1
   

Bush Speaks Tonight From Fort Bragg- Oooh-Rah!

 
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2005 08:40 am
I loved this article by Andrew McCarthy reminding us of the many links between Saddam and Al Quaeda.

IT'S ALL ABOUT 9/11
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2005 10:16 am
JustWonders wrote:
I loved this article by Andrew McCarthy reminding us of the many links between Saddam and Al Quaeda.

IT'S ALL ABOUT 9/11



I have read mccarthy's article, and hayes book "the connection" from which mccarthy makes his accusations. anyone taking the time to read the 911 report finds that the claims made by hayes/mccarthy were examined and dismissed by the 911 commission as prima fascia evidence for an al Qeada/Saddam connection.

do i have to post mccarthy's claims, then post again the actual words of the 911 commission that refutes hayes/mccarthy? i did that earlier and what hayes/mccarthy said has been debunked by the commission's reports.

claims of saddam protecting al qeada members is bogus, he killed or imprisoned most al qeada members in iraq or they were in a part of iraq not under his control. again, claims made that the presence of al qeada in iraq proves collusion between iraq and al qeada is tenuous at best. there are/were al qeada cells in the US and that does not mean that george bush was in collusion with al qeada either.

claims of collusion were revealed to be no such thing and such claims were either not believed or so tenuous as to be insignificant with respect to active collusion of the parties in attacking the US. you have to read the commission report and its foot notes to grasp that the commission's conclusions were that there was no operational connection between al qeada and hussein.

the right wing nuts can claim anything they want, but such claims have to be substantiated. none of their claims are substantiated by the commission's report. if the claims are true, prove them with passages from the report....not redactions from the writings of a debunked stephen hayes.

I posted the link to the report, posted the pertainent sections of the report, so go ahead, prove your case... but do it using the words from the commission, not hayes, malroie or other right wing propagandistas.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2005 10:23 am
kelticwizard wrote:
Lash wrote:
KW--
The 911 Commission Report comes closer to proving my opinion than yours.


How?

The report clearly shows there was no collaboration, that in fact Saddam and al-Qaeda really disliked one another.

Yet you just go on and on, post after post, putting up baseless messages about a collaboration.

When do you give up and face reality?


anyone else hearing the "Mission Impossible" theme music?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2005 02:44 pm
keltic--

It is the people like you and, I guess ehBeth as well, who are like children with your hands over your ears, yelling "La-la-la-la-la-la, I'm not listening..."

Everything I claim is based on the 911 Report.

Prove with statements from the report that my claims are baseless.

Whether or not they liked each other is IMMATERIAL if they sent representatives to meet, and if they offered one another assistance and made agreements that were advantageous o one another.

"operational collaboration" and "collaboration" are significantly different things.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2005 02:49 pm
Lash wrote:
Whether or not they liked each other is IMMATERIAL if they sent representatives to meet, and if they offered one another assistance and made agreements that were advantageous o one another.



You mean something like between ..... the USA and North Korea?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2005 03:00 pm
If the US and NK end up working together--YES, just like that.

Even if we HATE them and they hate us, if we make agreements that are mutually advantageous, that's an imperfect, but adequate comparison.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2005 03:02 pm
Maybe this should just be re-posted every couple pages or so, until Lash actually takes the time to read it.

kuvasz wrote:
The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said no evidence exists that al-Qeada had strong ties to Saddam Hussein.

The battle over adjectives appears silly especially when there is a quantum difference between what are the implications of such ties. Those who screech about a cabal between al Qeada and Iraq are making silk out of a sow's ear. Their underlying implication is that any dealings between al Qeada and Saddam's Iraq is prima fascia evidence that they were in cahoots and had an organized plan to destroy America, and therefore was sufficient cause to attack Iraq.

Sadly for those who feel that way, no such thing is evident.

Desperately weaving together a narrative of disparate items that are mostly unverified and at best second hand accounts is an exercise in passionate, but subjective idiocy or the work of loony Laurie Malroie aficionados.

In fact, it is more objectively confirmable that US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who visited Baghdad and who smilingly shook hands with Saddam Hussein had stronger connections with Saddam Hussein than did bin Laden.

http://hn.vnexpress.net/Vietnam/The-gioi/Tu-lieu/2004/12/3B9D9B10/Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg2.jpg

Although Osama bin Laden asked for help from Iraq in the mid-1990s, Saddam's government never responded, according to a report by the commission staff based on interviews with government intelligence and law enforcement officials. The report asserted "no credible evidence" has emerged that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 strikes.

