don't know. You know, what the commission said is they can't find any evidence of that."

well, don't let the absence of evidence stand in your way. by this logic, wasn't every country potentially involved with al-qaeda?

How many threads are we going to have on this one topic?
The 9/11 convention actually stated they did find a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

We'll say this on behalf of the latest staff reports from the 9/11 Commission: They are far more interesting than the media coverage suggests. Americans who go online to read the reports will actually learn a few things.

For example, they'll discover new details about the links between al Qaeda and Iran. The conventional wisdom has been that these Shiite and Sunni cultures couldn't meet, but the report says they did so "to cooperate against a common enemy"--the infidel U.S.

Specifically, al Qaeda operatives trained in Iran, and al Qaeda helped Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists obtain explosives. Al Qaeda was also probably involved in two attacks on U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, including the 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers that killed 19 Americans and injured 372 and had previously been blamed largely on Hezbollah. This certainly sheds some useful light on State Department attempts to "engage" Tehran's mullahs as they attempt to build a nuclear bomb.

Another revelation concerns al Qaeda and anthrax. The 9/11 panel says al Qaeda had an "ambitious" biological weapons program and "was making advances in its ability to produce anthrax prior to September 11." It cites CIA Director George Tenet as saying that al Qaeda's ability to conduct an anthrax attack is "one of the most immediate threats the United States is likely to face." Given that we already were attacked by anthrax, and that we still don't know who did it, this sounds like news too.

There's also the testimony the Commission heard Wednesday from Patrick Fitzgerald. The former Manhattan prosecutor was asked about his 1998 indictment against Osama bin Laden that asserted that al Qaeda had an "understanding" with Iraq that it would not "work against that government" and that "on certain projects, specifically including weapons development," they would "work cooperatively." Mr. Fitzgerald testified that "there was that relationship that went from opposing each other to not opposing each other to possibly working with each other."

Somehow the Commission also omitted any reference to Mr. Tenet's 2002 letter to Congress. "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade," he wrote. And, "We have credible reporting that al-Qaeda's leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."

We could go on, but suffice to say that the report hardly disproves any Saddam-al Qaeda link. Mr. Bush was entirely correct when he said yesterday that, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." The extent of those ties is the issue, and it is essential to U.S. security that we keep probing them. In particular, the President should order the release of some of the official Iraqi documents that coalition forces have captured in Iraq and that shed additional light on that relationship.
We thought everyone had learned the hard way on 9/11 that the greatest security danger comes not from taking threats too seriously but from dismissing them too easily. Apparently some people have forgotten that lesson already.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005237

[Voltron]

I also heard on the radio today that 9/11 commission also stated that there were most deffinitely reports and evidence that Iraq was planning on terrorist activities in the US during 2002 and 2003.

[Voltron]

These real world considerations are why the campaign waged by the Democratic Party and a Democratic press against the Bush war policy is based not on any analysis of the war itself, but on maliciously concocted claims about the prewar justification for military action. For purely political agendas, the Democrats hope to attempt to convict the Administration of “misleading the American public” and wasting American lives through deception and fraud, and thus to defeat the President at the polls in November.

This is the campaign of the Big Lie and its success depends on the very fact that it is a big lie. Its aim is to shift the very terms of the argument to a terrain favorable to the critics who have been refuted by the events themselves – a terrain entirely irrelevant to the reality of the war itself. To respond to this campaign would require of its targets candor and courage, because the only way to confront it is to impugn the integrity, honesty and goodwill of those who so maliciously prosecute it. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration does not seem up to this task of calling its critics to account. This is why it is on the defensive and in serious trouble in its political campaign.

How does this Big Lie operate? A look at today’s top headline in the New York Times (whose example is faithfully followed in most of the nation’s press) illustrates it well: “Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie.” That is the news of the day – similar in its negative spin for the Bush campaign to the news of the last 30 or 60 days as well. The Times headline refers to the report of the 9/11 commission that Mohammed Atta did not meet with Iraqi government officials in Prague prior to 9/11 and that it could find no evidence that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 plot. The Times “News Analysis” accompanying the account draws this conclusion: “In questioning the extent of any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the commission weakened the already spotty scorecard on Mr. Bush’s justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein.”

Actually this Times reportage is several lies in one. First, the panel did not conclude that there was no al Qaeda-Iraq tie. It concluded that it could not find an al Qaeda-Iraq tie in respect to the attacks of 9/11. This is entirely different from the claim that there were no links between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime. There are in fact extensive links, which Stephen Hayes and others have detailed.

