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

The 9/11 commission talks about al Qaeda/Iraq meetings in Chapter 2 of its report.

Those meetings are the "links" that the war apologists refer to.

Yep, some have already drank the kool-aid.

From the 911 Commission Report--

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53

To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.

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

Lash, now I think I see what's happening. You are jumping to conclusions because of blind party loyalty. It looks to me like Saddam was trying to deal with the problems that OBL was causing in Iraq, and it had nothing to do with 9-11. Of course it's possible, but it's also possible that George Bush knew about 9-11 ahead of time and let it happen so that he'd have an excuse to attack Iraq, but I don't believe that bullshit either.

More from the 911 Report--

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75

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.76

{Nor do they have evidence they did not cooperate...}

I'm sure everyone can easily see why many people believe the two did cooperate--or did plan to--and would have, had Bush not removed Saddam from power.

Actually, I thought Lash was quoting against her own earlier view in the post above???????

Oops - not, I see.

No. Both excerpts are from the 911 Commission Report.

Had you not read it?

Lol - I love you sometimes Lash.

Apparently many of you had not.

Micheal Moore is no place to get your news.

History constantly rewrites itself, Lash, as is evidenced between page 1 and 4 of this thread.

Other reports have since been released that indicate there were fabrications, lies and politiking going on to justify invading Iraq. (Think Chalabi for starters) There was no connection. If you look back at my previous posts on this thread you'll see that Bush an Blair both confirmed this themselves.

They like to word things in such a way as to be just short of an outright lie, perhaps just a slight bend of the truth, or maybe just putting the two into the same sentence so people THINK there's a connection. But, that doesn't make it so.

Of course, I can easily imagine one might, but this would not be one of those times.

Are you a Republican now?

Lash,

Hate to tell you this but lack of evidence does not prove something.

If we follow your logic then the meetings between Bush officials and the Taliban prior to 9/11 would prove that Bush knew about the attack.

Simply because they had a meeting and you don't know what happened in it doesn't prove it is exactly as you HOPE it was.

The 9/11 commission is pretty clear... NO EVIDENCE that they were cooperating in any way, shape or form. Simply having a meeting does not prove anything one way or the other withoout knowing the content of that meeting. If a meeting proves cooperation then it must always prove cooperation hence we must reach the same conclusions about Bush and the Taliban.

Squinney.

The findings of the 911 Commission have not been refuted by any credible source. You believe a great deal of horseshit. But, lots of people do.

I wish (really) you would be more critical before lending your belief to so much fey material. Some of the stuff you place confidence in astonishes me.

parados--

You are in agreement with me, then, as to the meetings.

They don't PROVE anything....except that they took place, although the anti-Bushies previously claimed they did not and could not because of Saddam/OBL animosity.

It shows good reason for people to suspect the two were cohorts.

<kidding>

I think these conservatives have a defective gene, dlowan, because that hypocrisy that "is meted out to us all at birth" comes in spades for these folks.

You're right. I read the briefing in which Bush and Blair both said there was no connection. I should know better than to believe them.

Proves about as much as the in/famous handshake photos of Saddam with members of the current American government.

Who the hell claimed the meetings didn't take place? Talk about building a strawman....