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

[conjur]

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."

Oh, pulling that Putin claim out now, eh?

Where was that claim 18 months ago, hmmm??

And, there's no assuming there was no Iraq/9-11 link because there wasn't one! The 9/11 Commission Report just came out today and said there wasn't!

There are also no WMDs. The UN inspectors are going back into Iraq to write up a final report that WMDs do NOT exist.


Your whole justification for war is GONE.

 

[conjur]

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.

The 9/11 Commission UNANIMOUSLY has declared that there was NO Iraq/Al Qaeda collaborative relationship and NO link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks

What part of that do you NOT understand?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 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.

For Fiscal Year 2002.

Closing the barn door after the horses have run out, eh?

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 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.

For Fiscal Year 2002.

Closing the barn door after the horses have run out, eh?

Which began in October, 2001 and proposed during the summer of 2001.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: conjur

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.

The 9/11 Commission UNANIMOUSLY has declared that there was NO Iraq/Al Qaeda collaborative relationship and NO link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks

What part of that do you NOT understand?

they concluded that they were not part of the 9/11 attacks. thats right. but it does say that there was an iraq/al queda link, something the liberals have been so fervant in denying. the iraq/al queda link didnt play a role in 9/11, but who knows what might have come out of it. i for one, dont want to find out. maybe you do, i dont know.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: conjur

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.

The 9/11 Commission UNANIMOUSLY has declared that there was NO Iraq/Al Qaeda collaborative relationship and NO link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks

What part of that do you NOT understand?

they concluded that they were not part of the 9/11 attacks. thats right. but it does say that there was an iraq/al queda link, something the liberals have been so fervant in denying. the iraq/al queda link didnt play a role in 9/11, but who knows what might have come out of it. i for one, dont want to find out. maybe you do, i dont know.

Oy vey!

Why do I feel like I'm trying to debate with a bunch of cardboard boxes???


One more time for those that rode the short bus to school:


The 9/11 Commission UNANIMOUSLY has declared that there was NO Iraq/Al Qaeda collaborative relationship.

No one is denying there were contacts. The contacts went NOWHERE.

 

[jackschmittusa]

9-11 report

In sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat.They did not have direction, and did not have a plan to institute.The borders
were not hardened.Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic surveillance
was not targeted against a domestic threat.54 State and local law
enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI?s efforts.The public was
not warned.

Under bush's watch!

and as for the Iraq/aQ connection:

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.62

 

[Todd33]

Haliburton had more ties with Iraq than AQ. Get over those "ties", they were nothing.

 

[villager]

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.

Actually conjurer was probably just watching TV today and heard Lee Hamilton say it. I guess this argument was all summed up when Stephen Hayes, who has been pushing argument, got blown off by both chairmen when he pretty much pleaded for them to throw him a bone.
Column in Post also addresses this dead horse.

 

[Dimkaumd]

I dont think there is anyone here that can deny that the CIA and british intelligence screwed up. Clearly the US spies in iraq didnt do their hw properly, but blaming the president on false (still to early to say whether it was false or not) intelligence is ridiculous.

 

[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.


Iraq assisted Al Qaeda in the manner outlined in the Senate Intelligence report.
The 9/11 commission did not find evidence of a "collaborative" relationship (what ever that means).

What the commision absolutely did not say is that there was "no collaborative relationship". that exact phrase was never used, ever, anywhere, and i defy anyone to produce the exact quote from the 9/11 report that uses the words "no collaborative relationship". If you can't produce the exact quote, than quit lying about it and claiming that's what they said.

to claim that the commission stated "no collaborative relationship" is a lie, a complete fabrication, and utterly false. that statement appears NOWHERE in the commission report.

some people are incapable of reading accurately...hint hint...

 

[jackschmittusa]

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 Saddam
did this,? Clarke recalls the President telling them.?See if he?s linked in any
way.?60 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.61
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.62

It certainly sounds like the phrase "no collaborative relationship" is a pretty good synopsis of the above.

So please excuse me if I suggest that the report found no §©ø¿ing collabrative relationship between AQ and Iraq! No operational relationship! No proof that Sadaam helped the jerks! No provable link that resulted in any joint operation!

I hope this clarifies the point for you. Would you care to discuss it further?

 

[Gaard]

heartsurgeon -

some people are incapable of reading accurately...hint hint...

vaulted. (See the Wilson thread)

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta love it, HS splitting hairs. First, he claims that a collaborative relationship exists between Iraq and Al Qaeda, re training, etc- then points out that the 9/11 report states that there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship...

First, hold up the 9/11 report as Gospel, then deny the truth of the broader conclusions...

We've returned to the Bushian logic of using innuendo and suspicion as "proof"...

Despite repeated warnings, Bush took the attitude that attempting to deal with Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 was "swatting at flies". He was too busy crafting his feed the rich / pander to the fundies domestic agenda and "finding a way" to invade Iraq. His attitude towads the terrorist threat was to underestimate them, to basically take a "Make My Day" attitude... Without 9/11, Bush wouldn't stand a prayer of re-election, given his reactionary domestic policy, and that his foreign policy demands the presence of so-called enemies, even if they have to be manufactured out of thin air...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 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.


