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

Lash wrote:

I listened to it. Didn't you?

They said they did have proof that at least three meetings took place between OBL and Saddam's intermediaries.

Do you deny it?

I read this:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

For some reason I found it a lot easier to read it online than to read the actual book. I like the fact that you can search the report for whatever you want to in the electronic format. Best way to do that is to download it as pdf, in my opinion.

And yes, there were meetings. And no, there was no "collaborative relationship" (collaborative, being a latin word, stands for: laborare, to work and the prefix co- or col- for together, meaning, working together, but you knew that of course), and it's not hard to find in the report. Have a look at it, Lash.

0 Replies

From one of Squinney's links--

"While there are contacts, have been contacts, there is no co-operation. There is no substantial, noteworthy relationship," said Daniel Benjamin, former terrorism adviser to the U.S. National Security Council.

(How does Benjamin prove there is no cooperation? How do you prove a negative? It can't be done. You CAN prove a positive....that they have had three meetings.)

Experts point out that Saddam, a secular Iraqi nationalist who refuses to rule by the Muslim religious law of Sharia, is a natural enemy of Osama bin Laden.

(Which means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING because their intermediaries met three times.)

As for bin Laden, he has vowed to topple Arab leaders like Saddam who don't embrace Islamic fundamentalism.

(But, he still sent associates to meet with Saddam? Why was that?)

"Osama bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein and considers him an infidel," said Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based Arabic newspaper Al Quds . He says bin Laden was even ready to help liberate Kuwait when it was invaded by Iraq in 1990. \

(Then explain the meetings.)

That of course doesn't exclude Saddam forging an alliance with bin Laden more recently.

(...making that previous conjecture obselete.)

0 Replies

Re: OMG! CONDI Still Thinks IRAQ = 9/11

Brandon9000 wrote:

squinney wrote:
Quote:
Rice, making her first visit to Iraq as secretary of state, spoke to hundreds of U.S. troops and diplomats in Baghdad.

"I want you to keep focused on what you are doing here," Rice told the diplomats and troops who gathered in one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces. "This war came to us, not the other way around."

"The United States, along with the rest of the free world, believed somehow for a number of years that people in this region didn't care about freedom," she said. "We cared about stability. And what we got was neither. We got a malignancy that was growing that came to haunt us on the fine September day" in 2001

CNN SOURCE

WTF? Could someone PLEASE brief her? Maybe show her page 18 of the Washington Post where it was finally reported in the US that the intel was FIXED?

I see the first paragraph in your link, but your second paragraph isn't there at all. What the article actually quotes her as saying is:

"The absence of freedom in the Middle East -- the freedom deficit -- is what produced the ideology of hatred that allowed them to fly airplanes into a building on a fine September day."

This does not to me seem to imply that she thinks Iraq was behind 9/11.

OMG! They changed the report. My original post IS how it was. I copy/pasted directly from the article. Very interesting.

0 Replies

Big Brother stuff....and of course the usual suspects will say that you are the one making things up squinney...

0 Replies

Quote:

The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons programs said much of the information on Iraqi training and support for al-Qaeda was "second-hand" or from sources of "varying reliability".

And a January 2003 CIA report indicates some of the reports of training were based on "hearsay" while others were "simple declarative accusations of Iraqi-al-Qaeda complicity with no substantiating detail or other information that might help us corroborate them".

In December 2001, Vice-President Dick Cheney said Atta's meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague was "pretty well confirmed".

But, according to Senator Levin, a June 2002 CIA report says: "Reporting is contradictory on hijacker Mohammed Atta's alleged trip to Prague and meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer, and we have not verified his travels."

And a January 2003 CIA report says "the most reliable reporting to date casts doubt on this possibility".

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12875384%5E1702,00.html

0 Replies

I have had a look at it, OE. You can't prove a negative. They didn't AND CAN'T say 'there was no collaborative relationship--(that word collaborative means :work together: but, you probably knew that).

They can AND DID say "There is no evidence of a collaborative relaionship."

There IS, however, evidence that --contrary to anti-Bushites' beliefs and rhetoric-- that the two met three times through intermediaries.

Do you deny it?

0 Replies

United Press International
October 20, 2002 Sunday 10:06 AM Eastern Time
HEADLINE: Czechs retract terror link
BYLINE: By MARTIN WALKER
DATELINE: PRAGUE, Czech Republic, Oct. 20 (UPI)

Czech intelligence officials have knocked down one of the few clear links
between al Qaida terrorists and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, UPI has
learned.

Senior Czech intelligence officials have told their American counterparts
that they now have "no confidence" in their earlier report of direct
meetings in Prague between Mohammed Atta, leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers
and an Iraqi diplomat stationed in Prague who has since been expelled for
"activities inconsistent with his diplomatic status."

"Quite simply, we think the source for this story may have invented the
meeting that he reported. We can find no corroborative evidence for the
meeting and the source has real credibility problems "

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/2002-October/004830.html

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I have had a look at it, OE. You can't prove a negative. They didn't AND CAN'T say 'there was no collaborative relationship--(that word collaborative means :work together: but, you probably knew that).

They can AND DID say "There is no evidence of a collaborative relaionship."

There IS, however, evidence that --contrary to anti-Bushites' beliefs and rhetoric-- that the two met three times through intermediaries.

Do you deny it?