But this misdirection of equating Iraq with al Qeada is par for the rabid Right who conveniently drop down the Memory Hole the paramount reason stated by the Busheviks for attacking Iraq.

WMDs.

Don't believe me, check out the actual 911 Commission report instead of relying on distortions from paid propagandistas for the Bushevik cabal. It is available in either pdf or html form

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


Report by the National Commission on terrorisat attacks upon the United States

Chapter 2 The Foundation of the New Terrorism

Quote:
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. (ref 53)

53. CIA analytic report,"Ansar al-Islam:Al Qa'ida's Ally in Northeastern Iraq," CTC 2003-40011CX, Feb. 1, 2003.


Quote:
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. (ref 54)

54. Ibid.; Intelligence report, al Qaeda and Iraq, Aug. 1, 1997.



Quote:
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. (ref 55)

55. Intelligence reports, interrogations of detainee, May 22, 2003; May 24, 2003. At least one of these reports dates the meeting to 1994, but other evidence indicates the meeting may have occurred in February 1995. Greg interview (June 25, 2004).

Two CIA memoranda of information from a foreign government report that the chief of Iraq's intelligence service and a military expert in bomb making met with Bin Ladin at his farm outside Khartoum on July 30, 1996. The source claimed that Bin Ladin asked for and received assistance from the bomb-making expert, who remained there giving training until September 1996, which is when the information was passed to the United States. See Intelligence reports made available to the Commission.The information is puzzling, since Bin Ladin left Sudan for Afghanistan in May 1996, and there is no evidence he ventured back there (or anywhere else) for a visit. In examining the source material, the reports note that the information was received "third hand," passed from the foreign government service that "does not meet directly with the ultimate source of the information, but obtains the information from him through two unidentified intermediaries, one of whom merely delivers the information to the Service." The same source claims that the bomb-making expert had been seen in the area of Bin Ladin's Sudan farm in December 1995.



Quote:
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. (ref 74)

74. Intelligence report, unsuccessful Bin Ladin probes for contact with Iraq, July 24, 1998; Intelligence report, Saddam Hussein's efforts to repair relations with Saudi government, 2001
.


Quote:
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. (ref 75)

75. Intelligence report, Iraq approach to Bin Ladin, Mar. 16, 1999.



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. (ref 76)

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 con-tacts.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).


Chapter 4 Responses to Al Qaeda's Initial Assaults

Quote:
Though intelligence gave no clear indication of what might be afoot, some intelligence reports mentioned chemical weapons, pointing toward work at a camp in southern Afghanistan called Derunta. On November 4, 1998, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah. The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had "reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."109 This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was "probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qida agreement." Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the "exact formula used by Iraq (ref 110) This language about al Qaeda's "understanding" with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998.

110. NSC email, Clarke to Berger, Nov. 4, 1998. Evidence on Iraqi ties to al Qaeda is summarized in chapter 2.



Chapter 7 The Attack Looms

Quote:
The Hamburg operatives paid for their flight training primarily with funds wired from Dubai by KSM's nephew, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali. Between June 29 and September 17, 2000,Ali sent Shehhi and Atta a total of $114,500 in five transfers ranging from $5,000 to $70,000.Ali relied on the unremarkable nature of his transactions, which were essentially invisible amid the billions of dollars flowing daily across the globe.48 Ali was not required to provide identification in sending this money and the aliases he used were not questioned. (ref 49)

49. CIA cable,"Efforts to Locate al-Midhar," Jan. 13, 2000.We now know that two other al Qaeda operatives flew to Bangkok to meet Khallad to pass him money. See chapter 8.That was not known at the time. Mihdhar was met at the Kuala Lumpur airport by Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi national. Reports that he was a lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi Fedayeen have turned out to be incorrect.They were based on a confusion of Shakir's identity with that of an Iraqi Fedayeen colonel with a similar name, who was later (in September 2001) in Iraq at the same time Shakir was in police custody in Qatar. See CIA briefing by CTC specialists (June 22, 2004);Walter Pincus and Dan Eggen,"Al Qaeda Link to Iraq May Be Confusion over Names," Washington Post, June 22, 2004, p. A13.



