No Connection

[Lefty Wilbury]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122934,00.html

Report Bluntly Contradicts Bush?

The Associated Press leads off its story on a new 9/11-commission report by saying the document -- "bluntly contradict the Bush administration" by claiming to have no credible evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th terrorist attacks.

In fact, the Bush administration has never said that such evidence exists. President Bush denied a connection to 9/11 as recently as last September, saying -- "we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th."

Bush went on to say, -- "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties" -- an assertion that the commission's report actually supports.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

"This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida," he said.

That won't stop the anti-Bush crowd from putting those words in his mouth.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

------

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by tim_duncan2000
That won't stop the anti-Bush crowd from putting those words in his mouth.

I wonder how 70% of the nation got the idea that hussein was responsible for 9/11?

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by tim_duncan2000

The CIA did help some of the groups against the Soviets, but no one really knew much about Bin Laden then. Also, many of those people would end up being part of the anti-Taliban forces (which was pro-AQ) in Afghanistan.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the NA.

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I wonder how 70% of the nation got the idea that hussein was responsible for 9/11?

This began happening on the night of Sept. 11, 2002, the anniversary of the horror. Bush gave a presidential address at night in DC. Behind one shoulder was the Washington Monument and behind the other was an billowing US flag. The speech begins as a tribute to the fallen innocents of 9-11-01. But quickly and heartlessly and seemlessly, Bush shifts from Al Qaeda and Laden to Iraq and Hussein. He would contiue to do this for months. He completely manipulated the American public.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Now the NYT wants Bush to apologize.

Bush 'must apologise' for lies
17/06/2004 10:02 - (SA)

Washington - The New York Times on Thursday called on President George W Bush to apologise to the American people for going to war on Iraq after an official probe into the September 11 attacks found no evidence linking Iraq and al-Qaeda.

"Now President Bush should apologise to the American people, who were led to believe something different," the Times editorial said.

"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."

A panel investigating the 11 September, 2001 attacks said on Wednesday there was no "credible evidence" Iraq had helped Osama bin Laden's extremist al-Qaeda network to attack the United States and no sign of any "collaborative relationship" between Baghdad and the group.

The conclusions of the independent panel dealt another blow to Bush's justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime, which was also charged with possessing as yet undiscovered weapons of mass destruction.

Diminishing credibility

"This is not just a matter of the president's diminishing credibility, although that's disturbing enough," The New York Times said.

"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."

Bush, the daily added, is responsible for his government's actions since September 11. "That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-al-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," concluded the Times.

But the Washington Post pointed out that the 9/11 panel's report "has not denied there were contacts" between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda, shoring up the Bush administration's contention that it never suggested Iraq was behind September 11 but that it did have long-established ties with the group.

It criticised Bush administration foes for seizing on the commission's sentence that it found "no credible evidence" linking Iraq to September 11 to claim the White House has been lying.

"The accusation is nearly as irresponsible as the Bush administration's rhetoric has been," the Washington Post editorial said.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,6119,2-10-1460_1543861,00.html

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I wonder how 70% of the nation got the idea that hussein was responsible for 9/11?

Have a look at the poll in 9/13/2001 before any mention of Iraq and notice that 78% of Americans already assumed it was either very likely or somewhat likely Saddam was personally involved in the planning.

Remember it was only two days later... who knew?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm

How likely is it that Saddam Hussein (INSERT ITEM) ? Would you say that it is very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely?

--------Likely------- -------Not Likely------ No
NET Very Somewhat NET Not very At all opin.
a. was personally involved in
the September 11 terrorist
attacks 69 32 37 28 15 12 3
b. has provided assistance to
Osama bin Laden and his
terrorist network 82 51 31 14 8 6 4
c. was trying to develop weapons
of mass destruction 84 62 22 14 9 5 3
d. had already developed weapons
of mass destruction 78 51 27 19 12 7 3

a. was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks

--------Likely------- -------Not Likely------ No
NET Very Somewhat NET Not very At all opin.
8/11/03 69 32 37 28 15 12 3
2/6/03* 72 34 38 25 16 9 3
10/24/02 71 34 37 25 16 9 4
9/13/01# 78 34 44 12 9 3 9

* 2/6/03 and previous - Time/CNN. "…personally involved in the terrorist attacks
(on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon) on September 11th (2001) -- very likely,
somewhat likely…"
# "How likely is it that Saddam Hussein is personally involved in Tuesday's terrorist
attacks..."
b,c,d. No trend.

