1
   

62% of republicans thinks sadam was involved in 9/11

 
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 08:33 pm
The facts in the 911 report.

It didn't turn out like you wanted...?
0 Replies
 
Synonymph
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 08:35 pm
You're pathetic, Lash. It's sad.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 08:35 pm
But, syno.

If your case against the possibility that SH and OBL had a working relationship is so incredibly strong that you feel comfortable insulting others who don't share that belief--make your case here. It must be air tight.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 08:37 pm
Insults---you are quite prolific.

Facts, a good case--not a word.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 08:37 pm
fishin' wrote:
"Severe comment"??? Is that what you call members here throwing insults back and forth at each other? lol

Being stupid and ignorant over some stupidity and ignorance that was found by a poll over a year ago doesn't seem to be very productive to me.



I call severe comment Squinney's original intention, and I consider it a worthy piece of news.

A few have been slinging comments back and forth.

I do not think this belies the disturbing nature of the information.

Shrugs.


But with recent arrivals no discussion will be fruitful, so it goes.


I ask again, though, Fishin', do you consider some levels of ignorance amongst overwhelming information disturbing?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 08:37 pm
Lash wrote:
Synonymph wrote:
You Bush supporters are incredibly ignorant.

My opinion is based on the 911 report. What do you base yours on?


It's funny how I base mine on the same thing, yet we come to completely different conclusions, based on the same information.

I guess a good way to find out who is right is by a show of hands.

Okay, so all here who believe that the 911 report shows that Saddam DID have something to do with it, raise your hands and scream "Hell YEAH!"...

<crickets chirping>
0 Replies
 
Synonymph
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 08:38 pm
Knock yourself out, Lash.

Good night.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 08:48 pm
dlowan wrote:
This is truly disturbing news.


Honestly, do these people NEVER read or watch anything but Fox and similar drek?

Such ignorance ought to be punishable by some damn thing or other.

Participating in democracy(such as it is) without due care, or something.

Quite an insult to those with a different opinion. This advanced the vitriol in this thread significantly.

It appears that challenging the unsubstantiated groupthink is upsetting to some. But, they should at least not try to blame others for what they themselves have done--in full view of any who can read.

Syno's comment to me--
You Bush supporters are incredibly ignorant.

dlowan's delusion--

Quote:
A few have been slinging comments back and forth.


But with recent arrivals no discussion will be fruitful, so it goes.


She must have been unaware that SHE was slinging insults, and she could learn a lesson in manners from recent arrivals.

But, I don't blame you for running. You realize you have no leg to stand on insulting those who see a connection within the boundaries of the 911 report.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 08:51 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
It's of little consequence. This isn't the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq.

Who said it was?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 09:14 pm
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 09:29 pm
There was substantial evidence that they were linked prior to 911.

Excerpts from a National Review analysis of the 911 Commission Report:

The report describes a time in 1996 when bin Laden, newly arrived in Afghanistan, could not be sure "that the Taliban would be his best bet as an ally." In 1997, the report says, bin Laden began making his Taliban sponsors nervous with a number of flamboyant and militant statements. At the time it seemed possible that bin Laden, who had gone to Afghanistan after being forced out of Sudan, might find himself at odds with his new hosts. What then? The report says bin Laden appears to have reached out to Saddam Hussein:

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.
Since Saddam wasn't interested, the report says, nothing came of the contacts. But by the next year, Saddam, struggling under increasing pressure from the United States, appeared to have changed his mind, and there were more talks:

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.The meetings went on, the report says, until Iraq offered to formalize its relationship with al Qaeda:

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.
The report goes on to say that the September 11 investigators found "no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."
It also says that the commission did not find any "evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

Nevertheless, top U.S. officials were so worried about the possibility of an Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration that they took care not to provoke bin Laden into a closer relationship with Saddam. In February 1999, for example, the CIA proposed U-2 aerial-surveillance missions over Afghanistan. The report says that Richard Clarke, then the White House counterterrorism chief, worried that the mission might spook bin Laden into leaving Afghanistan for somewhere where it might be even more difficult for American forces to reach him:
Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.
National-security adviser Sandy Berger suggested that the U.S. send just one U-2 flight, but the report says Clarke worried that even then, Pakistan's intelligence service would warn bin Laden that the U.S. was preparing for a bombing campaign. "Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad,"
Clarke wrote in a February 11, 1999 e-mail to Berger. The report says that another National Security Council staffer also warned that "Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad."

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

Obvious close contact far previous to 911.

Why would you ignore it?

Signed,

Lash 3.88
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 09:32 pm
Wait, I think you're all missing the point.

Freedom4free is Squinney?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 10:07 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
It's of little consequence. This isn't the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq.

Who said it was?

