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

[imported_CADMaster]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Sadaam, as evil as he is, had no intention of launching or collaborating in any sort of attack against the US. The man is power hungry, and did everything in his power to keep things in his control. Any attack on the US would guarantee his ousting and you better believe he was slightly aware of this fact. Add to the fact that AQ is a militant ISLAMIC terrorist organization. I do believe Sadaam may have turned a blind eye in letting AQ members go through his own country, but is that justification for a full-scale invasion and war?

Hussein tried to have Bush Sr. assassinated.

In addition, I submit an editorial about the threat of Saddam;

here

Exerpt:
"We were right to go into Iraq," President Bush said recently. Is he right?

Before we answer, let's look back at what two politicians were saying about Saddam Hussein not that long ago.

1) "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction (search) technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

2) "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Who were these warmongers? Vice President Cheney? President Bush?

Neither. The first quote is from Rep. Nancy Pelosi,D-Calif., now House minority leader. The second is from President Bill Clinton. Both were spoken in 1998, when politicians from both parties were insisting that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States.

more .............
After his defeat in the Gulf War, Saddam agreed to stop his threatening activities and let the United Nations monitor his compliance. Instead, he continued to threaten the United States and other nations with violence, went on a killing spree ? murdering thousands who stood against him in Iraq ? refused to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors, continued supporting and harboring terrorists, and routinely fired at U.S. and British planes enforcing U.N. no-fly zones.

more ................
We learned on Sept. 11 that modern terrorists and terrorist states are not deterred by threats of retaliation. Al Qaeda knew the United States would strike back, yet acted anyway. Saddam behaved similarly. He remained defiant in spite of a decade of threats and isolation.

Moreover, he maintained a WMD program. While it is true that large quantities of these weapons haven't been found, it's also true that immense amounts of WMD remain unaccounted for and that there was a strong likelihood that Saddam was trying to develop the capacity to produce them through dual-use programs.

more still .............
Saddam openly threatened the United States and its allies, demonstrated his willingness to kill on a mass scale and use WMD and, most importantly, saw the United States as his primary adversary.

 

[jackschmittusa]

CADMaster

Sadaam was a paper tiger after the first Gulf War. The inspections and sanctions kept him well in check. He made belligerent noises, screwed with the inspectors as long as he could, directed hopelessly ineffective AA fire at aircraft in the no fly zone; all to one end. That end was to project himself and Iraq as still meaningful in the grand scheme of things. After his humiliating defeat in the first war he perceived that there was a real possibility that both he and Iraq would be considered marginal at best, and inconsequencial at worst in future developments in the ME. Since he was no longer a military threat and had no glorious victories under his belt to show that he was a brilliant leader, he had few options but the above picayune actions to try and demonstrate that he was still strong and defiant. Under these circumstances, he hardly represented a credible threat to anybody. A true pain-in-the-ass maybe, but not justification for war.

 

[Czar]

CADMaster,
the no-fly zones were not part of a UN operation, that was strictly UK/US thing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/flash/0,9223,488793,00.html

 

[heartsurgeon]

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

the key phrase in this sentence is sources..that means they have obtained this information from multiple sources....while a glib-lib will focus on the "varying" reliability" part on the sentence, the "sources" statement concerns me much more.

once again...its the "glass half-full" approach to analyzing information (remember the refrain "no actionable intelligence", or "law enforcement problem").

Here in is the problem...the Liberal/Democrat/Clintonistas want to treat terrorism like a criminal investigation/prosecution....i mean this is what Kerry has flat out stated (do i need to show you the transcript again where he repeats at least three times that this is primarily a law enforcement problem, and not a military problem)

a criminal prosecution requires "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict. Using this restrictive approach, Sandy Berger and Clinton passed at least four times on nabbing/killing Bin Laden because they were afraid they didn't have enough proof for a "conviction"

well, in a civil prosecution, all you need is a preponderance of evidence to convict, a much lesser standard for a finding of guilt.

well, these differences in finding "guilt" are based upon a desire to "protect the innocent" from conviction of a crime which carries a heavy penalty, it's a system designed to "let a guilty man go rather than convict an innocent man".

well, exactly why do you want to apply that standard of "proof" to a non-citizen, terrorist, "illegal-combatant", whose self-professed goal is to put you in a grave and dance on it?

in these circumstances, i would much rather act on information which is probably true.....which a preponderance of evidence supports.

so what if "sources of varying reliability" tell me some one conspires to harm me. if i hear it from more than one person that these guys are talking about screwing me, i'm not interested in taking any chances...besides, varying reliability must mean that if someone is not very reliable, then some other source is more reliable!