Iraq assisted Al Qaeda in the manner outlined in the Senate Intelligence report.
The 9/11 commission did not find evidence of a "collaborative" relationship (what ever that means).

What the commision absolutely did not say is that there was "no collaborative relationship". that exact phrase was never used, ever, anywhere, and i defy anyone to produce the exact quote from the 9/11 report that uses the words "no collaborative relationship". If you can't produce the exact quote, than quit lying about it and claiming that's what they said.

to claim that the commission stated "no collaborative relationship" is a lie, a complete fabrication, and utterly false. that statement appears NOWHERE in the commission report.

some people are incapable of reading accurately...hint hint...

It's called a summary.


But, if you want to go off your logic, here are a few lies from the Administration (oh wait...these ARE lies anyway!):

"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death."

Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).


"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."

Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/12/2003).



"He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."


Source: Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003).

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: 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:

That would be a good start. The border patrol folks could then be redeployed from Florida since no more Cubans would be floating to the shore on a piece of plywood trying to seek refuge. 😉

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
I dont think there is anyone here that can deny that the CIA and british intelligence screwed up. Clearly the US spies in iraq didnt do their hw properly, but blaming the president on false (still to early to say whether it was false or not) intelligence is ridiculous.

It is however, not ridiculous, to blame the president for invading a country and initiating a long, expensive, war, based on this shoddy intelligence, when everyone not blinded by an agenda could see the intelligence was ridiculously weak. Watch Weasel Powell at the UN again, to see how weak the intel was.

Zephyr

 

[umbrella39]

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.

But the point is no such video does or ever will exist. Despite some of your best wishes that it did. Saddam does not equal 9/11

Get over it already. Try and justify all the dead American soldiers some other way. This way is tired, old, and has been debunked countless times.

 

[tallest1]

Apparently everyone here is blind to the fact that theres probably 2 or 3 countries that have had a much more collaborative relationship with Al Queda than Iraq. If Iraq was Bin Laden's top ally, he'd be doomed from the get go. But of course, since we attacked Iraq everything has to point to them while Pakistan, Iran, and Syria play innocent. This entire thread is going over nothing but minor semantics when it comes to the spread of terrorism from that region

 

[heartsurgeon]

I hope this clarifies the point for you. Would you care to discuss it further?

trying to explain things to liberals is like talking to a room full of screaming three year olds..

i never stated anywhere in this post that Saddam and Al Qaeda planned and carried out 9/11 together...
9/11 has nothing to do with the Senate report about Al Qaeda and Saddam to wit i will post it yet again in the hope that someone might actually read it:

* 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

"Gotta love it, HS splitting hairs"

no, it's actually called reading comprehension...it's a lie to claim the 9/11 commission stated that there was "no collaborative relationship"..that's a conclusion you may reach reading their report, but to claim the commission stated that is a lie.

in medical and legal parlance, reports frequently state "no evidence of XXX" that ABSOLUTELY NEVER is taken to mean that XXX doesn't exist, just that the current examination didn't reveal it...and more examinations should be considered to evaluate for XXXX.

Bush took the attitude that attempting to deal with Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 was "swatting at flies".

Yep, except when Sandy Berger/Clinton passed on killing or capturing Bin Laden (four times according to the 9/11 commission), when it was dereliction of duty.

as for the loudest of the three year olds:
"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death." yep, they used nerve gas against the kurds and a few hundred thousands Iranians...perhaps you forgot to read that....

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."Yep...that's true.

"He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Well, turns out you lying buddy Joe Wilson came up with information that actually supports the view that Iraq was seeking to purchase yellow cake uranium in Africa...so this sounds reasonable to me as well, and don't forget the uranium centrifuge equipment dug up in the backyard of a nuclear scientist in Iraq.oops, forgot about that too i suspect.

It is however, not ridiculous, to blame the president for invading a country and initiating a long, expensive, war, based on this shoddy intelligence, when everyone not blinded by an agenda could see the intelligence was ridiculously weak.

Whats ridiculous is to conviently forget that Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and scores of other Democrats who had access to exactly the same information as Bush (remeber that Kerry AND Edwards were on the Senate Intelligence Committee), VOTED TO ALLOW THE IRAQ WAR.

If it was so "obvious" that the inteligence was bad, why did all these super-smart war hating liberal/Democrats vote in favor of the war. They ALL acted based on the information available at the time. Heck, even Clinton (Both of em) were infavor of what Bush did.

 

[jackschmittusa]

heartsurgeon

Let me reiterate:

So please excuse me if I suggest that the report found no §©ø¿ing collabrative relationship between AQ and Iraq! No operational relationship! No proof that Sadaam helped the jerks! No provable link that resulted in any joint operation!

If you do not feel that the report is complete or definitive, what further examinations do you propose? Are you aware of any sources, data, or proceedures that the commission failed to consider?

It certainly seems to me that they asked all the right questions of all the right people and examined what data is currently available. It also seems resonable to me accept that what the commision has presented could be presumed to be a true estimation. No, I cannot be 100% sure that AQ and Iraq did not work together. I suggest that no one can be absolutely sure of most things outside of their own personal experence, but that it would be very hard to function in life if everything we believe to be fact would require absolute proof.

