The Plain Truth
- Thread starter Ferocious
- Start date
Read that and than read this.
Commission confirms links
By Stephen J. Hadley
A 9/11 commission staff report is being cited to argue that the administration was wrong about there being suspicious ties and contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In fact, just the opposite is true. The staff report documents such links.
The staff report concludes that:
? Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan."
? "A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994."
? "Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan."
Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there."
...."
I wonder if the hack that wrote that piece will apologize to Pres. Bush for lying about what the commission actually said.
Commission confirms links
By Stephen J. Hadley
A 9/11 commission staff report is being cited to argue that the administration was wrong about there being suspicious ties and contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In fact, just the opposite is true. The staff report documents such links.
The staff report concludes that:
? Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan."
? "A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994."
? "Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan."
Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there."
...."
I wonder if the hack that wrote that piece will apologize to Pres. Bush for lying about what the commission actually said.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,879
- 10,690
- 147
It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.Originally posted by: GoodToGo
Can you post the article please, too lazy to register
Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.
Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it's possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.
Nevertheless, the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. And since the invasion, administration officials, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, have continued to declare such a connection. Last September, Mr. Bush had to grudgingly correct Mr. Cheney for going too far in spinning a Hussein-bin Laden conspiracy. But the claim has crept back into view as the president has made the war on terror a centerpiece of his re-election campaign.
On Monday, Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is "the best evidence" of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime.
The staff report issued by the 9/11 panel says that Sudan's government, which sheltered Osama bin Laden in the early 1990's, tried to hook him up with Mr. Hussein, but that nothing came of it.
This is not just a matter of the president's diminishing credibility, although that's disturbing enough. The war on terror has actually suffered as the conflict in Iraq has diverted military and intelligence resources from places like Afghanistan, where there could really be Qaeda forces, including Mr. bin Laden.
Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.
There you go.
Read the article again, Dubya and co has always said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." The Chairman himself said that there are ties but they are shadowy. Seems like the Chairman is not sure himself what ties were there. Far cry from the long established ties.
Read the article again. It was not the job of the 9/11 panel to investigate the links between Saddam and Al Queada but to investigate how 9/11 happened. Yet the panel did find their were links between the two, just not on that operation.
The point is how the some tried to mischaracterize what the panel said.
hey if someone spoke to someone on the phone once, legally you could say they established contact... surely GWB couldn't justify going to war based on that.
the question is did they cooperate/participate/aid/collaborate in the attacks on US? the clear answer to that by the panel is NO
end of discussion
the question is did they cooperate/participate/aid/collaborate in the attacks on US? the clear answer to that by the panel is NO
end of discussion
Wow, it's so early in the morning for such a spin.
No, Pres. Bush did not go into Iraq based on Iraq/AQ ties. That's a nice try on your part but ignores the facts.
Wow, it's so early in the morning for such a spin. Read Dubya's letter to Congress requesting authority to invade Iraq.
From Etech-
You speak of facts, yet ignore them-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
And will undoubtedly continue to do so, as this bit of information has been posted many times, along with others...
Why don't you rephrase the obfuscational legalese into something that doesn't say the invasion of Iraq was required because of terrorist affiliations? Go ahead, give it a shot, dance on the head of a pin...
You speak of facts, yet ignore them-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
And will undoubtedly continue to do so, as this bit of information has been posted many times, along with others...
Why don't you rephrase the obfuscational legalese into something that doesn't say the invasion of Iraq was required because of terrorist affiliations? Go ahead, give it a shot, dance on the head of a pin...
Then get someone to read it to you. It clearly ties the invasion to 9-11, thus to Al-Qaida. Bad try on your part.
it's rather tiresome that Bush-Haters in this forum keep stating a fabrication over and over again that the commission stated thee was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda..
that is not what they stated.- That's "the plain truth"
but keep it up, the liberals will beat this fabrication into the ground and overplay their "hand" and the "swing" voters will see the rabid partisan nature of those who are lying about what the commission reports.
that is not what they stated.- That's "the plain truth"
but keep it up, the liberals will beat this fabrication into the ground and overplay their "hand" and the "swing" voters will see the rabid partisan nature of those who are lying about what the commission reports.
ok, once and for all, lets get this straight...
Someone from Iraq did meet with OBL in Sudan in 1994 - neither side is denying that, and by all accounts, the outcome of this meeting was no working agreement of any kind between the two parties.
There 'may' have been further contact between the two subsequent to that, but there is no evidence of such a meeting(s) - this could be some of the "shadowy" area.
The alleged meeting in Prague, cited by Powell and Bush, between an Al-Q man and an Iraqi, never actually took place - and there was doubt raised about that meeting prior to Bush and Powell using it as a bullet point.
Zar-Q, according to the HEAD of the CIA, wasn't working with Saddam in any way, shape, or form. His presence, if accurate, in Iraq now is in no way an indication of a tie with Saddam.
No connection to Saddam and any 9/11 planning or funding has ever been found.
There, that is the entire "Iraq - Al-Q" link, corroboration, contact list - whatever you want to call it, there it is.
You tell me if that is even worth quoting as part of the justification for going to war.
E-tech, nice ability to understand what you read....lets try this again..
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
What part of (2) doesn't imply that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? I understand partisianship, but denying it was implied is beyond reason.
Someone from Iraq did meet with OBL in Sudan in 1994 - neither side is denying that, and by all accounts, the outcome of this meeting was no working agreement of any kind between the two parties.
There 'may' have been further contact between the two subsequent to that, but there is no evidence of such a meeting(s) - this could be some of the "shadowy" area.
The alleged meeting in Prague, cited by Powell and Bush, between an Al-Q man and an Iraqi, never actually took place - and there was doubt raised about that meeting prior to Bush and Powell using it as a bullet point.
Zar-Q, according to the HEAD of the CIA, wasn't working with Saddam in any way, shape, or form. His presence, if accurate, in Iraq now is in no way an indication of a tie with Saddam.
No connection to Saddam and any 9/11 planning or funding has ever been found.
There, that is the entire "Iraq - Al-Q" link, corroboration, contact list - whatever you want to call it, there it is.
You tell me if that is even worth quoting as part of the justification for going to war.
E-tech, nice ability to understand what you read....lets try this again..
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
What part of (2) doesn't imply that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? I understand partisianship, but denying it was implied is beyond reason.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter