OMG! CONDI (and BUSH & Now SCOTT) Still Thinks IRAQ = 9/11

I am confused as to how "an offer" equates to "working together." The offer must be ACCEPTED before you can work together.
You might be better off apologizing Lash before you dig yourself in deeper or at least admitting you mispoke.

Possible collusion does NOT become "They worked together." It can be "They MIGHT have worked together." But "They worked together" is a statement of absolute fact. You said it. It does NOT exist. Even you qualify their relationship half the time.

My statement stands. You make statements of "fact" that are not true.


I think I gave you a straight answer Lash. Do you need further explanation? Others seemed to understand it quite well.

Which of my statements do you say is untrue? Very simple question. Why do you avoid answering it. Seems cowardly.

BTW, if you read before jumping in to something you obviously know nothing about-- you'd know that OBL, at least for a time, did stop supporting the Kurds against Saddam. That is working together.

You may apologize to me after you stand up, back your accusations up and say which of my statements was a lie.

Your hysterical contortions to avoid simply facing your own accusations is quite informative of your character.

Let me repost this for you. Read it carefully. I cite 2 different instances of you making up facts. They seemed to be apparant to most others that read it. If you still need help, let me know. Pay attention to the bold part of your statement. If you think it is true then I will be happy to use your words to dispute it since you have several times admitted it is only a conclusion on your part.

Yeah. You ask for a lot of evidence.

I've brought plenty.

You don't know enough to continue a discussion.

I've addressed your bolded part a few times.

If you are unable to understand the written word, you'll find someone else to break it down for you.

I have never accused you of a "lie." I have given you the benefit of the doubt in that you may have mispoke or been ignorant of the real facts. Your present snippy post only backs up my statement about your "whining." You need to stop going off half cocked. Take a step back and look at what you are saying first.

You have brought a lot of conclusions that you attempt to pass off as facts. If as you claim OBL worked with Saddam and you have evidence of it then why did the 911 commission say there was NO EVIDENCE of them working together? Shouldn't you inform that body that they were wrong based on your evidence? I will take their word over yours any day. There is no evidence of the 2 working together in spite of all your claims to the contrary.

You need to define whining.

You accused me of making facts up--which is the definition of a lie--of course, I understand after a few exchanges, you may not understand that.

Making up facts = a lie.

(So you'll understand when the next person gets pissed at that accusation.)

And, for future reference, when you go about blithely accusing people of lying and whining, be prepared for whatever follows. You bought it.

I answered your question a few times.

Answer mine.

What statement of mine was a lie?

You're so bold to accuse--finish what you started.

You need to exercise that little brain. They said they hadn't been proven as working together on 911, or operational events.

They DID say they had offered one another assistance--and even though some people have to have things spelled out to them--it is easy to say if they gave one another assistance--as OBL did to Saddam----and as Saddam offered to do for OBL---that

is

working toward the same goal.

Working toward the same goal is the same as working together.

Because the shrill liberal contingent here is so afraid of a few words appearing together--they cannot bear for me to characterize them as working together.

Groupthink strikes the left again.

Which statement of mine was a lie?

What do you know about the Iraqi scientist? Anybody e-mailed you to fill you in about it yet?

You wanna bet that when Saddam comes to trial Osama isn't mentioned?

Why? Because there wasn't any connection between the two that was of any consequence. Stop grasping at straws.

The intelligence that lead to the war wasn't any good. Trying to link OBL and al Queda would be another instance of the same pathetic leaping to bad conclusions. The war was and is a goof-up, the follow-up to the war hasn't been any better. It's a mess of our own making and we are going to pay for it for years and years to come.

Joe(hint: al queda doesn't need assistance)Nation

I am stating facts.

Not straws.

Not conjecture.

Not wishful thinking.

Facts.

The report of the September 11 Commission is continually bandied about in this thread with regard to Iraqi connections to al Qaeda. Therefore, with no small amout of trouble, i have transcribed the relevant section. I have ommitted two paragraphs which discuss speculation on the attitudes of Rumsfeld to Iraq, which are not germane to a question of whether or not the President thought Iraq had such ties. Those who doubt the matter are free to consult the report itself. If you find typos in here, keep in mind that i've transcribed it from a PDF file which i did not produce, and therefore had to type the entire thing out--you cannot highlight and copy from a PDF file which you have not yourself produced.