But that is just the beginning. The bigger lie in this particular claim is that Mohammed Atta’s visit to Prague was one of “Mr. Bush’s justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein.” Mr. Bush made no such claim, certainly not in connection with a justification for the war in Iraq. (The Times actually prints Bush’s references to Iraq and al-Qaeda links on February 8, 2003, none of which mentions 9/11.) The justification for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein was the violation of UN Resolution 1441 – and 16 UN resolutions before that. Resolution 1441 authorized the use of force as of December 7, 2002, the deadline that had been set by the Security Council on November 8, 2002.

Anyone doubting that Saddam violated this resolution can consult the recent memoir written by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, Disarming Iraq. Blix opposed the military option right to the end. But he states very clearly in his book that Saddam failed to meet the requirements of UN Resolution 1441, that he showed his contempt for them in fact, and that they were a legal justification for force.

The lie about al-Qaeda is just one of a tissue of lies concocted by Administration critics about the rationale for the war in Iraq, each of which is designed to distract attention from the moral worthiness of the war and the critics’ own unhappiness with the war on terror itself. The Times’ “News Analysis” also cites the failure to find WMDs as a further undermining of the Administration’s rationale for the war. But WMDS were not the rationale for the war. The rationale for the war was Saddam’s violation of UN Resoloution 1441, which called for compliance or “serious consequences.” Saddam did not comply. The consequences followed.

The President’s rationale for the war was contained in his September 12, 2002 address to the United Nations General Assembly. He did not refer to an al-Qaeda link. He did not refer to an “imminent threat” (the third malicious falsification put forward by proponents of the Big Lie). What the President said was this: “The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?”

Prior to the inception of hostilities in Iraq in March 2003, the Democratic Party with honorable exceptions like Senator Lieberman and Minority Leader Gephardt was a party of appeasers, demanding more time and more offerings to the Baghdad butcher to avoid a military conflict. From the day Baghdad was liberated in April 2003 and continuously through the present, the Democratic Party and its willing press have constituted a chorus of saboteurs, attacking the credibility, integrity and decency of the commander in chief, exaggerating, sensationalizing and magnifying every American setback or fault -- with the guilt orgy over Abu Ghraib the most egregious example – effectively tying the hands of American forces in the field and encouraging the enemy’s resistance. The hard left actually celebrates this resistance. The soft and cowardly left merely encourages it while pretending not to notice what is doing.

In either case – and in both cases – what we are confronting in this spectacle is an unprecedented event in American political life. In the midst of a good war and a noble enterprise, a major American party is engaged in an effort to stab its own country in the back for short term political gain, and is willing to do to so by the most underhanded and unscrupulous means.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13824

[skunk]

I'll answer these points as if they were yours - which of course they aren't: you're just trying it on, aren't you? You couldn't POSSIBLY agree with these foolish sentiments. You're too intelligent for that.

The lie about al-Qaeda is just one of a tissue of lies concocted by Administration critics about the rationale for the war in Iraq, each of which is designed to distract attention from the moral worthiness of the war and the critics’ own unhappiness with the war on terror itself. The Times’ “News Analysis” also cites the failure to find WMDs as a further undermining of the Administration’s rationale for the war. But WMDS were not the rationale for the war. The rationale for the war was Saddam’s violation of UN Resoloution 1441, which called for compliance or “serious consequences.” Saddam did not comply. The consequences followed.
If "serious consequences" are to consist of 10,000 civilians killed and the wholesale destruction of civil society, don't you think it would have been reasonable to spell that out? Or to get the agreement of the body in whose name the agreement was made? Or to wait a tad longer to see what the weapons inspectors came up with?

The President’s rationale for the war was contained in his September 12, 2002 address to the United Nations General Assembly. He did not refer to an al-Qaeda link. He did not refer to an “imminent threat” (the third malicious falsification put forward by proponents of the Big Lie). What the President said was this: “The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?”
The UN WAS serving the purpose of its founding: it was attempting to resolve the problem and prevent the outbreak of war, by the process of carrying out weapons inspections. The business of the UN did not and does not include launching preemptive wars.

Prior to the inception of hostilities in Iraq in March 2003, the Democratic Party with honorable exceptions like Senator Lieberman and Minority Leader Gephardt was a party of appeasers, demanding more time and more offerings to the Baghdad butcher to avoid a military conflict. From the day Baghdad was liberated in April 2003 and continuously through the present, the Democratic Party and its willing press have constituted a chorus of saboteurs, attacking the credibility, integrity and decency of the commander in chief, exaggerating, sensationalizing and magnifying every American setback or fault -- with the guilt orgy over Abu Ghraib the most egregious example – effectively tying the hands of American forces in the field and encouraging the enemy’s resistance.
So you think that armies should have no political direction? That they should be allowed to breach every standard of ethical behaviour which they are fighting in the name of?

