This is topic Bipartisan Report on 9/11 Says No Iraq, al Qaeda Link - Bush, Cheney not impressed in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
The bipartisan 9/11 commission says there is no evidence of ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. This is not really startling news to people who have been following what sparse "evidence" there was for such a tie. Not startling, that is, to anyone outside of the Bush administration.
quote:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Investigators have found no evidence Iraq aided al Qaeda attempts to attack the United States, a commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackings said on Wednesday, undermining Bush administration arguments for war.
The report by commission staff said al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 and had explored the possibility of cooperation, but the plans apparently never came to fruition.
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney this week reiterated pre-war arguments that an Iraqi connection to al Qaeda, which is blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks, represented an unacceptable threat to the United States.
However, the commission said in a staff report, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
"There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11 -- other than limited support provided by the Taliban after bin Laden first arrived in Afghanistan," it added.
The staff report was issued at the start of the commission's final two days of public hearings into the attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people. The hearings were called to find out how the United States failed to prevent the attacks and what it can do now to improve security.
The report stood in contrast to comments this week by Vice President Dick Cheney, who said that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam had "long-established ties" to al Qaeda.
Bush, asked on Tuesday about Cheney's comments, cited the presence in Iraq of Islamist militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as "the best evidence of (a) connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda."
To me, it's behavior like this that disturbs me more than any of the debates about religious or corporate influences at the White House. It's a seeming inability and/or unwillingness to deal with what is real rather than the world as one would like it to be.
[ June 16, 2004, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was: publicly supporting terrorism against innocent civilians (of an ally), in continuous defiance of a peace treaty he was forced to sign as a result of aggressive war, and a bloody-handed ruthless tyrant.
The Bush Administration should've stuck with these, I think. Because the first two are more than enough reason to go to war, and (I believe) so is the third.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
The truly scary thing?
quote: On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator "had long established ties with al-Qaida."
They really need to pull their heads out of their butts, now.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Apparently much of the private money that is donated to al Qaeda is from families in Saudi Arabia...
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Iraq under Saddam Hussein was: publicly supporting terrorism against innocent civilians (of an ally), in continuous defiance of a peace treaty he was forced to sign as a result of aggressive war, and a bloody-handed ruthless tyrant.
The Bush Administration should've stuck with these, I think. Because the first two are more than enough reason to go to war, and (I believe) so is the third.
Rakeesh,
I agree with your summary of Iraq under Saddam, but there are problems with saying these were sufficient reasons to go to war.
Your first and third elements - supporting terrorism and being a tyrant - could apply to far more regimes in the mideast than just Iraq. Also, that's old news, and has never been seen by the American public, and especially traditional conservatives as reasons for starting a war.
So the Bush administration worked pretty consistently at building an association between Saddam, al Qaeda and 9/11, knowing that was the kind of association that could move the public emotionally toward support for an invasion.
The Bush administration has been very successful at this disinformation campaign. Even now, the current AOL poll shows 55% of respondents saying they believe Iraq had significant ties to al Qaeda. I would suspect that other more scientific polls reveal the same thing.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Actually, the US has publicly supported terrorists and has defied treaties (or, as we are doing more lately, just opting out of them). The US created tyrants like Saddam when he was the enemy of our enemy in Iran and actively supported Osama back in the day when he was a useful ally against the Communists during the Cold War. It is that pot and kettle thing. Or is it the chicken and the egg thing?
Anyway, it wasn't surprising to see this come out of the commission. The Bush White House has been using the old "if you say it enough" tactic to get across their "connections" to the American people and the world. Apparently, it just doesn't work that well.
fil
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Well, now we've admitted to violating the Geneva Convention in a completely separate incident.
quote: White House - AP Cabinet & State
Pentagon Admits Holding Iraqi in Secret
2 hours, 14 minutes ago Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo!
By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - In a rare admission of violating the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war, the Pentagon (news - web sites) has acknowledged it improperly held an Iraqi prisoner in secret for more than seven months.
. . .
Both assigning a prisoner number and notifying the Red Cross are required under the Geneva Conventions, which the Bush administration acknowledges apply to the conflict in Iraq.
. . .
The Iraqi prisoner is so far the only individual Defense Department officials have acknowledged shielding from the Red Cross. Before Wednesday's admission, Pentagon spokesmen would not confirm or deny if anyone was being held in secret.
. . .
Maj. David Kolarik, a spokesman for the military's Joint Task Force-Guantanamo, said all prisoners are treated "in accordance with the principles" of the Geneva Conventions "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity."
quote:...but there are problems with saying these were sufficient reasons to go to war.