Quote:
While Jarrah took his personal trips, Atta traveled to Germany in early January 2001 for a progress meeting with Ramzi Binalshibh. Binalshibh says Atta told him to report to the al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan that the three Hamburg pilots had completed their flight training and were awaiting orders. Atta also disclosed that a fourth pilot, Hanjour, had joined Hazmi. Upon returning to Florida, Atta wired Binalshibh travel money. Binalshibh proceeded to Afghanistan, made his report, and spent the next several months there and in Pakistan. (ref 67)

67. For Atta's trip to Germany and meeting with Binalshibh, see Intelligence reports, interrogations of Binalshibh, Sept. 24, 2002; Dec. 10, 2002; FBI Penttbom timeline briefing (Dec. 10-11, 2003). For Atta giving money to Binalshibh, see ibid. For Atta returning to Florida, see FBI report, "Hijackers Timeline," Dec. 5, 2003 (Jan. 10, 2001, entry citing INS NIIS report; 265A-NY-280350-302, serial 7134). For Binalshibh's trip to Afghanistan, see FBI Penttbom timeline briefing (Dec. 10-11, 2003).


Quote:
When Atta returned to Florida, Shehhi left for Morocco, traveling to Casablanca in mid-January. Shehhi's family, concerned about not having heard from him, reported him missing to the UAE government. The UAE embassy in turn contacted the Hamburg police and a UAE representative tried to find him in Germany, visiting mosques and Shehhi's last address in Hamburg. After learning that his family was looking for him, Shehhi telephoned them on January 20 and said he was still living and studying in Hamburg. The UAE government then told the Hamburg police they could call off the search. (ref 68)

68. For Shehhi's trip, see FBI report, "Hijackers Timeline," Dec. 5, 2003 (Jan. 11 and 12, 2001, entries citing 265A-NY-280350-TP, serials 11182, 11183; 265A-NY-280350-OUT, serials 2248, 2256, Intelligence report).We do not have information on what Shehhi did in Morocco.Atta's cell phone was used on January 2 to call the Moroccan embassy in Washington, D.C. before Shehhi left. FBI report,"Hijackers Timeline," Dec. 5, 2003 (citing cellular telephone records). Shehhi's trip occurred at a time when Abdelghani Mzoudi, one of the Hamburg cell associates, was also in Morocco. Mzoudi claims he went home to Morocco to get married but could not because he was injured in a car accident there. German BKA report, investigative summary re Mzoudi, Jan. 13, 2003, p. 43. He denies having met with Shehhi, and neither German nor U.S. investigators have uncovered evidence of a meeting. See Federal Prosecutor General (Germany), response to Commission letter, June 25, 2004. For Shehhi's family contacting the UAE embassy, which contacted Hamburg police, and the UAE official's search, see German BKA report, investigative summary re Shehhi, July 9, 2002, p. 23. For Shehhi's call home, see FBI report,"Hijackers Timeline," Dec. 5, 2003 (citing 265A-NY-280350-BN-98). For the search being called off, see German BKA report, investigative summary re Shehhi, July 9, 2002, p. 24.


Quote:
Mohamed Atta is known to have been in Prague on two occasions: in December 1994, when he stayed one night at a transit hotel, and in June 2000, when he was en route to the United States. On the latter occasion, he arrived by bus from Germany, on June 2, and departed for Newark the following day. (ref 69)

69. Reports that Atta was in the Prague airport on May 30-31, 2000, and that he was turned back because he lacked a visa appear to be a case of mistaken identity: a Pakistani traveler with a name similar to Atta's attempted to enter the Czech Republic from Saudi Arabia via Germany but was forced to return to Germany because he lacked a valid Czech visa. CIA cable, report re traveler to Prague, Dec. 8, 2001.


Quote:
The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting. (ref 70)