 

[Zephyr106]

Gotta love the fact that half this "haven" "relationship" etc. stuff wasn't talked abour or known before the war as a reason to invade.

It was dug up later as a post war justification ritual.

Zephyr

 

[conjur]

I love how hs is running this into the ground. He's worn the legs down to nubs, all for naught.

No one denies there were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The conclusion is what's important, though. There was NO COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP. That's why bin Laden has been living in Afghanistan, not Iraq. That's why we invaded Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and destroy Al Qaeda. Well, we sort of started to but it never really went anywhere and then it was all forgotten by the administration and the media when Bush went trapsing thru the Iraqi desert.

 

[Gaard]

CADMaster,
I don't believe you were here the last time I asked the members at P&N this question...

If there were no threat of WMD (real or imagined), do you think we would've gone to war? Note: I'm not asking if you feel the war is justified w/ or w/o WMD...that's a completely different subject. 😉

 

[imported_CADMaster]

Originally posted by: Gaard
CADMaster,
I don't believe you were here the last time I asked the members at P&N this question...

If there were no threat of WMD (real or imagined), do you think we would've gone to war? Note: I'm not asking if you feel the war is justified w/ or w/o WMD...that's a completely different subject. 😉

"Would" we have gone? That's a hard one to answer. "Should" we have gone without existing WMD in Iraq? Yes, I believe so.

The key to this issue is intent.

Did Saddam wish to make more war in the region and cause harm to American citizens and our interests?
Without any doubt, IMO, including an Iraqi sponsored assasination attempt on our 41st President.

Should the US have finished the job in 1991? Hell yes.

Is Iraq better off now than it was prior to the fall of Baghdad? absolutely, without a doubt.

Was it worth it? Not only has it been turning out to be "worth it" but WELL WORTH IT. This war has resulted in the lowest monthly casualty rate of any war in US history. And a free Iraq will be an asset to the region and the world for decades to come.

Among casualty rates, Iraqi freedom has seen the lowest averrage casualty rate per month of any major war in US history.

Nearly 200 people in the USA die every single day in auto accidents alone. (about 6000 per month)
WW1 lasted 19 months. Average KIA per month = 2,816
WW2 lasted 44 months. Average KIA per month = 6,639
Korea lasted 37 months. Average KIA per month = 909
Vietnam lasted 90 months. Average KIA per month = 526
GW1 lasted 1 month. KIA total = 148
GW2 has lasted 15 months. 858 total KIA Average KIA per month = 57.2 (As of July 1st)

Just a little perspective

🙂

 

[imported_CADMaster]

sorry, a bit off topic, but I had to say something.

In doing my research for my last post I came across the monthy casualty (death) rates for all US major wars.

What completely astonished me is the number of US casualties PER MONTH in WWII was 6,639.
WWII lasted for 44 MONTHS!!!!

I don't know how the US citizens hung together to finish the war.

It gives a remarkable perspective and ample understanding why we dropped the bomb to finally end the war.

..... back on topic

 

[imported_CADMaster]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
CADMaster

Sadaam was a paper tiger after the first Gulf War. The inspections and sanctions kept him well in check. He made belligerent noises, screwed with the inspectors as long as he could, directed hopelessly ineffective AA fire at aircraft in the no fly zone; all to one end. That end was to project himself and Iraq as still meaningful in the grand scheme of things. After his humiliating defeat in the first war he perceived that there was a real possibility that both he and Iraq would be considered marginal at best, and inconsequencial at worst in future developments in the ME. Since he was no longer a military threat and had no glorious victories under his belt to show that he was a brilliant leader, he had few options but the above picayune actions to try and demonstrate that he was still strong and defiant. Under these circumstances, he hardly represented a credible threat to anybody. A true pain-in-the-ass maybe, but not justification for war.

You post proves "intent" on the part of Saddam to rebuild his Military capabilities to a far greater level.
I truly believe that had Saddam been left to have another 12 years, there's no telling what destruction he may have been able to cause.