Are you unaware that he said repeatedly that his motive for wanting to invade was WMD?
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 11:30 pm


hello lash, hope all is well with your readings, jesus doesn't like liars or confabulators like stephen hayes. and he is well known as one in the intel field, his books on this subject having been so debunked that they are considered fictional pieces or cruel jokes on the truth by intel professionals.

But for some unknown reason his essays and books are brandished like cleavers by the uninformed right wing when in fact they have the intellectual sharpness of warm butter.

you linked an essay by Hayes that is just another superficial distortion that leaves out much information that undermines the general thrust of the argument that Saddam was a harborer of al-Quida or simply an old folks home for terrorists.

or to point to the linked references to the documents provided to the 911 commission, or the select senate intelligence committee )SSCI), where both found no operational evidence of support between saddan hussein and al quida.

in fact if one is to refer to collusion between iraq and al quida because some al quida members were in iraq under saddam's reign, then a case could be made that george bush colluded with al quida because al quida agents were in the US when bush was president.

lets get to the facts here so you don't get taken by hayes again.

first go to the sources:

SSCI Report

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

read it and find where there was any operational support mentioned.

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

Notes of that Report. (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).


Now as to those harboured terrorists....

1. Abu Nidal.

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jwit/jwit020823_1_n.shtml

Quote:




2. Abu Abbas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2952879.stm

Quote:
His capture in Baghdad in April 2003 was used by the United States as evidence that Iraq had been harbouring international terrorists, and his detention an example to others in the post-11 September, post-Saddam climate.

Turning a blind eye to anyone who has a record like his - and his group did murder an elderly, disabled man - was not an option for a US administration. But he was not quite the big catch in the the Americans were seeking for their "war on terror".

Abbas' arrest was not the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda that Washington had been seeking to establish. He came from a different era.

He ended up in Baghdad because there was nowhere else for this aging militant or terrorist leader to go. He and his kind have been partly overtaken by the new zealots from al-Qaeda, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who are motivated by religion as well as nationalism.

Even Israel allowed him in and out of Gaza a few years ago as it accepted that he had given up violence and was supporting the Oslo peace process. Israel could not prosecute him under the terms of the Oslo accords anyway.



Quote:
Two times the Israeli government had the opportunity to arrest him, and Two times the U.S. and Italy could have asked for his extradition," Darshan-Leitner lamented. "I look at the stories [of Abbas' arrest] today. They say they have been looking for this terrorist for 18 years and I just laugh. He was in the Old City [of Jerusalem], at a cocktail party at Orient House [the former offices of the Palestinian Authority]. If the U.S. had wanted to get its hands on him, it could have done so long ago."


http://www.israellawcenter.org/news042503.shtml


3. Abdul Rahman Yasin.

Abdul Rahman Yasin (conspirator in the first WTC bombing),

Was imprisoned by Saddam between 1994 through at least 2002.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/60minutes/main510795.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/02/60minutes/main510847.shtml

4. Abu Musab al Zarqawi

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/abu-musab-al-zarqawi/

Quote:
Zarqawi found shelter in Iran for a while, but Colin Powell didn't care. According to U.S. intelligence, Zarqawi traveled to Iraq in early 2002, and allegedly began associating with Ansar al-Islam, an impoverished group of 600 to 800 Iraqi Kurds whose stated goal was to secede from Saddam's Iraq so that its tiny, ethnically exclusive clan could go hide out in the mountains.

Of course, there's room for a different interpretation of Ansar's role. For instance, if you're Colin Powell and you're desperate to sell an Iraq invasion to the international community, you could argue that Ansar was a "sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder."

The American Heritage Dictionary defines a nexus as "A means of connection; a link or tie." Whatever else Ansar was, it certainly wasn't a nexus.

Geographically stuck between Iran, Iraq and the mainstream Kurds, Ansar was not an effective force in the region. al Qaeda briefly cultivated a relationship with the group, because of its strategic location relative to Afghanistan. When bin Laden and his crew were forced to retreat to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, al Qaeda's interest in Asnar faded.
According to the U.S. pre-Iraq party line, Zarqawi used his "base" in Iraq to stage bombings and terrorist attacks in Turkey and Morocco. Powell told the U.N. that Zarqawi received medical treatment during a stay in Baghdad in May 2002. This was supposed to illustrate Saddam's alliance with al Qaeda. (No one ever talks about the fact that Ramzi Yousef received medical treatment from a hospital in New Jersey after a minor car accident in 1993. Did Bill Clinton personally fluff his pillow?)