70. For Czech source reporting and credibility assessment, see CIA briefing (Jan. 28, 2004); Eliska T. interview (May 20, 2004). For the information being reported to CIA, see CIA briefing (Jan. 28, 2004). For the leak and the ministers' statements, see CIA briefing (Jan. 28, 2004); Shirley interview (Apr. 29, 2004). On April 4, 2001, Atta cashed an $8,000 check at a bank in Virginia Beach; he appears on a bank surveillance tape. For FBI evidence of Atta being in Virginia Beach, see FBI report,"Hijackers Timeline," Dec. 5, 2003 (Apr. 4, 2001, entry citing 265A-NY-280350-302-615, 688, 896, 898). For FBI evidence of Atta being in Coral Springs, see ibid. (Apr. 11, 2001, entries citing 265A-NY-280350-302, serial 381; 265A-NY-280350-MM, serials 3817, 5214). For Czech government finding no evidence of Atta's presence and having evidence that Ani was not in Prague, see CIA briefing (Jan. 28, 2004). Aside from scrutinizing various official records, the Czech government also reviewed surveillance photos taken outside the Iraqi embassy. CIA briefing (Jan. 28, 2004); Shirley interview (Apr. 29, 2004). None of the people photographed that day resembled Atta, although the surveillance only operated from 8:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. CIA cable, review of surveillance photos, Feb. 27, 2002. For Ani's denials of any meetings and request to superiors, see CIA briefing (Jan. 28, 2004); Intelligence report, interrogation of Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani, Oct. 1, 2003. For KSM's denial of the meeting, see Shirley interview (Apr. 29, 2004). Binalshibh has stated that Atta and he were so close that Atta probably would have told him of a meeting with an Iraqi official. Intelligence report, interrogation of Binalshibh, Oct. 2, 2002. Binalshibh also stated that Bin Ladin was upset with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein for committing atrocities against Iraqi Muslims, and that Bin Ladin would never have approved such a meeting. Intelligence report, interrogation of Binalshibh, Oct. 4, 2002. For Atta not using an alias during his July 2001 trip, see FBI memo, Penttbom investigation, Jan. 14, 2002.


Chapter 10 Wartime

Quote:
President Bush had wondered immediately after the attack whether Saddam Hussein's regime might have had a hand in it. Iraq had been an enemy 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 some of the piloting, especially 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 thought about Iran. (ref 59)

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


Quote:
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 Sad-dam did this," Clarke recalls the President telling them. "See if he's linked in any way." (ref 60)

60. Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror (Free Press, 2004), p. 32. According to Clarke, he responded 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.


Quote:
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. (ref 61)

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 would roam around looking for something to do.While Clarke said he had 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 that anyone would have 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 shortly after 9/11, but did not believe the Pres-ident's manner was intimidating. Roger Cressey interview (June 23, 2004)
.

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. 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. (ref 62)

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 by 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.


Quote:
Within the Pentagon, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz continued to press the case for dealing with Iraq. Writing to Rumsfeld on September 17 in a memo headlined "Preventing More Events," he argued that if there was even a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack, maximum priority should be placed on eliminating that threat. Wolfowitz contended that the odds were "far more" than 1 in 10, citing Saddam's praise for the attack, his long record of involvement in terrorism, and theories that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi agent and Iraq was behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. (ref 73)

73. DOD memo, Wolfowitz to Rumsfeld, "Preventing More Events," Sept. 17, 2001. We review contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda in chapter 2.We have found no credible evidence to support theories of Iraqi government involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing.Wolfowitz added in his memo that he had attempted in June to get the CIA to explore these theories.


In total, based upon the Commission's report, Hussein's Iraq and al Qeada were not in cahoots, and there is no factual evidence that they were partners in international terrorism.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2005 03:37 pm
You waste space.

Why don't you cull out the parts that disprove my points?

Because you can't.

Because they are taken out of the 911 report.

Its funny. You all think I'm no seeing what's in the report--when it is YOU who don't see.

LOL!!!
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2005 04:09 pm
Lash wrote:
You waste space.

Why don't you cull out the parts that disprove my points?

Because you can't.

Because they are taken out of the 911 report.

Its funny. You all think I'm no seeing what's in the report--when it is YOU who don't see.

LOL!!!


If what you say is true about your points, viz., that they come directly from the report, why don't you post the exact passage and footnote and link to them so we all can see this for ourselves?

I provided a link to the report. It is in a pdf form that you can read on-line or you can download it.

Instead of constantly repeating that your talking points are
Quote:
"taken out of the report"
surely then you can direct us to those pertainent passages of which you speak that corroborate your remarks that al qeada and Saddam Hussein were in active cahoots against America.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2005 04:47 pm
I've done this SO MANY TIMES.

I've read the report, kuvasz. I've pointed out the statements that back up my assertions.

However, you need to show me where I said they were in cahoots against America.

This is the main failing of those of you who are trying to disagree with me. Just because I make a claim substantiated by the 911 Commission Report, you all seem hell-bent on running away with that and trying to turn it into additional statements, which I stop short of making.

Exactly what point ARE YOU making re the 911 Report? What point do you assume I am making?
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2005 08:12 pm
Lash wrote:
I've done this SO MANY TIMES.

I've read the report, kuvasz. I've pointed out the statements that back up my assertions.


Where are they on this thread? What section and paragraph of the Report have you posted and linked to? In which post have you included the citation, by page or paragraph from the Report?

Do not avoid the issue. Just post this information. Your entire argument rests upon corroboration by the findings of the Report. Where in the Report is this information?

Lash wrote:
However, you need to show me where I said they were in cahoots against America.


No, you have said the Report substantiates your claim and you have to show those reading this thread where the Report substantiates your position. I have already shown with citation, by paragraph and sentence where the Report butresses my position.

Lash wrote:
This is the main failing of those of you who are trying to disagree with me.


What "main failing" are you referring to?

Earth to Lash; we aren't 'trying" to disagree with you, we do disagree with you and it is because you have provided no direct evidence from the Report to support your opinion.

We are asking you to prove what you said and all you have done is say that you have, but you have offered no evidence citing the Report by page, paragraph or sentence. Surely, and since you have said that you have read the Report, if the statements are there you can find and cite them. If you read the Report, it should be easy for you to cite this information.

Lash wrote:
Just because I make a claim substantiated by the 911 Commission Report, you all seem hell-bent on running away with that and trying to turn it into additional statements, which I stop short of making.


Really? What "claim" have you made that has been substantiated by the Report?

State your claim, state the page, paragraph and sentence in the Report that does so.

No one is running away with anything, unless its you kidnapping the truth here.

Lash wrote:
Exactly what point ARE YOU making re the 911 Report? What point do you assume I am making?


My point is obvious.

I have shown on this thread that once again you don't know what you are talking about and are unable to back up your mere opinions with the facts.

As to your point, I suggest you state it yourself.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2005 08:41 pm
Kuv, we went through this with Lash for page after page after page in another thread. Even if you hammer the text of the Commission Report into her, she'll just try to twist the meanings of the text--she kept telling us that meetings were evidence of cooperation. When all else fails, she'll simply fall back to the continued assertion that there were meetings, there was cooperation, they were in league.

You are wasting your time, Boss.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2005 08:45 pm
It is like Alice's argument with Humpty Dumpty in Throught the Looking Glass. Words mean what ever she wants them to mean.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2005 06:45 pm
This post is a colorific nightmare. Here is the code. Red is straight from the 911 Commission report. Blue is me. Black is Commission Report that I didn't care to make red.

I will not entertain any comments that don't cite specific quotes from the 911 Commission Report.

kuvasz--

I don't mind at all going through this again--as long as we ONLY consider the direct quotes from the 911 Commission. I'm not going to hold myself to that standard, and you start dragging up MoveOn.org and Dem.com theories.

I'm tired of linking to the sites and bringing stuff over, so I'll just highlight some of kicky's excerpts from the previous page.

Quote:
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq,

No one seems to understand that this simple statement completely and utterly negates the "OBL wouldn't work with Saddam due to religious differences. This has been proven, therefore religious differences were OBVIOUSLY not as important to OBL as getting assistance when he needed it.

Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. (ref 53)

Which is important because he later STOPPED THIS BEHAVIOR ON SADDAM'S REQUEST. This is proof that OBL was willing to make concessions for Saddam Hussein. He did Saddam a favor. He complied with a request from Saddam.

53. CIA analytic report,"Ansar al-Islam:Al Qa'ida's Ally in Northeastern Iraq," CTC 2003-40011CX, Feb. 1, 2003.


Quote:
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,

More proof that OBL did a favor for Saddam. He took action to benefit Saddam.


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. (ref 54)

54. Ibid.; Intelligence report, al Qaeda and Iraq, Aug. 1, 1997.

Well, HELLO!!!! Here we have OBL and SADDAM working together!!!! What's that you say...???? Did you say WORKING TOGETHER...??? OSAMA BIN LADEN AND SADDAM, YOU SAY????

Yeah. That's what I say. It's also what the 911 Commission say. An al-Quaida group in Iraq, with Iraq's tolerance. Just what Bush said.


Quote:
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. (ref 55)
Again, OBL not to proud to beg...Saddam. There's "no evidence" that Saddam said OK, but as we have seen, Saddam and OBL have a history of rubbing each others' backs. Why wouldn't he do it? Did he give his good bud some land? Was it named Salman Pak? Maybe.

Quote:
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. (ref 74)

Binny, begging his bud Saddam for more help. They say ONE report poo-poo's the plausibility of Saddam helping him, as asked. What did the OTHER reports say?

Quote:
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. (ref 75)
75. Intelligence report, Iraq approach to Bin Ladin, Mar. 16, 1999.

Um, hello. What does his mean to you?

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. (ref 76)

Quote:
Though intelligence gave no clear indication of what might be afoot, some intelligence reports mentioned chemical weapons, pointing toward work at a camp in southern Afghanistan called Derunta. On November 4, 1998, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah. The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had "reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

[code]Wot?

Wot???


WOT???[/code]
109 This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was "probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qida agreement."

But...how could that be...? a direct result of an AlQuaida/Iraq whatty-wot? Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the "exact formula used by Iraq (ref 110) This language about al Qaeda's "understanding" with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998
.


110. NSC email, Clarke to Berger, Nov. 4, 1998. Evidence on Iraqi ties to al Qaeda is summarized in chapter 2.


. The memo found no "compelling case" that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. .... 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. (ref 62)


There are people who have so much invested in not seeing a connection between Saddam and OBL that they refuse to see what is laid out here in very explicit language.

It gives you very clear instances of the two working together, doing things to benefit one another, helping one another... It is undeniable. Because the Commission couldn't cite specific collaboration in an act of international terrorism DOES NOT preclude them from working together to benefit one anothers' causes. This document in fact, proves that they did.
[/color]

Refute it.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2005 07:05 pm
Quote:
It gives you very clear instances of the two working together, doing things to benefit one another, helping one another... It is undeniable. Because the Commission couldn't cite specific collaboration in an act of international terrorism DOES NOT preclude them from working together to benefit one anothers' causes. This document in fact, proves that they did.


As has been pointed out several times before Lash. This is a silly argument on your part. Refute the fact that the GOP opposed CLinton at the same time that OBL opposed Clinton. That would be defacto proof using your silly standard that the GOP sided with terrorists.

Refute my use of your argument. Until you can do so logically while keeping your argument intact I think it proves that the GOP and YOU personally have worked with terrorists.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2005 07:21 pm
That lame ass dodge from parados proves people who don't want to admit something will do and say anything, no matter how stupid, to avoid the issue.

I showed a couple of instances where they worked together.

Nothing anyone can say changes that fact.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2005 07:38 pm
Lash wrote:
That lame ass dodge from parados proves people who don't want to admit something will do and say anything, no matter how stupid, to avoid the issue.

I showed a couple of instances where they worked together.

Nothing anyone can say changes that fact.



Speaking of lame ass dodges.. nice lame ass there Lash....

You provided only an instance where they APPEARED to work together using your word contortions. It only proves you will do and say anything and twist words to make their meanings be something that is not in the dictionary.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2005 07:41 pm
I used the words straight from the report. If there were contortions, blame the 911 Commission.

You obviously can't refute it. Since you can't, why don't you bother someone else.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2005 07:49 pm
Let's compare these two statements made by Lash....
Quote:

I showed a couple of instances where they worked together.


Quote:
Because the Commission couldn't cite specific collaboration in an act of international terrorism DOES NOT preclude them from working together to benefit one anothers' causes. This document in fact, proves that they did.


I don't know about you Lash, but I am curious how you showed an instance of where they worked together at the same time you admit there is no citation of any specific collaboration.

Quote:
col·lab·o·rate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-lb-rt)
intr.v. col·lab·o·rat·ed, col·lab·o·rat·ing, col·lab·o·rates
To work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort.


Why don't you comment again on how it "proves people who don't want to admit something will do and say anything, no matter how stupid, to avoid the issue. "

The facts don't seem to change Lash... The only thing that changes is your contortion in trying to claim something exists that has no evidence.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2005 08:08 pm
Try this.

Its called ...reading.

Stay with me, parados.


Quote:
I showed a couple of instances where they worked together.


Quote:
Because the Commission couldn't cite specific collaboration in an act of international terrorism DOES NOT preclude them from working together to benefit one anothers' causes. This document in fact, proves that they did.


Working together, and working together on international terrorism are...two....different.....things.

They are shown and proven to have worked together.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/12/2024 at 08:57:25