Yes, you can't prove a negative. What they said was

Quote:

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.

I don't deny the meetings, but for the moment I'll stick with the commission's findings.

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Big Brother stuff....and of course the usual suspects will say that you are the one making things up squinney...

Yep...Big Brother stuff....I'm sure that there is no chance the maybe CNN just got it wrong, and then fixed it when it is pointed out to them?
Not like it hasn't happened before.

0 Replies

tommrr wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Big Brother stuff....and of course the usual suspects will say that you are the one making things up squinney...

Yep...Big Brother stuff....I'm sure that there is no chance the maybe CNN just got it wrong, and then fixed it when it is pointed out to them?
Not like it hasn't happened before.

nope

0 Replies

Expense of spirit in a waste of shame...

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Lash wrote:
I have had a look at it, OE. You can't prove a negative. They didn't AND CAN'T say 'there was no collaborative relationship--(that word collaborative means :work together: but, you probably knew that).

They can AND DID say "There is no evidence of a collaborative relaionship."

There IS, however, evidence that --contrary to anti-Bushites' beliefs and rhetoric-- that the two met three times through intermediaries.

Do you deny it?

Yes, you can't prove a negative. What they said was

Quote:
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.

I don't deny the meetings, but for the moment I'll stick with the commission's findings.

I'm sticking with them, too. You, however, are skewing them. I accept them at face value.

What it literally means: These more recent and earlier contacts between Saddam and OBL's associates DID TAKE PLACE.

They may have been working on a collaborative relationship--they may have HAD a collaborative relationship. But, we haven't been able to find evidence of it.

Yet.

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

tommrr wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Big Brother stuff....and of course the usual suspects will say that you are the one making things up squinney...

Yep...Big Brother stuff....I'm sure that there is no chance the maybe CNN just got it wrong, and then fixed it when it is pointed out to them?
Not like it hasn't happened before.

nope

damn..

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

The 911 Commission found evidence that OBL and Saddam's intermediaries had at least three meetings.

Where does it say this? I haven't read the whole thing, but I read the part that dealt with the question of Iraq, and I didn't see anything about three specific meetings.

I did, however, see this part, in Chapter 10.3...

Quote:

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 Afghanistan, 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.[/size] It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging 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 gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak,[/size] 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.

So where does it talk about these three meetings that you mentioned? And even if they did occur, which part of "The memo found no 'compelling case' that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks",[/size] or "The case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak"[/size] leads you to believe the exact opposite?

0 Replies

just pullin' your leg tommrr....

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

just pullin' your leg tommrr....

I know....the sad part is I couldn't think of a comeback....so I just said "damn" and walked away....I do so hate it when the wit goes on break

0 Replies

OE's excerpt from the 911 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.

Kicky-- This means meetings took place between Saddam and OBL's representatives. Why did they meet? Were they buds?

Kicky's excerpt--

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 Afghanistan, 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 alleging 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 gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. 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.
---------
This was thrown together days after 911. And, even so, it shows links existed, but at that time they weren't considered compelling. This rhetoric isn't proof of anything.

Again, honestly. Why would they communicate through intermediaries? Do you have a good answer?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

old europe wrote:
Lash wrote:
I have had a look at it, OE. You can't prove a negative. They didn't AND CAN'T say 'there was no collaborative relationship--(that word collaborative means :work together: but, you probably knew that).

They can AND DID say "There is no evidence of a collaborative relaionship."

There IS, however, evidence that --contrary to anti-Bushites' beliefs and rhetoric-- that the two met three times through intermediaries.

Do you deny it?

Yes, you can't prove a negative. What they said was

Quote:
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.

I don't deny the meetings, but for the moment I'll stick with the commission's findings.

I'm sticking with them, too. You, however, are skewing them. I accept them at face value.

What it literally means: These more recent and earlier contacts between Saddam and OBL's associates DID TAKE PLACE.

They may have been working on a collaborative relationship--they may have HAD a collaborative relationship. But, we haven't been able to find evidence of it.

Yet.

I think most countries - except yours, mine and the UK - prefer slightly more than could have and might have meant something meetings before invading a country, don't you?

For Condi to be spouting such crap (if she did - that seems a tad moot right now) in Iraq removes all respect I had for her character.

Brains she has. What she needs now is a system of decent ethics and respect for truth. If she said anything reesembling that Iraq and 9/11 were related she flies in the face of anything that could be remotely considered as known - and is peddling propaganda made up of the flimsiest tissue.

Ach - why bother arguing this stuff.

Waste of bloody time.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Ach - why bother arguing this stuff.

Waste of bloody time.

Aye, rabbit.

0 Replies

OE's excerpt from the 911 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.

Kicky-- This means meetings took place between Saddam and OBL's representatives. Why did they meet? Were they buds?

Kicky's excerpt--

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 Afghanistan, 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 alleging 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 gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. 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.
---------
This was thrown together days after 911. And, even so, it shows links existed, but at that time they weren't considered compelling. This rhetoric isn't proof of anything.

Again, honestly. Why would they communicate through intermediaries? Do you have a good answer? If, as Clarke's brief and everyone says, OBL and SH disliked one another--why the meetings?

Dlowan--

If this issue we are discussing was the sole reason to go to war, certainly you'd be right.

However, there was a wealth of previous reasons to remove SH from power.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know