 

[Jhhnn]

Multiple sources, HS? Like the alleged multiple sources for the Niger uranium claims? Where the Italians leaked it to the British, French, American and God only knows who else?

When the CIA says it's unreliable, the Bushies just attribute it to the British, who say they have multiple sources- that being the French and the Italians, but there's only one real source, the infamous and clumsy forgeries...

Now, of course, they've become a little trickier, and won't reveal the "classified sources", other than the original, an Iraqi exile group...

As for this whole preponderance of evidence routine, it has been shown, time and time again, that whatever actual "evidence" the Admin possessed was so thin as to be utterly insufficient for an undertaking as serious as War. Over ten thousand people have died, and hundreds of billions of dollars expended. So what we're really talking about isn't just a matter of money, as in a civil case, but about applying the death penalty on a massive scale... to claim otherwise is utterly disingenuous...

 

[heartsurgeon]

No one denies there were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Even Conjur admits there were dealings between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Apparently Jhhnn is pulling a "Dean" and going "left" of Conjur.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

No one denies there were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Even Conjur admits there were dealings between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Apparently Jhhnn is pulling a "Dean" and going "left" of Conjur.

No.

I did NOT say dealings!

I said I do not deny there were contacts.

Dealings implies a working relationship. There was NO working relationship.

 

[Jhhnn]

I didn't deny that there may have been contacts, HS, I denied that they've been proven in any way meaningful to anybody other than the Bush faithful. All we have are references to sources that remain shrouded in secrecy, alleged testimony and reports from folks who obviously have their own axe to grind, all wrapped in suspicion, innuendo, and a will to believe.

It's not like U2 pictures of Russian missile sites in Cuba, it's a helluva lot more vague than that. And we've seen where such information has led us in the past, particularly when it comes from the Bush Admin...

 

[arsbanned]

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

More right-wing nutjob lies. The Commission has stated unequivocally, there was NO OPERATIONAL dealings between al Q and Iraq. NONE. NADA. ZIP.
Carry on.

 

[heartsurgeon]

your calling the 9/11 commission report a "rightwing nutjob lie"?

bravo...you have moved left of Jhhnn and Conjur both!!

All hail the new Dean!

The Commission has stated unequivocally, there was NO OPERATIONAL dealings between al Q and Iraq.

And i hate to point this out yet again, that to be entirely accurate, you are the liar. the 9/11 commission never stated that there was "no relationship"....

prove me wrong!! you can't! show me the exact sentence where that is stated...you can't because that isn't what they said.

they said they had no evidence at this time of such a relationship....

your conclusion is that there was no relationship...your entitled to your opinion, but quit lying and claiming that the commssion said this,

you know, it took about 40 years to prove that the Rosenbergs were Soviet agents, and passed on A-Bomb plans to the Soviets. it took the release of the Venona cables, and declassification of Soviet files to prove the Rosenbergs were guilt as sin, and that took 40 years.

lack of evidence does not mean innocence....merely lack of evidence...

as i said, quit lying about what the commission said. if you want to state your opinion or intrepretation of what they said, that's legitimate, but tho falsely state something over and over again, doesn't make it real, inspite of your "beliefs"

have a good day.

 

[jackschmittusa]

CADMaster

You post proves "intent" on the part of Saddam to rebuild his Military capabilities to a far greater level.I truly believe that had Saddam been left to have another 12 years, there's no telling what destruction he may have been able to cause

Nothing but pure speculation on your part. And you can nitpick all you want, but you cannot demonstrate the the sanctions and inspections were not working to contain him and his bad intentions. Does your crystal ball see any more people with bad intentions who might be a problem in 12 years? Perhaps a new policy is in order, you know, pre-emptive war based on 12 year projections. Nothing like nipping things in the bud.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
lack of evidence does not mean innocence....merely lack of evidence...

If it were a court of law, in your opinion, the defendant should still be found guilty despite the lack of evidence.

Amazing.

Seriously, heartsurgeon, what *is* the color of the sky in your world?

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: 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"

I cant trust any source that has this many typos... ill stick with spellchecked sources TYVM

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: 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.

Ultraquiet... you are an indisputable idiot. Even if I were a Bush supporter I would hate to have such an ignorant lackey supporting my opinions. Do everyone a favor and use evidence to support your position instead of nonsense bashing - go back to OT.

