• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
How much more lack of evidence do you need?

The 9/11 Commission had YEARS' worth of intelligence data to pore over.

There was NOTHING THERE.



Why was bin Laden operating solely out of Afghanistan? If bin Laden was collaborating with Saddam, wouldn't he have, oh, I dunno, actually been working in Iraq??
 
Originally posted by: conjur
How much more lack of evidence do you need?

The 9/11 Commission had YEARS' worth of intelligence data to pore over.

There was NOTHING THERE.



Why was bin Laden operating solely out of Afghanistan? If bin Laden was collaborating with Saddam, wouldn't he have, oh, I dunno, actually been working in Iraq??
Click to expand...
Sturgeon never said they were collaborating, only that Al Qaeda and Iraq had some connections. Granted probably a lot less than our allies SA and Pakistan.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: conjur
How much more lack of evidence do you need?

The 9/11 Commission had YEARS' worth of intelligence data to pore over.

There was NOTHING THERE.



Why was bin Laden operating solely out of Afghanistan? If bin Laden was collaborating with Saddam, wouldn't he have, oh, I dunno, actually been working in Iraq??
Click to expand...
Sturgeon never said they were collaborating, only that Al Qaeda and Iraq had some connections. Granted probably a lot less than our allies SA and Pakistan.
Click to expand...
Oh, but he THINKS they were collaborating. Just that the evidence hasn't been found yet.

Guilty until proven innocent.
 
This discussion about contact between AQ and Iraq has reached a new level of obsurdidty.

I for one, even quoted the section of the report that mentioned contacts if you recall. Perhaps it will be best to summerize what a number of people have been trying to say in various ways. That summery being: No one gives a rat's ass if they had contact so long as these contacts resulted in no harm to the U.S. or its interests. The commission pointed out quite clearly that they could find no evidence of any such harm resulting from the contacts; ergo: no one gives a rat's ass.

Slightly more crude than my usual posts, but quite demonstrative I think.
 
No one gives a rat's ass
Click to expand...
If your advocating not responding to a growing or potential threat to our national security until after the fact, then your correct.

I believe President Bush's approach has been described as "preemptive"

Certainly, Libya has responded to this approach by abandoning its nuclear program because of Bush's preemption in Iraq....

Do any liberals here deny that Libya "denuclearizing" was a good thing?

Please explain to me how this was not a direct effect of Bush's actions.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
If that's not what you think then tell us why you keep uselessly harping on this point?
Click to expand...

??


BTW, Libya had been in talks with the US and the UK for months prior.
 
Originally posted by: 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..."
Click to expand...

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!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
Wow, that's a lot of talk about lying. Kind of reminds me of this...
Gaard now proudly proclaim NO! HIGHLY DOUBTFUL!!
Click to expand...
 
Gee...if you didn't agree with it, why did you use it in your post?

This is a statement from his first public account of what happened...

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
Click to expand...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

if you now wish to disavow this comment as representing your point of view.....please feel free to proceed!
 
best article yet:

Linky

The report offered new details about the al-Qaeda-Iraq relationship and the commission also backtracked somewhat from an earlier staff report, which found no evidence of a "collaborative relationship."

In the final report, the phrase was modified to say, "no collaborative operational relationship." Adding the word "operational" was an important shift.
Click to expand...

But the commission did find that the two had frequent contacts and a fairly well-developed relationship. There were Iraq-al-Qaeda ties
Click to expand...

By 1999, Clinton administration officials were deeply concerned about the threat posed by an Iraq-al-Qaeda link, especially in light of intelligence reports saying bin Laden had been offered asylum in Iraq. Richard Clarke, then White House counterterrorism chief, wrote to another administration official and mentioned reports saying some Taliban leaders had been urging bin Laden to go to Iraq. If bin Laden did so, Clark wrote, he would be "virtually impossible" to find and "his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service ..."
After Sept. 11, these contacts looked a lot more threatening. Bin Laden had been forced out of Sudan and now his hosts in Afghanistan, the Taliban, had been brought down. The chance that bin Laden might accept the Iraqi offer of asylum could not be dismissed.
Click to expand...

hmmm...Clinton and Clarke were worried about the "threat" posed by an Al Qaeda-Iraq link....hmmmmmm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top