9/11 report states Bin Laden and Iraqi Officials were in talks

[heartsurgeon]

Must just all be coincidence.....

according to 9/11 report (for those of you that don't believe that Iraq and Al Qaeda had any dealings with each other)

"In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afganistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Laden. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings were apparentlt arranged through Bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998...Similar meetings occurred in 1999...Iraqi officials offered Bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afganistan remained more favorable...the reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes...."

for those of you who agree with Sen Kerry that terrorism is something that should be handled as a "law enforcement matter"

"An unfortunate consequence of this superb investigation [into first world trade center bombing] and prosecutorial effort was that it creadted the impression that the law enforcement system was well-equipped to cope with terrorism...the successful use of the legal system to address the first World Trade Center bombing had the [additional] effect of obscuring the need to examine the character and extent of the threat facing the United States."

the Clinton's, Jamie Gorelick, and Reno creat a "wall" that hampers effective cooperation between law enforcement agencies:

"In July 1995, ..Reno issued formal procedures aimed at managing information sharing between Justice Department prosecutors and the FBI...overseen by D.A.G Jamie Gorelick...reguklated the manner in which such information could be shared...The information flow withered."

Clinton gutted the CIA and it's budget:

"the nadir for the Clandestine Service was in 1995, whenonly 25 trainees became new officers"

 

[conjur]

How many times are you going to dredge up this ridiculous crap?

There was NO COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP between Iraq and Al Qaeda.


Get that through your thick skull.

 

[nick1985]

1. we have the worst terrorist attack in history

2. everyone in the world thinks iraq had WMD

3. iraq had talks with al queda(9/11 report says iraq offered bin laden safe harbor)

4. UN negotiations were doing squat

if you knew all this, could you not attack and still rest easy at night? given the circumstances, i think bush made a good decision.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: nick1985
1. we have the worst terrorist attack in history

2. everyone in the world thinks iraq had WMD

3. iraq had talks with al queda(9/11 report says iraq offered bin laden safe harbor)

4. UN negotiations were doing squat

if you knew all this, could you not attack and still rest easy at night? given the circumstances, i think bush made a good decision.

Even back then Bush was saying there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda but yet you think it was a good decision???

😕

 

[heartsurgeon]

1. we have the worst terrorist attack in history

2. everyone in the world thinks iraq had WMD

3. iraq had talks with al queda(9/11 report says iraq offered bin laden safe harbor)

4. UN negotiations were doing squat

if you knew all this, could you not attack and still rest easy at night? given the circumstances, i think bush made a good decision

bingo!

if we hadn't overthrown Saddam, i would venture a guess that Bin Laden would be in Iraq now (out of Afganistan), and some of that binary Sarin that we know Saddam had and could make, would be in Bin Laden's hands...if not more.

the truely depressing facts in the 9/11 commission report are all the complete c=screwups and hand wringing and missed opportunities to deal a body blow to Al Qaeda that Clinton and his merry band of overacheiving lawyers participated in, and the crippling to intelligence services by administrative budget cuts, "legal" opinions that shackled the intelligencve services, and the general malaise of Democrats all the way back to the Church commission in wanting to banish the FBI, CIA and the military into inrelevance...

 

[Dimkaumd]

conjur u seem very naive. lets even assume iraq had nothing to do with 9.11, and lets assume it had no WMD (which remains to be seen, considering they are still finding Iraqi weapons parts in Jordan and Turkey, and god knows what they sent to Iran and Syria. but anyways lets assume those two things. Hussein still provided palestinian terrorists with money which results in direct deaths on several Americans in Israel last year. Hussein oppressed his people (doesnt give us right to attack him for that I know), and Vladimir Putin just announced that he passed intelligence info to US before invasion of Iraq, that Saddam was planning attacks against US interests abroad and terrorist attacks in the US, as he has done with the 1993 world trade center bombing. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/06/21/001.html
""After the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, intelligence repeatedly received information that the official services of the Saddam regime were preparing terrorist acts against military and civil targets on the territory of the United States and beyond," Putin told reporters Friday in the Kazakh capital, Astana, where he was attending a summit of several former Soviet republics."

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
conjur u seem very naive. lets even assume iraq had nothing to do with 9.11, and lets assume it had no WMD (which remains to be seen, considering they are still finding Iraqi weapons parts in Jordan and Turkey, and god knows what they sent to Iran and Syria. but anyways lets assume those two things. Hussein still provided palestinian terrorists with money which results in direct deaths on several Americans in Israel last year. Hussein oppressed his people (doesnt give us right to attack him for that I know), and Vladimir Putin just announced that he passed intelligence info to US before invasion of Iraq, that Saddam was planning attacks against US interests abroad and terrorist attacks in the US, as he has done with the 1993 world trade center bombing. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/06/21/001.html
""After the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, intelligence repeatedly received information that the official services of the Saddam regime were preparing terrorist acts against military and civil targets on the territory of the United States and beyond," Putin told reporters Friday in the Kazakh capital, Astana, where he was attending a summit of several former Soviet republics."