In either case – and in both cases – what we are confronting in this spectacle is an unprecedented event in American political life. In the midst of a good war and a noble enterprise, a major American party is engaged in an effort to stab its own country in the back for short term political gain, and is willing to do to so by the most underhanded and unscrupulous means.
What the hell is a "good war"? Are you mad?

[Taft]

How many threads are we going to have on this one topic?
The 9/11 convention actually stated they did find a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

No they didn't. Your opinion pieces that you keep posting don't prove ANYTHING. They are OPINION.

If you look at what the 9/11 commission actually said, you'll see that they found no working relationship between the two entities. Yes, al Qaida requested assistance, but their requests were never answered. Other so called smoking guns, like the supposed meeting between al Qaida officials and Iraq officials in the Czek republic, were determined not to have happened by the commission, though Cheney keep repeating them as if they had happened.

Here's a challenge:

Go read the report the 9/11 commission put out and find the line or paragraph that says Iraq and al Qaida had a working relationship or aided each other's efforts. Here's a hint: you won't find it. They didn't say that.

While some people are technically right that a lack of evidence doesn't disprove a connection, a lack of evidence doesn't prove a connection, either. And what should our standard of evidence be for going to war? It certainly should be higher than, "we didn't find evidence to disprove a connection."

Now I'm curious which sentence of my total argument you'll choose to reply to. Gotta love a discussion where the person you are debating doesn't listen to a darn thing you say...

Taft

[zimv20]

so who was the keynote speaker at the 9/11 Convention?

[3rdpath]

so who was the keynote speaker at the 9/11 Convention?

i was gonna go but all the area hotels were booked. ntm, i just couldn't stomach the thought of the crowds, $6.00 hotdogs and all those dang 9/11 hucksters. but i heard the aftershow parties, especially kofi's, were rockin...someone told me bush and cheney got trashed and did a hilarious ventriliquist act.
;)

[Chip NoVaMac]

Many people need to learn that there is "news" and then there is "opinion" masquerading as "news". This happens on both sides. And sometimes it takes looking at more than one "news" source to find out what is really happening.

We as a nation need to get past the sound-bite and look deep into the issues that concerns us as individuals.

[skunk]

i was gonna go but all the area hotels were booked. ntm, i just couldn't stomach the thought of the crowds, $6.00 hotdogs and all those dang 9/11 hucksters. but i heard the aftershow parties, especially kofi's, were rockin...someone told me bush and cheney got trashed and did a hilarious ventriliquist act.
;)
The tee-shirts were crap...

[Voltron]

First off I heard 9/11 commission hasn't actually sent its report out, what the AP keeps reporting on is leaked sections of the report. And they themselves did say there was a Iraq Al-Qaeda link.
Also


ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday his government warned Washington that Saddam Hussein's regime was preparing attacks in the United States and its interests abroad - an assertion that appears to bolster President Bush's contention that Iraq was a threat.

Putin emphasized that the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the U.S.-led war last year, but his statement was the second this month in which he has offered at least some support for Bush on Iraq.

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services ... received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.

"Despite that information ... Russia's position on Iraq remains unchanged," he said in the Kazakh capital, Astana, after regional economic and security summits. He said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts.

Saddam "was a threat because he had terrorist connections - not only al-Qaida connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations," Bush said.

However, a commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported this week that while there were contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq, they did not appear to have produced "a collaborative relationship."


A collaborative relationship -- ok lets play legalese with the dictionary and figure out how clintonese this is.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040618/D839MJ0G0.html

[jefhatfield]

bush is an idiot :)

i don't know if my fellow democrats think this though...he he...but seriously, even a conservative, pro defense democrat like me should find something good about bush, right?

he was right in going after bin laden in afganistan...he should have also gone into pakistan and saudi arabia and use force, if needed...but iraq? and it's usually the iraqi citizens, many who also hated saddam, who end up getting killed in the end

sure saddam is a bad guy, a psychopath, but he is no terrorist and we wasted money and troops which could have been more wisely used in terrorist friendly countries...not chase after oil and call it routing out terrorists or those elusive WMD's

iraq could be the main issue which defeats bush in november

[G4scott]

Did anybody forget the fact that the purpose of the 9/11 Commission wasn't to prove or disprove any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

The media got their interpretation of the whole thing, and took off with their "There were no connections" headlines, which is crap. Al Qaeda may not have been working directly with Saddam, but they were definitely working with other terrorists in Iraq. You also have to take into account, that the only real witnesses to these ties, are 2 captured Al Qaeda leaders. Never mind the Iraqi Prime Minister, who had a bit more to say about the Iraq-Al Qaeda situation.

