quote:Chad: hahaha so Vwiggin thanks for backing me up unintentionally. So we know that Iraq OFFERED OBL assylum in Iraq, but because we found no evidence they collaborated on 9/11 itself (which bush and cheney never claimed anyways if you "check your facts" hint hint) we know what?
You're welcome Chad.
quote:Chad's reference from Factcheck.org: "It's a matter of record that Bush and Cheney repeatedly accused Saddam Hussein of aiding al Qaeda terrorists and providing them a base..."
9/11 Commission: "But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. (p.66)."
The Commission's conclusion clearly goes beyond the 9/11 attacks. The commission clearly states that there was no evidence showing any collaborative operational relationship had resulted from the contacts between Iraq and al Queda.
quote:If Bush's intelligence organizations have consistently provided him with faulty information or overlooked critical information, we're not supposed to hold Bush responsible?
The Intelligence community blew it on 9/11. And then they handed him evidence that turned out to be false.
If only it were these simple. The Bush administration set up a special intelligence group within the department of defense that was specifically tasked to make the case for invading Iraq. Rumsfield then used the failures of 9/11 as a tool to coerce intelligence agencies to produce evidence against Saddam Hussein. The Bush administration announced their case against Husseing before the intelligence commitee even released their report. The details can be found in the book "Die Lügen des Weißen Hauses. Wie die Regierung Bush die Welt täuscht." by Hans Leyendecker.
I'm sorry that the reference is in Germany but I have not been able to find it in English translation. I have searched but have not yet found anyone who refutes his claims.
What's more, well known that Cheney, Rumsfield and other members of the Bush administration had been calling for a war against Saddam Hussein since the mid nineties. There reasoning was that this was the best way for the US to maintain control in a strategically important region. You can read their ideas the project for a new american century website.
The Bush administration was not the victim of bad intelligence. They are the perpetrators.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: So we know that Iraq OFFERED OBL assylum in Iraq, but because we found no evidence they collaborated on 9/11 itself (which bush and cheney never claimed anyways if you "check your facts" hint hint) we know what? ... BTW did any of you know that Sadaam actually paid THOUSANDS of dollars to the families of suicide bombers in Israel? But that isn't supporting terrorists....if you are a liberal.
Chad Cheney did claim on "meet the press" that Saddam was involved in 9/11, NBC played it after the VP debate to refute Cheny's claim that he never did.
Most of us (including liberals) probably know that Saddam paid families of suicide bombers.
So has the King and Crown Prince of Saudia Arabia. When is the invasion scheduled?
quote:Most of us (including liberals) probably know that Saddam paid families of suicide bombers.
Not quite. We are aware that Saddam offered to pay families of suicide bombers. There is no evidence that he ever paid anyone. In face, all the evidence confirms that no payments were ever made.
This is a case of typical strongman tough talk which no one ever expected him to follow through on. Kind of like when Rush Limbaught says " I'll give $10,000 to anyone who can prove me wrong on this."
[ October 12, 2004, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:we know that Iraq OFFERED OBL assylum in Iraq.
Exactly how do we know this. The 9/11 report does not support this claim. The 9/11 report indicates that there was once a meeting scheduled between top Al Qaida operatives and some high level official from Iraq but that the meeting never took place because Iraq pulled out. I have not seen any credible source offering evidence that Iraq offered Bin Laden assylum or that there were any negotiations between Iraq and OBL regarding assylum.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, Rabbit, I'll take your word on that. Revised:Most of us (including liberals) probably know that Saddam publicly said he would pay families of suicide bombers.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I've read the entire executive summary of the 9/11 commision report, there is no mension of Iraq in the 35 page summary.
I've read selected parts of the full 584 page report. The word assylum is never used in the report. The last page is foot notes. The last page of the text says nothing about Iraq of Saddam Hussein so I did a search on Iraq and read every reference to Iraq. The one that comes closest to supporting your claim is as follows.
quote:Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.
The footnote to this paragraph reads
quote:76. CIA analytic report,“Ansar al-Islam:Al Qa’ida’s Ally in Northeastern Iraq,” CTC 2003-40011CX, Feb. 1, 2003. See also DIA analytic report,“Special Analysis: Iraq’s Inconclusive Ties to Al-Qaida,” July 31, 2002; CIA analytic report,“Old School Ties,” Mar. 10, 2003.We have seen other intelligence reports at the CIA about 1999 contacts. They are consistent with the conclusions we provide in the text, and their reliability is uncertain. Although there have been suggestions of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda regarding chemical weapons and explosives training, the most detailed information alleging such ties came from an al Qaeda operative who recanted much of his original information.Intelligence report, interrogation of al Qaeda operative,Feb. 14,2004.Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any such ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM and Zubaydah, 2003 (cited in CIA letter, response to Douglas Feith memorandum,“Requested Modifications to ‘Summary of Body of Intelligence Reporting on Iraq–al Qaida Contacts (1990–2003),’” Dec. 10, 2003, p. 5).
The overall consensus of the commision is that although there had been communication between Al-Qaida and top Iraqi officials, there was no link between the two, no evidence that any actions had been taken as a result of the communications and no aid was given to A-Qaida by Iraq.
[ October 12, 2004, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:By the way, you can find it in the "fiction" area of your local bookstore's catalogue.
Really? Show me.
If the best critique of my source is that its German so it can't be true, then I rest my case.
Quite seriously, I was loaned a copy of the book by a friend while I was working in Germany last summer. I found it quite intriguing because, contrary to your accusation, it was written by a noted investigative journalist with excellent connections and is well footnoted. Not only that, it is consistent with reports from CIA and military intelligence people that have been published in the mainstream US media. It also contains key information on the timeline which I was able to confirm through other sources. I would give more details but unfortunately, I no longer have a copy of the book.
Since I read it, I have been searching for any serious critique of the claims made in the book. I haven't been able to find anything more substantial than the pathetic rant CS gave here. Because the book isn't available in English translation, I suspect that most of the conservative pundits in the US have avoid mentioning it. No reason to call it to peoples attention. If you are aware of any serious critiques to this book, please direct me to them.
Until then, I must conclude that this book reports a story that is consistent with streams of reports coming from the US intelligence community.
[ October 12, 2004, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if you insist that you have cancer, and your doctor says, "I have a test here that shows you have cancer, but it's wrong," and your second opinion says, "Nope, no cancer," and you still have the operation anyway...what does that make you?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