The only real problem with it is that we can't make war on everyone who does such things. To you, this is (probably) a reason why we should not have gone to war-if we're going to use those reasons, we should use them universally and apply them equally.
Unfortunately, we have limited resources in time, blood, and treasure. So applying those reasons equally is simply impossible. That leads me to think that we should apply them where we think it most efficient on a several levels. It leads you (I think, I could be wrong) to think that we shouldn't use those reasons anywhere, since we can't use them everywhere.
quote:Also, that's old news, and has never been seen by the American public, and especially traditional conservatives as reasons for starting a war.
Well, yes. That's what I said: the Bush Administration should've stuck with those reasons, which are (whether you think they're sufficient cause or not, undeniably true. I've said elsewhere not that I disbelieve Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda (how anyone believes such a thing can be proved or disproved is consistently amazing to me), but that Bush should've stuck with those reasons.
quote:Even now, the current AOL poll shows 55% of respondents saying they believe Iraq had significant ties to al Qaeda. I would suspect that other more scientific polls reveal the same thing.
I still believe that Hussein had some ties to al Qaeda, not because of an overwhelming body of evidence (impossible to get and trust in this sort of situation-ask yourself how much belief you'd put in it if the CIA presented evidence supporting Bush Admin. conclusions), but because Hussein shared some very specific goals and hatreds with al Qaeda, and has a proven history of supporting terrorists.
Terrorism is a good investment for wreaking havoc on a hated 'superpower' enemy. Saddam Hussein had made use of terrorism before. I see no reason to believe he discontinued that practice.
-----
fil,
Yeah, America has supported foul dictators and violated treaties before. It's a nasty world out there.
[ June 17, 2004, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There are many major benefits to having a high-ranking terrorist incarcerated when it is thought he's dead.
And if the man is, as claimed, a terrorist who targets innocent civilians for murder or orders others to do so, then to hell with the Geneva Convention in his case. And no, not all aspects of the GC.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:The only real problem with it is that we can't make war on everyone who does such things. To you, this is (probably) a reason why we should not have gone to war-if we're going to use those reasons, we should use them universally and apply them equally.
Unfortunately, we have limited resources in time, blood, and treasure. So applying those reasons equally is simply impossible. That leads me to think that we should apply them where we think it most efficient on a several levels. It leads you (I think, I could be wrong) to think that we shouldn't use those reasons anywhere, since we can't use them everywhere.
Yea we should only use them were we can get OOOIIIIIILLLL!!!
Mmmm, delicious.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, limited resources used to acheive maximum gain.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: the US has publicly supported terrorists and has defied treaties (or, as we are doing more lately, just opting out of them).
One thing that I don't get is why the U.S. gets so much flack because of treaties it is not participating in. It seems as though some people think that just because a treaty exists, the U.S. is obligated to go along with it, whether we want to or not.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Yeah, I always get annoyed with cops pull me over and cite me for speeding and drunken driving and reckless endangerment. Why don't the cops ever appreciate all the rules that I DON'T break?? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, the corrrect analogy to MPH's post would be all the contracts you chose not to sign.
Dagonee Edit: Just to add a of my own.
[ June 17, 2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:Yeah, America has supported foul dictators and violated treaties before. It's a nasty world out there.
Rakeesh, being patronized isn't what I was looking for, but thanks all the same. My point is where one poster on here (at least...) thinks that these very activities are worthy of starting a war with another country. If we invade others for our own sins...kind of that whole "he without sin" thing I have heard once or twice. If we are going to start a war with a country that hasn't attacked us or invaded us, it should be for something other than sins we ourselves are guilty of...or the list of countries to invade would be endless!
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: Actually, the corrrect analogy to MPH's post would be all the contracts you chose not to sign.
Umm...before you roll your eyes, Bush HAS pulled us out of existing treaties, not just refused to sign new ones. the 30 year ABM treaty being a big one (and the one where many started to think that Bush was off his foreign affairs rocker).
Then there is the Test Ban Treaty from 1996 that we began to undermine/ignore.
The US has signed on to the Internation Criminal Court but Bush has looked for ways to get exemptions for the US.
There is also Mine treaties that we have been enacted that the Pentagon has tried to find excemptions from, as well.
Just like the Geneva Convention...we have been trying to find excemptions from this, as well. Bush apologists (they HAVE to be getting tired soon, no?) will say we don't need the GC because we hold our troops to a higher standard...at least as long as we are willing to look the other way when the GC isn't upheld, that is.