If you get your news from mainstream media, you're probably going to believe that the 9/11 commission disproved any link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. If you've read the 9/11 commission's report, you might agree otherwise, or you might read it like the media, and see the same thing. Of course, when the vice chairman of the 9/11 commission goes to blast the media because they take the report out of context and make up their own facts, you have to wonder what kind of bias we really have in our mainstream media, and what their real intentions are...

Food for thought:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/18/92642.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/16/132355.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/19/123344.shtml

[zimv20]

g4scott -

you decry the interpretation of the "mainstream media," and claim that all of us who pay attention to it have been misled. then you assert that there is an iraq/AQ link. what is your source for this link? is it actually newsmax?

other than bland and vague arguments about the "liberal media," by what stretch of the imagination does newsmax have the story right but everyone else wrong?

from your first newsmax link:

But the Indiana Democrat said the press accounts were flat-out wrong.

"There are all kinds of ties," he told PBS's "The News Hour" late Wednesday, in comments that establishment journalists have refused to report.

"There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein's lieutenants."

Hamilton said that while his probe had failed to uncover any direct operational link between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden's terror network in attacks on the U.S., there's no question that "they had contacts."


i had a look at the transcript of that interview, here (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june04/commissioon_6-16.html). what did hamilton actually say?

LEE HAMILTON: I don't think there's any doubt but that there were some contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden's people. But our finding relates to a collaborative effort, the lack of evidence for a collaborative effort to attack the United States. We're not saying that there were no contacts of any kind or description.

We're quite sure on the basis of the evidence we have that there was not an operational tie between Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government on the one hand and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida on the other with regard to attacks on the United States.

nowhere does he say, "There are all kinds of ties," or "There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein's lieutenants." the transcript is there, Hamilton didn't say it.

also absent is any mention of the mainstream media getting it wrong. though hamilton did say there were contacts, newsmax put a completely different spin on it, implying hamilton's comments defended the bush administration's assertion of linkage. hamilton did not, newsmax was disingenuous.

so what gives? is newsmax the kind of media outlet you want to trust?

[Neserk]

The media got their interpretation of the whole thing, and took off with their "There were no connections" headlines, which is crap. Al Qaeda may not have been working directly with Saddam, but they were definitely working with other terrorists in Iraq. ]


Buy that logic the United States should invade itself. We have not only our homegrown terrorists but we have Al Qaida working with terrorists here. hmmm...

[IJ Reilly]

Did anybody forget the fact that the purpose of the 9/11 Commission wasn't to prove or disprove any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

That's right, and they didn't. They concluded only that no credible evidence could be found to demonstrate a collaborate relationship. All of this would have been fairly small news had it not been for the administration's adamant refusal to accept this conclusion, though it would have been easy for them to do so, and even to spin it in their favor. Instead, Cheney went so far as to say that the administration was in possession of information proving a collaborative relationship, which only raises the question of why, if this is true, that this evidence wasn't presented to the commission.

I suppose if you got all of your information from sources like Newsmax, you might not see how bizarre this situation has become. You might also not see how hard the administration is working to undermine the work of the 9-11 Commission.

[Neserk]

You might also not see how hard the administration is working to undermine the work of the 9-11 Commission.


Which means the Commission is right on target or pretty darn close! Or they fear that they will uncover something else :eek: Ain't specualtion fun :D

[IJ Reilly]

Which means the Commission is right on target or pretty darn close! Or they fear that they will uncover something else :eek: Ain't specualtion fun :D

Seems like I mentioned this theory in another thread, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the administration is hoping to split the commission along party lines, so that they won't be able to issue a unanimous report. That way, at least some of the more damaging conclusions could be written off as "just politics." They don't lose much if they don't succeed, but they could effectively neutralize the commission's findings if they do -- which would be a big win for them (and a loss for the American people, as if that figured into their calculations). The administration opposed the formation of the commission from the start, so you can safely bet that Bush won't shed any tears if they fail. It's just another way the Bush administration is working for "truth, justice and the American way."