10.3 "PHASE TWO" AND THE QUESTION OF IRAQ[/size]

(see pages 334, et sequitur)


President Bush had wondered immediately after the attack whether Saddam Hussein's regime might have had a hand in it. Iraq had been an ememy of the United States for 11 years, and was the only place in the world where the United States was engaged in ongoing combat operations. As a former pilot, the President was struck by the apparent sophistication of the operation and of some of the piloting, expeically Hanjour's high-speed dive into the Pentagon. He told us he recalled Iraqi support for Palestinian suicide terrorists as well. Speculating about other possible states that could be involved, the President told us he also htought about Iran. (footnoted with reference to note 59)

Clarke has written that on the evening of September 12, President Bush told him and some of his staff to explore possible Iraqi links to 9/11. "See if Saddam did this," Clarke recalls the President telling them. "See if he's linked in any way." (footnoted with reference to note 60) While he believed the details of Clarke's account to be incorrect, President Bush acknowledged that he might well have spoken to Clarke at some point, asking him about Iraq. (footnoted with reference to note 61)

Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke's office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled "Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks." Rice's chief staffer on Aghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. The memo found no "compelling case" that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report allegeing an April, 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to guage crowd reaction to an unspecified edent. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons. (footnoted with reference to note 62)

**************************

A Defense Department paper for the Camp David briefing book on the strategic concpet for the war on terrorism specified three priority targets for initial action: al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iraq. It argued that of the three, al Qaeda and Iraq posed a strategic threat to the United States. Iraq's long-standing involvement with terrorism was cited, along with its interest in weapons of mass destruction. (footnoted with reference to note number 65)

Secretary Powerll recalled that Wolfowitz--not Rumsfeld--argued that Iraq was ultimately the source of the terrorist problem and should therefore be attacked. (footnoted with reference to note number 66) Powell said that Wolfowitz was not able to justify his belief that Iraq was behind 9/11. "Paul was always of the view that Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with," Powell told us. "And he saw this as one way of using this event as a way to deal with the Iraq problem." Powell said that President Bush did not give Wolfowitz's argument "much weight." (footnoted with reference to note number 67) Though continuing to worry about Iraq in the following week, Powell said, President Bush saw Afghanistan as the priority. (footnoted with reference to note number 68)

=================================================================================

From the Notes to Chapter 10:

Note 59: President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004). On Iran, see Condoleezza Rice testimony, Apr. 8, 2004.

Note 60: Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror (Free Press, 2004), p. 32. According to Clarke, he repsonded that "al Qaeda did this." When the President pressed Clarke to check if Saddam was involved and said that he wanted to learn of any shred of evidence, Clarke promised to look at the question again, but added that the NSC and the intelligence community had looked in the past for linkages between al Qaeda and Iraq and never found any real linkages. Ibid.

Note 61: President Bush told us that Clarke had mischaracterized this exchange. On the evening of September 12, the President was at the Pentagon and then went to the White House residence. He dismissed the idea that he had been wandering around the Situation Room alone, saying: "I don't do that." He said that he did not think that any president woudl roam around looking for something to do. While Clarke said he found the President's tone "very intimidating," ("Clarke's Take on Terror," CBSnews.com, Mar. 21, 2004, online at www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/printable607356.shtml ), President Bush doubted thaq anyone would ahve found his manner intimidating. President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29,2004). Roger Cressey, Clarke's deputy, recalls this exchange with the President and Clarke concerning Iraq shorty after 9/11, but did not believe the President's manner was intimidating. Roger Cressey interview (June 23, 2004).

Note 62: NSC memo, Kurtz to Rice, Survey of Intelligence information on any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks, Sept. 18, 2001. On 60 Minutes (CBS, Mar. 21, 2004), Clarke said that the first draft of this memo was returned to the NSC Front Office because it did not find a tie between Iraq and al Qaeda; Rice and Hadley deny that they asked to have the memo redone for this reason.