Am I also wrong in remembering that Bush told Congress he needed to be prepared to go to war, but was going to do so only as a last resort? That despite intending to go to war at the earliest opportunity, he offered that he would try other avenues first? That the Congress received the "gussied up" intel reports that excluded all the caveats mentioned in Bush's reports? IMHO, Bush served up the same FUD to Congress that he fed to the public. Bush capitolized on the inherent trust an honor in his position as President to advance a personal agenda.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

"Gotta love it, HS splitting hairs"

no, it's actually called reading comprehension...it's a lie to claim the 9/11 commission stated that there was "no collaborative relationship"..that's a conclusion you may reach reading their report, but to claim the commission stated that is a lie.

in medical and legal parlance, reports frequently state "no evidence of XXX" that ABSOLUTELY NEVER is taken to mean that XXX doesn't exist, just that the current examination didn't reveal it...and more examinations should be considered to evaluate for XXXX.

So, following your "logic", it is appropriate to assert that the Bush administration supported the 9/11 attacks, and perhaps even collaborated with al Qaeda and the Taliban in performing those attacks based on documented contacts between members of the Bush admin and bin Laden, al Qaeda, and/or the Taliban. Although there is little, if any evidence to support this claim, that ABSOLUTELY NEVER can be taken to mean it isn't true. More examinations should be considered to determine the Bush administration's complicit in the 9/11 attacks aqgainst America.

Have I got that right?

Bush took the attitude that attempting to deal with Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 was "swatting at flies".

Yep, except when Sandy Berger/Clinton passed on killing or capturing Bin Laden (four times according to the 9/11 commission), when it was dereliction of duty.

Interestingly enough, Kean and one of the other 9/11 Commission members were on Meet the Press this morning and addressed that issue. Their (well-informed, less partisan) view is that Berger called off those strikes to avoid collateral damage. The two examples mentioned included too close to a school and too close to a mosque.

"He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Well, turns out you lying buddy Joe Wilson came up with information that actually supports the view that Iraq was seeking to purchase yellow cake uranium in Africa

Was he "lying" when he "came up wiith" this information, or just when it suits your agenda? Never mind; your claim is itself a lie.

...so this sounds reasonable to me as well, and don't forget the uranium centrifuge equipment dug up in the backyard of a nuclear scientist in Iraq.

Another piece of disinformation, refuted long ago as you well know. It was a couple of parts and some documentation, buried many years ago.

It is however, not ridiculous, to blame the president for invading a country and initiating a long, expensive, war, based on this shoddy intelligence, when everyone not blinded by an agenda could see the intelligence was ridiculously weak.

Whats ridiculous is to conviently forget that Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and scores of other Democrats who had access to exactly the same information as Bush

Another lie, also refuted again and again, yet repeated by the bleating Bush fan-boys in the hopes people will believe it if they lie often enough. Congress did NOT have access to all the intel Bush did ... not even the Intelligence committees. The PDBs are just one example.

I fully expect you to continue bleating this lie, then running away each time it is refuted.

If it was so "obvious" that the inteligence was bad, why did all these super-smart war hating liberal/Democrats vote in favor of the war.

Because they are political cowards. Bush-lite and his minions did such an effective job of demonizing Iraq, using repetitive innuendo and disinformation (lies) just as you have above, the American public was terrified. It was political suicide to oppose Bush's war-mongering.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

"Gotta love it, HS splitting hairs"

no, it's actually called reading comprehension...it's a lie to claim the 9/11 commission stated that there was "no collaborative relationship"..that's a conclusion you may reach reading their report, but to claim the commission stated that is a lie.
in medical and legal parlance, reports frequently state "no evidence of XXX" that ABSOLUTELY NEVER is taken to mean that XXX doesn't exist, just that the current examination didn't reveal it...and more examinations should be considered to evaluate for XXXX.

This proved once and for all you are full of $hit.

911 report

Quote: (page 66)

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

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin?s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence.

In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin?s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides? hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

 

[heartsurgeon]

This proved once and for all you are full of $hit.

You have a foul mouth, and should be banned for it., along with being illiterate.

.But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

i know this is hopeless, because i've posted the same quote three times now at least, but here we go again:

"to date we have seen no evidence" ....."collaborative operational relationship"

this does not equal

"no relationship"
nor even
"no collaborative relationship"

i'm truely sorry you don't understand the exact meaning of these words. i can assure you they were chosen very carefully by the committee, and mean exactly and only what the words literally mean. you may "interpret" what they said anyway you want, but what the committee meant is contained in the eaxct words they chose, not what bounces around in the vacumn of your head.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, HS, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, and so far, there hasn't been any.....

I could make the accusation that there was some indication that HS is a child molester, but that I can't release the alleged information to protect the children... which would have the same level of proof as the current accusations about the former Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda... which was also the same routine vis-a-vis the Niger forgeries, at the time...

You got nothin', other than the will to believe, and a desire to convince...