[Voltron]

Buy that logic the United States should invade itself. We have not only our homegrown terrorists but we have Al Qaida working with terrorists here. hmmm...
Um we didn't attack Iraq because they had ties to Al-Qaeda.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Neserk]

Um we didn't attack Iraq because they had ties to Al-Qaeda.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif


No, we attacked Iraq because they have oil :D

Actually CheneyBush can't decide *why* we attacked Iraq. Some days it is to free the Iraqi people others it is because they have WMD's others it is because they have ties to Al Qaeda (still can't get the spellling on that one)

Like your eye rolling smiley.

[Voltron]

Seems like I mentioned this theory in another thread, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the administration is hoping to split the commission along party lines, so that they won't be able to issue a unanimous report. That way, at least some of the more damaging conclusions could be written off as "just politics." They don't lose much if they don't succeed, but they could effectively neutralize the commission's findings if they do -- which would be a big win for them (and a loss for the American people, as if that figured into their calculations). The administration opposed the formation of the commission from the start, so you can safely bet that Bush won't shed any tears if they fail. It's just another way the Bush administration is working for "truth, justice and the American way."
Does that include the fact that one of the people they should've been investigating was on their own panel and she refused to get off of it to make room for someone who wasn't implecated?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Did anybody forget the fact that the purpose of the 9/11 Commission wasn't to prove or disprove any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

The media got their interpretation of the whole thing, and took off with their "There were no connections" headlines, which is crap. Al Qaeda may not have been working directly with Saddam, but they were definitely working with other terrorists in Iraq. You also have to take into account, that the only real witnesses to these ties, are 2 captured Al Qaeda leaders. Never mind the Iraqi Prime Minister, who had a bit more to say about the Iraq-Al Qaeda situation.

If you get your news from mainstream media, you're probably going to believe that the 9/11 commission disproved any link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. If you've read the 9/11 commission's report, you might agree otherwise, or you might read it like the media, and see the same thing. Of course, when the vice chairman of the 9/11 commission goes to blast the media because they take the report out of context and make up their own facts, you have to wonder what kind of bias we really have in our mainstream media, and what their real intentions are...

Food for thought:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/18/92642.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/16/132355.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/19/123344.shtml

Boy, I think that I will only read the unbiased news from the links you provided. Can't trust the liberal media folks over at the Washington Times. :rolleyes:

[Agathon]

Why is it surprising that Iraqi intelligence might want to meet and talk with Al Quaeda or other Middle East terrorist organizations?

I'd want to keep tabs on them as best as I could if I were running a Middle Eastern country, but that doesn't mean the same as helping them.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Why is it surprising that Iraqi intelligence might want to meet and talk with Al Quaeda or other Middle East terrorist organizations?

I'd want to keep tabs on them as best as I could if I were running a Middle Eastern country, but that doesn't mean the same as helping them.

You have a point. Look at the sorts that our government meets up with.

[wwworry]

Um we didn't attack Iraq because they had ties to Al-Qaeda.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif

However, people do think Iraq had ties to Al Qeada and 9/11. That's how this administration sold the war (along with non-existent WMDs). You can not deny that the administration is actively attempting to confuse the issue. What it is is contempt for the truth and the American people.


MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

----------------------

Despite not having a shred of evidence, Dick Cheney not only floated the prospect of Saddam sponsoring 9/11, but Saddam being behind the 1993 World Trade Center attacks--which Paul Wolfowitz also referenced on Good Morning America for the second anniversary of 9/11. (Hey Dick: Let's see the evidence on that one, too.) The ensuing media outrage at this blatant dishonesty was what prompted Bush to set the record straight(er).

[Voltron]

However, people do think Iraq had ties to Al Qeada and 9/11. That's how this administration sold the war (along with non-existent WMDs). You can not deny that the administration is actively attempting to confuse the issue. What it is is contempt for the truth and the American people.


MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

If he didn't bring up the facts of the connections then later you might be accusing him of covering up the details. Can't win with you can they? If they don't give you every little detail then they are covering something up and if they do give you every little detail then they are trying to imply something bigger than what they are actually saying as a form of manipulation. It can't be possible they are simply stating the truth including all facts and letting you come to your own conclusions?

[skunk]

It can't be possible they are simply stating the truth including all facts and letting you come to your own conclusions?
No, it can't. The truth is a foreign country.

[Chip NoVaMac]

No, it can't. The truth is a foreign country.

You are right. This is true for any administration. What some are failing to see that that is not lying about a sexual encounter, or lying about no new taxes, and dare I say lying about supplying weapons through some shady dealings. We are talking about lying about something that went to the heart and soul of every America. It is lying about the costs both human and real. So we will see this war in Iraq taking away over $200 billion of out tax dollars. All the while while giving those with income to invest a free ride. All the while with a loss of 800+ American lives, and untold innocents in Iraq. No-bid contracts. All the while we are creating a situation that we will be less safe in.