Guess we should Nuke Cuba too while we're at it right :roll:

 

[Dimkaumd]

is cuba planning attacks against us? You tell me

 

[jackschmittusa]

heartsurgeon

Wow! What a way to cherry-pick bits and pieces of the report. Do you suggest the report found Bush and co. without culpability? And any facts you can suggest that lead to your guesses so I won't think it is all imaginary?

 

[Phokus]

I thought heartsurgeon was going to leave P&N? He's a bit of a waffler, isn't he? 😀

 

[heartsurgeon]

Wow! What a way to cherry-pick bits and pieces of the report

i've only had time to read through it once today....
these are just a few of the items that "leapt" out at me.

you're certainly free to "cherry-pick" any bits and pieces of the report out that you find interesting....

assuming you have actually read the report yourself..

it's readily available on line, in it's entirety..

i encourage you to read it.

 

[heartsurgeon]

on July 7, 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee reported:


* That George Tenet provided the Senate Intelligence Committee this assessment in a closed session on September 17, 2002: "There is evidence that Iraq provided al Qaeda with various kinds of training--combat, bomb-making, [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear] CBRN. Although Saddam did not endorse al Qaeda's overall agenda and was suspicious of Islamist movements in general, he was apparently not averse, under certain circumstances, to enhancing bin Laden's operational capabilities. As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training are [redacted] from sources of varying reliability."

* That according to a CIA report called Iraqi Support for Terrorism, "the general pattern that emerges is one of al Qaeda's enduring interest in acquiring chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) expertise from Iraq."

* That the Iraqi regime 'certainly' had knowledge that Abu Musab al Zarqawi -- described in Iraqi Support for Terrorism as "a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner" -- was operating in Baghdad and northern Iraq.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

1. we have the worst terrorist attack in history

2. everyone in the world thinks iraq had WMD

3. iraq had talks with al queda(9/11 report says iraq offered bin laden safe harbor)

4. UN negotiations were doing squat

if you knew all this, could you not attack and still rest easy at night? given the circumstances, i think bush made a good decision

bingo!

if we hadn't overthrown Saddam, i would venture a guess that Bin Laden would be in Iraq now (out of Afganistan), and some of that binary Sarin that we know Saddam had and could make, would be in Bin Laden's hands...if not more.


the truely depressing facts in the 9/11 commission report are all the complete c=screwups and hand wringing and missed opportunities to deal a body blow to Al Qaeda that Clinton and his merry band of overacheiving lawyers participated in, and the crippling to intelligence services by administrative budget cuts, "legal" opinions that shackled the intelligencve services, and the general malaise of Democrats all the way back to the Church commission in wanting to banish the FBI, CIA and the military into inrelevance...

wow...just keep on watching Fox news.... where the grass is greener and eveything is fairer and more balanced

on the more serious note, it hilarious how little you actually know about the situation, yet you are still willing to argue till you die

 

[burnedout]

A couple more snippets from the 9/11 Commission Report that our resident propagandists conveniently neglect to mention during their usual misinformation campaigns:

Page 202:

The administration decided to propose to Congress a substantial increase in
counterterrorism funding for national security agencies, including the CIA and
the FBI.This included a 27 percent increase in counterterrorism funding for
the CIA.

More on Clarke and Predator drones, page 211:

The CTC chief, Cofer Black, argued against deploying the Predator for
reconnaissance purposes. He recalled that the Taliban had spotted a Predator in
the fall of 2000 and scrambled their MiG fighters. Black wanted to wait until
the armed version was ready. ?I do not believe the possible recon value outweighs
the risk of possible program termination when the stakes are raised by
the Taliban parading a charred Predator in front of CNN,? he wrote. Military
officers in the Joint Staff shared this concern.238 There is some dispute as to
whether or not the Deputies Committee endorsed resuming reconnaissance
flights at its April 30, 2001, meeting. In any event, Rice and Hadley ultimately
went along with the CIA and the Pentagon, holding off on reconnaissance
flights until the armed Predator was ready.239

The CIA?s senior management saw problems with the armed Predator as
well, problems that Clarke and even Black and Allen were inclined to minimize.
One (which also applied to reconnaissance flights) was money.A Predator
cost about $3 million. If the CIA flew Predators for its own reconnaissance
or covert action purposes, it might be able to borrow them from the Air Force,
but it was not clear that the Air Force would bear the cost if a vehicle went
down. Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz took the position that the CIA
should have to pay for it; the CIA disagreed.240

Second,Tenet in particular questioned whether he, as Director of Central
Intelligence, should operate an armed Predator.?This was new ground,?he told
us.Tenet ticked off key questions:What is the chain of command? Who takes
the shot? Are America?s leaders comfortable with the CIA doing this, going
outside of normal military command and control? Charlie Allen told us that
when these questions were discussed at the CIA, he and the Agency?s executive
director,A. B.?Buzzy? Krongard, had said that either one of them would
be happy to pull the trigger, but Tenet was appalled, telling them that they had
no authority to do it, nor did he.241