Note 65: DOD memo, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, "War no Terrorism: Strategic Concept," Sept. 14, 2001.

Note 66: Colin Powell interview (Jan. 21, 2004). Rumsfeld told Bob Woodward that he had no recollection of Wolfowitz's remarks at Camp David. DOD transcript, "Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with the Washington Post," Jan. 9, 2002 (online at www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2002/t02052002_50109wp.html ).

Note 67: Colin Powell interview (Jan. 21, 2004). Powell raised concerns that a focus on Iraq might negate progress made with the international coalition the administration was putting together for Afghanistan. Taking on Iraq at this time could destroy the International coalition. Ibid.

Note 68: Colin Powell interview (Jan. 21, 2004).

Working towards the same goal is NOT the same as working together.

And the LINK is what is at issue. There are a lot of people who don't like the United States. They are not all behind 9/11.

You, Lash, continue to state as a FACT that Hussein and Al Quaeda "co-operated"??????

I think we have a re-write of the language.

This isn't a fact:



One can have the same overall goal and have completely different methods about going about achieving said goal; in fact, one can despise someone else even if they are working towards the same goal, and even sabatoge the other's efforts.

So, that isn't a fact. That is an assertion by you that is in fact untrue.

Cycloptichorn

Oh god . . . thanks, i needed a good laugh after more than an hour of hard work . . .

That's a ridiculous assertion. If I don't actively work against you, I am therefore "working together" with you? If, say, I agree to stay out of a thread in which I would be likely to ferociously oppose you, in order to avoid all too precarious an acrimony which I feel I cant handle right now, am I therewith "working together" with you, say? Just doesnt make sense.


More nonsense. Lemme propose another simple analogy. As a member of the Green Left, I am in favour of the European Constitution, and if I were back home I'd be out campaigning for it now. The populist free-market advocates of the rightwing VVD in my country are also in favour of the Constitution, and are doing their own campaign for it. They do so out of almost completely opposite motivations and want to achieve a totally other kind of Europe. The Green Left and VVD campaigns in no way are organisationally tied and hold no common events. But because they are both out to get a "yes" vote, according to your logic they are "working together"?

For somebody who proposes two such blatant non sequiturs in a row youve got quite the nerve going on about how little-brained Parados is, girl.

Setanta,
Here is one of many links to 911 report in HTML.

http://911.gnu-designs.com/TOC.html

I usually search PDF then find it in HTML by chapter to avoid the transcribing.


If all else fails I put a sentence in google and find it out there somewhere.

Well, Parados, i sadly did not have that resource available to me when i decided to transcribe that. I did feel it was important to put the text in this thread, since so many claims are being made about what the report states. I have had severe vision problems lately, and i can tell you that was a monster typing job. I'll copy that url and keep it handy. Thanks, Boss.

Reading comprehension and analysis--



Why doesn't someone respond in a thoughtful way to these facts?

Setanta--

Since you're in the throes of such a hysterical laugh attack--catch your breath, and then please show us all the portions of the 911 Commission Report I've emphasized, which are wrong.

Nimh--

No analogy is needed.

If you are working toward the same goal, you are working with someone. Period. The Commission Report used the cooperate. I think we all know what that means without need of contorted analogies.
.

The Communists fought the Nazis becase they wanted to establish a Soviet dictatorship of the proletariat. Conservative democrats (small d) fought the Nazis because they wanted to return to national independence under their own king and with their old parliamentary democracy. They worked wholly past each other, with the odd offer that was past through the underground channels proposing some kind of co-operation never, as far as we know, being followed up on. So, according to Lash, they were "working together".

When, with an eye on the shocking potential of devastation of near-nuclear crises, capitalist America and communist Soviet Russia agreed on a temporary detente, a freezing up of at least aggressive action, according to Lash's logic, they were "working together". The Soviet Union and the United States of America, brothers in arms.

You can come up with a hundred analogies, and none of them make sense.