Given the mess that Bush's administration has created, I don't know why anyone would want to be president in 2004, other Bush. He fails, and he'll just say that he tried his best. Kerry wins, and has to answer for terrorist attacks that are a result for Bush's policies, he looks like a chump. And we the people end up being the ones that pay in more than one way.

We don't have military jets to whisk us away to safe areas. We don't have bunkers with medical personnel that can treat us instantly in a biological or nuclear dirty bomb attack. The average American does not share in the greatest benefit to the tax cuts. Hell, most can't afford decent medical insurance.

[wwworry]

If he didn't bring up the facts of the connections then later you might be accusing him of covering up the details. Can't win with you can they?

How can you pretend to know what I would say later on? You made an inane (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=inane) comment.

[Voltron]

How can you pretend to know what I would say later on? You made an inane (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=inane) comment.
Because I read what you post.
look up "economy - Taxes"
speaker " George Bush"

you'll find some good ones in there. A lot of people (like SlyHunter) don't care that the president is always lying.
BTW nice use of the words "A lot" :p

I just wanted to get in on this too. Plus there is never not a good time to mention what a pinhead our president is. ;)

I thought you wanted to know all the details before making up your mind?
one thing that bugs me is how people argue about the outcome of trials based on secondhand media sources. None of us were there and heard all the evidence. Like when those TV "news" programs give you half the evidence then ask you if the verdict was correct with a call in poll. :eek:

If I'm not in the jury room I trust that, at the very least, the people in the jury room had more information than I ever will.

I always wanted to use an "eek".

This administration has a long history of editing out facts that they do not like. Scientists were about to propose stricter lead policies for situations where children come in contact with lead (which, as we all know, has detrimental effects on developing children) when the administration removed some scientists from the commitee and replaced them with industry advocates.

Sure you could say that one needs industry imput but in this case it was industry editing of scientific information before it got out. What was usually the case in other administrations and which makes sence to me is to first gather information then decide based on all available information. What this administration does is to just get information from their corporate supporters.

This is all very well documented in The Price of Loyalty by Suskind.
So when they include all the facts they are doing it to be manipulators.
As a reminder of my original statement.
If he didn't bring up the facts of the connections then later you might be accusing him of covering up the details. Can't win with you can they? If they don't give you every little detail then they are covering something up and if they do give you every little detail then they are trying to imply something bigger than what they are actually saying as a form of manipulation. It can't be possible they are simply stating the truth including all facts and letting you come to your own conclusions?
And that is how I can predict what you will say. True nothing is 100%, but you'll say whatever argument is anti-Bush. How inane is that?

To Reiterate -- Bush can't do anything right by you. On the one hand he leaves out details because he's covering up the truth, on the other he's including all the details as a means to manipulate those he's discussion them with like the UN for example.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/banghead.gif

[wwworry]

Wow, An episode of "This is Your Life" starring me. I'm flattered.

In all those examples you posted I pretty much argued that this administration leaves out, manipulates and obfuscates inconvienient facts. The one example you posted where I argued against trial-by-media is not relevant because a court of law is different than the areana of politics. But again, I argued for full disclosure.

You'll also notice in the example of policy-by-industrialist contributors I argued that Bush was editing out evidence to please his contributor base.

To me there is no difference in lies by ommision and lies by false association.

Also I have made only one prediction of future individual behavior based on past action while posting on this political forum. I would be happy if you went through all my posts agian (spelling gift to your "friend", SlyHunter) to find it.

Maybe Bush will start looking at facts in an even handed way. Maybe Bush admit some of the many many mistakes he has made. If he does, well hats off to him. But so far:

weapons of mass distruction
monies earmarked by Congress to Afghanistan diverted to Iraq *
the outing of CIA agent Plame *
the break-in of democratic party computer files *
the pre-approval of Halliburton contracts by the office of the Vice-President *
editing out scientific opinion in govt. science reports
refusing to disclose who was at the energy policy meetings
"$400 billion over 10 years to implement this vision of a stronger Medicare system"
promoting dubious connections between Iraq and Al Qeada to the American people
"we will be greeted with flowers"
"Mission Accomplished"
"Mission Accomplished" banner posted by soldiers
Niger Uranium claim
"we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits"
"In terms of who will have their life changed the most by a tax cut, it's clearly the people at the low and middle end of the income scale, because this represents a huge surge in their income."
"Our military went to Afghanistan, destroyed the training camps of al Qaeda, and put the Taliban out of business forever."
“I’ve asked the American people to foot the tab for $20 billion of reconstruction…Others are stepping up as well, 13 billion out of the Madrid Conference…The Iraqi oil revenues – excess Iraqi oil revenues, coupled with private investments, should make up the difference.”
claiming he was for the 9/11 inquirery when he was originally against it
total inept lack of post-conflict Iraq planning