"Former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean chairs the 9/11 Commission, and former U.S. Congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana is the vice chairman. They joined Chris Matthews, on Wednesday, to talk about their 9/11 report, the lack of an Iraq connection, as well as the roots of extremism.

advertisement

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This is a development a lot of people will find clarifying is that there was no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

THOMAS KEAN, 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Well, that's what our staff has found. Now, it doesn't mean there weren't al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years. They're somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there. But with 9/11, no, our staff has found no evidence of that.

MATTHEWS: Mr. Hamilton, so many polls have been taken that shows the American people, almost three-quarters of the people, believe there was a connection. How do we rectify that? Is your commission going to clarify that to the extent that people won't still be singing country music that says ?remember how you felt??

LEE HAMILTON, 9/11 COMMISSION VICE CHAIRMAN: All we can do is state as clearly as we can what the evidence is that we have found. We have found no operational collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden with regard to attacks on the United States. That conclusion is a very firm one that we have reached.

What the governor referred to is also true. There are all kinds of ties. There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein lieutenants.

They had contacts, but what we did not find was any operational tie with respect to attacks on the United States."

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: 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.

So even though the commission said they found no evidence... you use their report to say there actually was a collaborative relationship... JESUS MAN!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jackschmittusa]

CADMaster

I also meant to ask if you attended the "McNamara School of Combat Analysis". Monthly casualty rates do not define the quality of a war. Nor do they provide justification for war. And I have yet to see any tangible benefit resulting from this war, so there is nothing on the other side of the scale to balance these casualties against. I'm sure that the families of our dead G.I.s will take great consolation from the fact that this was a cheap war in terms of lives lost even though the casualty rate of their loved ones involved was 100%. Charts and graphs and columns of figures are a very pristine way of looking at war and its effects. We should never forget that war is all about death, destruction, and suffering. The true nature of war is what needs to be considered before you embark on it and counts heavily in deciding whether it is worth it. I am in no way anti-war, and have been called a hawk in times gone by. But I do oppose frivolous and unnecessary war.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
heartsurgeon

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.

I would love to see a response from heartsurgeon on this topic as well however it is my prediction that instead it will be continually ignored by him.

 

[arsbanned]

as i said, quit lying about what the commission said. if you want to state your opinion or intrepretation of what they said, that's legitimate, but tho falsely state something over and over again, doesn't make it real, inspite of your "beliefs"

This would apply to you, not me. ? Thank you though. Saves me from having to write it.
Once again, the commision states there was no operational collaboration between al Q and Iraq. None.

You should try paying equal attention to the Bin Laden/Bush relationship. There is more evidence there of an "operational collaboration".

 

[heartsurgeon]

Well thanks for all these illuminating posts!

lets go over the new facts.

stnicralisk has provided us with the following:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This is a development a lot of people will find clarifying is that there was no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
THOMAS KEAN, 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Well, that's what our staff has found. Now, it doesn't mean there weren't al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years. They're somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there....LEE HAMILTON, 9/11 COMMISSION VICE CHAIRMAN:...What the governor referred to is also true. There are all kinds of ties. There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein lieutenants..."

BINGO! this is what i have been stating all along!! thanks for re-re-re-confirming what i have been saying in this post.

So even though the commission said they found no evidence... you use their report to say there actually was a collaborative relationship... JESUS MAN!!!!!!!!!!

Your lies are now expanding..please show me exactly where in this post i have ever said that Al Qaeda and Saddam had an "collaborative relationship". You can't because i never did. you keep lying about what the commission said, and now your lying about what I have said.

Please move on to another topic if you insist on lying, you have many other topics where i am sure lies are welcomed and encouraged.

My post, the report of the 9/11 commission, and now the transcripts of the co-chairman of the committee talkibng to Chris Mathews, all confirm that Al Qaeda and Saddam had "all kinds of connections".

i would be surprised if any liberal poster will now come forward and admit to even that being true.
the last honest admission i got from a liberal was that Al Qaeda and Saddam had "contacts".

Will anyone now fess up that Al Qaeda and Saddam had "connections"?

Also, will anyone fess up that the 9/11 commision stated they had at this time, "no evidence" of a collaborative operational relationship?

Anyone?

Anyone?