Hey, if you can make a good argument for invading Iraq that makes sense, go for it. But simply saying "they made shady deals with shady people" just doesn't cut it, because we do too...and not too long ago, it was with the two worst enemies our country is engaged with right now. If it is because of WMD, find them (not samples...I want the "MASS" in WMD found...like in Korea, for example). If it is because Iraq posed a "clear and imminent threat" to the US, prove it. The Bush Administration hasn't been able to do it, no matter how many times they repeat it.
fil
[ June 17, 2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
The whole idea that we don't have to follow the Geneva Convention because we hold ourselves to a higher standard is laughable. Seriously, does anyone with a TV or a computer believe that? I don't. Not after seeing the pictures out of Abu Ghraib.
quote: Asked whether he was disappointed that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had improperly held an Iraqi prisoner in secret for more than seven months in violation of the Geneva Conventions, Bush replied: "The secretary and I discussed that for the first time this morning. ... I'm never disappointed in my secretary of defense. He's doing a fabulous job and America's lucky to have him in the position he's in."
This is sad on several levels. Firstly, didn't Bush ask Rumsfeld after the prison abuse scandal came out if there was anything else he hadn't been told? Secondly, how in the world can Bush still think Rumsfeld is doing a good job? Of course, I can't say I think Bush is doing a good job, but that he thinks Rumsfeld is just blows my mind. This is the guy who supposedly kept the Commander-In-Chief in the dark about the prison abuse scandal till after it came out in the papers, and now, apparently, kept him in the dark about a secret prisoner of war. Maybe keeping him in the dark about illegal activities is what Bush looks for in his employees. You know, the kind that will keep him out of legal trouble.
I wonder if Congress could get Rumsfeld under oath again and make him swear that we aren't doing anything else illegal. Or anything that, before the new White House Counsel got a hold of it, was considered illegal.
[edit, forgot to finish the thought. Anyway, if they could do that, then the next scandal that breaks could land him in jail. That would be one way to get him off the job.]
[ June 17, 2004, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Umm...before you roll your eyes, Bush HAS pulled us out of existing treaties, not just refused to sign new ones. the 30 year ABM treaty being a big one (and the one where many started to think that Bush was off his foreign affairs rocker).
He's pulled us out of treaties using the mechanisms within those treaties for pulling out. The correct analogy is still contracts voluntarily entered into, not laws imposed without choice.
Dagonee
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Besides seeking another year's exemption from arrest or prosecution of U.S. peacekeepers, Washington has signed bilateral agreements with 89 countries that bar any prosecution of American officials by the court and is seeking more such treaties.
Let's hope those 89 countries don't treat those agreements the way we treat ours.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Umm...before you roll your eyes, Bush HAS pulled us out of existing treaties, not just refused to sign new ones. the 30 year ABM treaty being a big one (and the one where many started to think that Bush was off his foreign affairs rocker).
Exactly. We pulled out of the treaty. We are no longer participating in it. We aren't breaking it.
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
Pulled out to prevent the blatant breaking of them. Agreeing to play by the rules then backing out of the agreement to avoid breaking the rules is only different from just breaking them in the first place when arguing the legality, not the right-ness nor the intent to not abide by the treaties to begin with.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's pulling out ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. That's not breaking the agreement, and it does make a big difference.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Exactly. We did not break the treaty -- we pulled out. That's what you are supposed to do.
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
It is breaking the agreement. It is just breaking the agreement according to pre-decided terms. No matter what way you twist it, it is an act of disregarding the treaty.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It is not breaking the agreement. It's ending it in a pre-agreed-upon manner. In other words, it's doing exactly what the treaty says we can do.
It's following the treaty.
Dagonee
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
Oh, so they're still agreeing to the treaty? No? So they're not agreeing to it? Sounds like they are not complying with the treaties any more. Sounds like breaking it to me.
Are you a lawyer, Dagonee? That would make a lot of sense with the distinction you are trying to make.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm in law school. And the distinction is not trivial. Examine the actions the administration took with respect to one of the treaties they stepped out of. Each action was legal according to the treaty.
If you have a cell phone contract for two years, and you pay the $50 penalty and end it after 6 months, did you "break" the contract? No. Break clearly implies "breach", which implies someone is doing something illegal.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What nonsense is this? You sign a treaty or a contract agreeing to do specific things for a specific length of time. Within the treaty there are methods of withdrawing.
A nation uses those methods and withdraws. That's. Not. Breaking. You can't break a treaty you're not IN.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I particularly enjoy the way we will support a treaty, then after everyone else has signed on, decide we really don't like it after all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I particularly like the way we sign treaties the President has no intention of honoring or even submitting for ratification.
Of course, it's not the current president that did this.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)