Third, the Hellfire warhead carried by the Predator needed work. It had
been built to hit tanks, not people. It needed to be designed to explode in a
different way, and even then had to be targeted with extreme precision. In the
configuration planned by the Air Force through mid-2001, the Predator?s missile
would not be able to hit a moving vehicle.242

White House officials had seen the Predator video of the ?man in white.?
On July 11, Hadley tried to hurry along preparation of the armed system. He
directed McLaughlin,Wolfowitz, and Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman Richard
Myers to deploy Predators capable of being armed no later than September 1.
He also directed that they have cost-sharing arrangements in place by August
1. Rice told us that this attempt by Hadley to dictate a solution had failed and
that she eventually had to intervene herself.243

 

[MidasKnight]

Originally posted by: nick1985
1. we have the worst terrorist attack in history

2. everyone in the world thinks iraq had WMD

3. iraq had talks with al queda(9/11 report says iraq offered bin laden safe harbor)

4. UN negotiations were doing squat

if you knew all this, could you not attack and still rest easy at night? given the circumstances, i think bush made a good decision.

Agreed. Bush did the right thing and has been doing so all along.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Do you suggest the report found Bush and co. without culpability?

as a matter of fact..i don't recall anything about bush being "culpable
: for anything....clinton is another story.

 

[Jhhnn]

Here's the part that matters-

"As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training are [redacted] from sources of varying reliability."

In other words, they're pumping sunshine up their supporters' skirts, as usual, with fabrications from Iraqi exiles and anything else that might be construed to support their position... then masking the malarkey under secrecy.

Bush did the right thing? Bush wouldn't know the right thing if it bit him in the ass.

 

[sMiLeYz]

"As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training are [redacted] from sources of varying reliability."

Game. Set. match.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: conjur
How many times are you going to dredge up this ridiculous crap?

There was NO COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP between Iraq and Al Qaeda.


Get that through your thick skull.

We could have a video of Saddam and Bin Laden shaking hands and signing a contract to cooperate on attacking the United States and Conjur would still believe our government made it up somehow. Conjur, your head is 100% bone.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

"As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training are [redacted] from sources of varying reliability."

Game. Set. match.

What happened? Lose another game of pocket pool?

What was the varying reliability? Poor to good? Good to excellent? What was the scale and how was each piece of info graded?

As more investigations conclude the more Anti-Bush, Inc. is exposed as the group of red faced, jizz spittle spewing, ranting retards they truly are. If it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious.


OK I lied. It is fscking hilarious.


Heartsurgeon - You and Rip rock on brother. The reaction you guys get is absolutely priceless.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: conjur
How many times are you going to dredge up this ridiculous crap?

There was NO COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP between Iraq and Al Qaeda.


Get that through your thick skull.

We could have a video of Saddam and Bin Laden shaking hands and signing a contract to cooperate on attacking the United States and Conjur would still believe our government made it up somehow. Conjur, your head is 100% bone.

Sure that would convince me too bad for your argument the hand shaking w/ saddam was done by our VP not Osama. And we have THAT on video.

 

[AcidicFury]

Originally posted by: steeplerot

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: conjur
How many times are you going to dredge up this ridiculous crap?

There was NO COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP between Iraq and Al Qaeda.


Get that through your thick skull.

We could have a video of Saddam and Bin Laden shaking hands and signing a contract to cooperate on attacking the United States and Conjur would still believe our government made it up somehow. Conjur, your head is 100% bone.

Sure that would convince me too bad for your argument the hand shaking w/ saddam was done by our VP not Osama. And we have THAT on video.

lol PWNED!

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: steeplerot

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: conjur
How many times are you going to dredge up this ridiculous crap?

There was NO COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP between Iraq and Al Qaeda.


Get that through your thick skull.

We could have a video of Saddam and Bin Laden shaking hands and signing a contract to cooperate on attacking the United States and Conjur would still believe our government made it up somehow. Conjur, your head is 100% bone.

Sure that would convince me too bad for your argument the hand shaking w/ saddam was done by our VP not Osama. And we have THAT on video.

Ok, so now you are comparing our Vice President to a dictator who has killed thousands of people.. Why do I even bother.

 

[Steeplerot]

If the shoe fits....

 

[Jhhnn]

From UQ-

As more investigations conclude the more Anti-Bush, Inc. is exposed as the group of red faced, jizz spittle spewing, ranting retards they truly are. If it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious.

Somehow, some way, I think you've crossed the line. Which is , apparently, to be expected, as the election and Dubya's denouement draw nearer. After the fact justifications aren't justification at all.

As to the reliability of the sources for these new claims, I don't think anybody would even reference it if it were solid, at all... And, of course, there's the whole issue of laying the cards on the table, which the Repubs simply refuse to do. They say it's a flush, and then show four cards, tell us to trust them on the last one...

If you'll go for that one, perhaps I could interest you in a game of three card monty...