(* impeachable)

I could post all day on his lies and coverups, or, to make you happy, on how our president is so "dramatically misinformed".

so far Bush has not done much right. I call 'em like I see 'em.

[mactastic]

A collaborative relationship -- ok lets play legalese with the dictionary and figure out how clintonese this is.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040618/D839MJ0G0.html

Prior to 9/11 the Bush administration had contacts with the Taliban. What does that prove?

[skunk]

Prior to 9/11 the Bush administration had contacts with the Taliban. What does that prove?
And Rumsfeld had tea with Saddam....
Definite contact there.

[IJ Reilly]

Definite contact there.

You're tempting me again. You should know better by now, and I don't mean that Biblically. :)

[skunk]

You're tempting me again. You should know better by now, and I don't mean that Biblically. :)
Resist! :D

[Taft]

g4scott -

you decry the interpretation of the "mainstream media," and claim that all of us who pay attention to it have been misled. then you assert that there is an iraq/AQ link. what is your source for this link? is it actually newsmax?

other than bland and vague arguments about the "liberal media," by what stretch of the imagination does newsmax have the story right but everyone else wrong?

from your first newsmax link:


i had a look at the transcript of that interview, here (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june04/commissioon_6-16.html). what did hamilton actually say?

nowhere does he say, "There are all kinds of ties," or "There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein's lieutenants." the transcript is there, Hamilton didn't say it.

also absent is any mention of the mainstream media getting it wrong. though hamilton did say there were contacts, newsmax put a completely different spin on it, implying hamilton's comments defended the bush administration's assertion of linkage. hamilton did not, newsmax was disingenuous.

so what gives? is newsmax the kind of media outlet you want to trust?

Good catch!

You know, I heard this story from a few different sources over the weekend. All of them happened to be right-wing sources, of course. I actually believed the story was true. Hamilton really had blasted the media for misinterpreting the report.

But wait! It was really propoganda! Hamilton didn't blast the media!

I guess we'll be seeing an apology from this guy (http://boortz.com/nuze/200406/06182004.html):

...The Democratic co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, even said that there was no justification for the tact the press was taking yesterday.

Well, Lee, you're wrong. There was a justification. In this election, like none I've ever seen before, the press is determined to be a factor. They are going to do everything they can to make every news story that comes along look bad for Bush ... even to the point of distorting the story itself.

OK ... I know. This doesn't apply to every person in Washington or New York making their living as a journalist. But you check out the stories yesterday on CNN, ABC, CBS, The New York Times, The LA Times, the Washington Post, Associated Press and more and you'll see what I'm talking about. Every one of these media outlets said that the 9/11 report debunked Bush's reason for ridding the world of Saddam ... even while the very chairman of the commission was saying it just ain't so.

Taft

[wwworry]

Do you ever wonder if the likes of Voltron and g4Scott waste too much of our time? Maybe on purpose. They post here with bs links and then it takes a couple of hours looking up all the facts and making reasoned arguements. But for what? They come back with more inaccurate bs. It never ends.

Perhaps we could all go out to the suburbs and make our arguements with the truely undecided - all 4 of them.

[wwworry]

Do you all ever read this site?

http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/

[Voltron]

Now ... what does the Vice Chairman of the Panel say? Lee Hamilton says "There were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is that we don't have any evidence of a cooperative or a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these al-Qaeda operatives with regard to attacks on the United States."

Here's something else you may not have heard. Last week Vladimir Putin said that he warned the U.S. after 9/11 that his Russian intelligence forces, who were a lot closer to Saddam's regime than our own intelligence forces, had determined that Saddam was preparing terrorist attacks on the United States.

Read that again. Putin tells us that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on the US. Did you happen to read that in your local paper? Oh, it was probably there .. but let's just say it doesn't get the same type of headlines as do the false stories saying that Saddam had no connections with al-Qaeda.