As it turns out, the report of medical treatment wasn't even credible to begin with. According to U.S. intelligence, Zarqawi had a leg amputated in Baghdad. Except that most sources now believe Zarqawi is equipped with two working legs. As Newsweek colorfully put in in early 2004, "The stark fact is that we don't even know for sure how many legs Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi has, let alone whether the Jordanian terrorist, purportedly tied to al Qaeda, is really behind the latest outrages in Iraq."

The remainder of Powell's claims about Iraq were less than airtight, as we all know by now. There is virtually no evidence to support claims that al Qaeda and Iraq were working together. bin Laden openly advocated the overthrow of Hussein before the U.S. decided to invade. There may well have been al Qaeda operatives in Baghdad, but there were also al Qaeda operatives in New York, Madrid, Cairo, Fort Lauderdale and Norman, Oklahoma.

…… Despite all the laborious U.S. efforts to prove a link, most independent experts believe Zarqawi is not operating on behalf of al Qaeda, a conclusion which the U.S. military reluctantly conceded in early 2004.

In recent media interviews with captured Ansar al-Islam operatives, the terrorists said they never laid eyes on Zarqawi (the interviewees provided other verifiable information on Ansar activities). Ansar itself has been more or less made obsolete by the U.S. invasion, which spurred an influx of thousands of foreign fighters into Iraq (some al Qaeda-linked, but others not).



So, Abu Nidal was murdered by Saddam.

So, Abu Abbas was free to travel to Israeli held Palestine where the Israeli and American and Italian governments could have captured him, but none did.

So, Abdul Rahman Yasin was a prisoner in Saddam's jails.

So, Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Iraq, but not a part of the country actually under the control of the Iraqi government, and in fact was operating to help Kurdish nationalists overthrow Saddam. And just how many legs does Zarqawi have anyway?


is there anything else you would like to submit?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 11:39 pm
Also, Lash, you're not getting your "facts" from the 9/11 Commission Report; you're getting your "facts" from a National Review analysis of the 9/11 Commission Report, which quotes such "factful" sentences as, "He [Richard Clarke] wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who 'may (emphasis mine) have offered him asylum.'" It also quotes pure conjecture such as, "'Armed with that knowledge [of an possible bombing campaign by the US], old wily Usama will likely (emphasis mine) boogie to Baghdad,' Clarke wrote in a February 11, 1999 e-mail to Berger." And then it adds, "The report says that another National Security Council staffer also warned that "Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad."

This is the way the whole passage actually reads in the 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 4.4:
Quote:
Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight, but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and "Pak[istan's] intel[ligence service] is in bed with" Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: "Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad."135 Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight. Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred."


Chapter 4.4 of the report quotes Clarke as saying in February of 1999, "Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad."

Earlier, in Chapter 4.3 the report says, "Clarke commented that Iraq and Libya had previously discussed hosting Bin Ladin, though he and his staff had their doubts that Bin Ladin would trust secular Arab dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Muammar Qadhafi." That was in November of that year bringing into doubt his conjecture, and Riedel's admonition earlier that year.

The "facts" you have amount to assumptions, and conjectures, brought into doubt by second guessing.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 11:50 pm
apparent software glitch, addendum to 911 report.

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.
[/b]

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.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 01:29 am
Damn, I was wrong about the no more fruitful discussion to be had here.

I don't know how people still have the patience to take the right propaganda seriously enough to bother, but those were interesting posts, guys.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 02:30 am
Yes, indeed - to all of above.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 06:00 am
yes thanks.

So if Saddam clearly was not involved in the 9/11 attacks it begs the question as to why 62% of republicans think he was.

Only one answer as far as I can see...wishful thinking.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 06:25 am
Two observations and then I am out of here.

First, poll results can be made to support just about anything. It is all in how the questions are worded. Most polls of this nature are worthless in my opinion. So who cares what some poll says. Heck, on the few occasions I have been polled on my opinions, I give responses the will really screw up the results just for the fun of it.

Secondly, people will say they believe anything that will help support a particular position. I bet you would still have a majority of people in this country who believe FDR had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor. Or that LBJ was somehow involved in the Kennedy assassination. Or that Elvis is still alive (or at the very least did not die when it was reported). In my opinion, if you believe in an issue strongly enough (ie the US was right to go into Iraq) then the average person will hold onto even the thinnest of reasons to support that belief.

One last thing. It seems to me so many democrats have blasted our presence in Iraq by claiming that Bush went in because of a Hussein-al Quaeda connection that maybe some republicans polled believe that is why he went in and thus are answering the poll in that manner in order to support the president.

I bet if we polled democrats as to why we invaded Iraq, the question could be so worded that a majority of those polled would say we did so just for oil. Or to enrich Bush and his cronies. Or just about any other false reason for invading that is desired. Just as stupid as saying we went in because of a Saddam-al Quaeda link.
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 0.09 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 02:57:12