The 9/11 Commission has received new information indicating that a senior officer in an elite unit of Saddam's security services may have been a member of Al-Qaeda. Not just a member of Al-Qaeda, but one involved in the planning of the 9/11 hijackings. This is another in a long line of contacts and cooperation between the Al-Qaeda terror network and the government of Saddam Hussein. What else do the media and the Democrats need?

Of course, there are some that still wouldn't be convinced if it was discovered Saddam Hussein was one of the 9/11 hijackers himself. Such is their liberal bias and hatred of President Bush, they will do anything to distort the facts for their own political purpose.

Anyway, speaking on yesterday's 'Meet The Press,' John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission, said that documents captured in Iraq indicate that at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen was a prominent member of Al-Qaeda. This person is thought to have attended a 9/11 planning meeting with two of the hijackers in Malaysia in January 2000. But wait...I thought there was no link between the attacks of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein? (By the way, I was telling you about this meeting and the Iraqi agent about two weeks ago.)

Just like they've been doing for the past several months, the media will now do everything they can to discredit this report and this evidence. Remember the template: whatever helps President Bush gets buried or is not reported, and whatever hurts the president gets top billing. This most definitely helps Bush.

And what about the Kerry campaign? This creates a bit of a tight spot for The Poodle, doesn't it? He's been going around thundering that the administration "misled America." But as the facts pile up, and the truth begins to dictate otherwise, what then for the Democrats?


Who cares what the source is if it is the truth. For example if this "Anyway, speaking on yesterday's 'Meet The Press,' John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission, said that documents captured in Iraq indicate that at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen was a prominent member of Al-Qaeda." is true then who cares about the fact that the source is http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/banghead.gif

Even Clinton backs Bush on this.

Bill Clinton says he does not believe that President Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons, but out of a belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction were unaccounted for. In other words, Slick Willie is backing President Bush over Iraq.
http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/biggrin2.gif

[mactastic]

Who cares what the source is if it is the truth.

Said Cheney to Bush regarding the information Chalabi was providing.... :D

[Sayhey]

Do you all ever read this site?

http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/

Everyday. Atrios, Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/), Kevin Drum (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/) at Atlantic Monthly, Josh Marshall (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/), Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/), and Politics 1 (http://www.politics1.com/) are all must reads for political junkies.

[jefhatfield]

And Rumsfeld had tea with Saddam....
Definite contact there.

oh yeah, rummy!

i am glad that saddam will do no more harm to iraq and that he is out of power

but to tell you the truth, i would wish rumsfeld fired from his job more

now there are republicans in congress, anti-iraq war, who believe that we may be in iraq for the next twenty years...jeez, thanks rummy!!!

in the end, bush should take the fall, but in reality, when read between the lines, rummy and cheney had the biggest hand in this stupid war

but that being said, i think bush needs to go to, and every day i turn on the news, it looks more likely that we will get the shrub out of the white house ;)

[Voltron]

oh yeah, rummy!

now there are republicans in congress, anti-iraq war, who believe that we may be in iraq for the next twenty years...jeez, thanks rummy!!!


We can always transfer the troops out of Europe, its not like they are needed there for anything, Europe can fund its own army.

[miloblithe]

We can always transfer the troops out of Europe, its not like they are needed there for anything, Europe can fund its own army.

Think harder. There is a reason the U.S. doesn't want to take its troops out of Europe and doesn't want European armies to increase in strength and scope.

[Sayhey]

All the rumors are that the US is going to transfer up to half its troops out of Germany. The military is looking for new bases in Romania and other old eastern bloc countries. The move serves multiple purposes. It save costs as the price for supporting troops in Germany is much greater. It moves troops closer to the Middle East, and it ties the old East Bloc nations more closely to US foreign policy helping to split the EU. Not necessarily the best of reasons but they fit right in with the Bush Doctrine.

[wwworry]

"It's apparent that Russians and President Putin are interested in a second term for Bush," said Liliya Shevtsova of the Carnegie Moscow Center. "We've always had good relations with Republicans. We dislike Democrats, because Democrats always care about democracy in Russia."

[diamond geezer]

Both Saddam and Bin Laden had far closer historical ties to the US administration, than they ever had with each other.

Certainly, Rumsfeld didn't seem to mind shaking hands and grinning with the Poisoner/Murderer Saddam, when there was a pipeline in the offering.

[diamond geezer]

"It's apparent that Russians and President Putin are interested in a second term for Bush," said Liliya Shevtsova of the Carnegie Moscow Center. "We've always had good relations with Republicans. We dislike Democrats, because Democrats always care about democracy in Russia."

Apparently Bin Laden also wants a second term for Bush, as he's considered a "poster boy" for terrorist recruitment.