By Bush's "axis of evil" speech fewer people actually believed Saddam was personally responsible.

Bush's speech never actually claimed Saddam had backed 9-11, that's simply a myth the left repeated as a "Bush Lie" long enough until no one really remembered what was actually said.

We all understand how ties to terror existed in Saddam's regime well before 9-11... giving asylum to Abu Nidal was a known murderer of Americans. Paying out 15K to Palistinian families of suicide bombers, trying to assassinate our president... shooting at our fighters in violation of their treaty... raping the people of oil to get kickbacks from the UN... flogging athletes and all the other crap which sucked up our resources for 13 years.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122934,00.html

The A.P. wants to maintain the 9-11 commission "bluntly contradicts Bush" on Saddam's role in 9-11. But also reports total agreement that all of Bush's statements were truthfull?

78% of Americans as of 9/13/2001 were jumping to conclusions and it was actually after the "axis of evil" six months later when the left took a solid position against invading Iraq.

Only then did Bush become responsible for the remaining 70% who weren't willing to deny any Iraqi role in terrorism and that's when the "Bush Lie" over Saddams' 9-11 role became an issue for the first time.

 

[SlappyJack]

SHould we question bin Laden and al Qaeda's connection/non-connection with Iraq? I don't think so. Iraq was a rogue regime in the eyes of al Qaeda and those fighting the Jihad (or holy war, sorry...had to put this in since the news agencies always do...like we don't know what it means by now). This Shakir talk is bogus. No one has any REAL background on him and who knows where he is now. For all we know, he may have not been the same guy. The meeting in Prague bewteen Atta and the "unidentified Iraqi agent" (convenient) has been refuted by both the 9/11 commission and was long ago by the Czechs.

Should we question the relationship between the Bush family (Carlyle, Harken), Cheney (Halliburton, Enron), Condoleeza Rice (Chevron), Hamid Karzai (Unocal), and the Saudi Royals and bin Laden family? Certainly, we should. Why? Because they all hold interest in the same companies who are jockeying for their piece of the pie in the Caspian Sea oil fields. Who stands to make MILLIONS of dollars as a result of USA occupation in this region? All of the above, plus more in Bush's cabinet. Why don't people feel uneasy at all about this when most of the 9/11 perps were Saudis??

 

[DKSuddeth]

How sure of this intelligence can we really be seeing as that 6 of the 19 hijackers turned up alive and out of the country after the government named them, along with the shoddy WMD reports, and such.

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
How sure of this intelligence can we really be seeing as that 6 of the 19 hijackers turned up alive and out of the country after the government named them, along with the shoddy WMD reports, and such.

Yeah. I agree. Also, why do some people on this site put more stock on one WSJ article than they do in a bipartisan committee that has interviewed scores of top officials and has a team of experts inspecting every piece of paper and every tape recording relevant to the 9-11 hijackings? Seems pretty desperate to me.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by menewa
Yeah. I agree. Also, why do some people on this site put more stock on one WSJ article than they do in a bipartisan committee that has interviewed scores of top officials and has a team of experts inspecting every piece of paper and every tape recording relevant to the 9-11 hijackings? Seems pretty desperate to me.

bipartisan committee? hardly. but thats beside the point.

One thing I've noticed is that the die hard conservatives are just as stubborn as the die hard lefties when it comes to taking a single source over a dozen others to show that they couldn't be wrong.

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
bipartisan committee? hardly. but thats beside the point.

One thing I've noticed is that the die hard conservatives are just as stubborn as the die hard lefties when it comes to taking a single source over a dozen others to show that they couldn't be wrong.

But I though the committee is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats? I swear that's what the Newsweek told me.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by menewa
But I though the committee is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats? I swear that's what the Newsweek told me.

They lied

On paper they are split evenly by party, but they lose credibility (with me anyhow) when they make political statements and inject their own opinions instead of sticking to the investigation.

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
They lied

On paper they are split evenly by party, but they lose credibility (with me anyhow) when they make political statements and inject their own opinions instead of sticking to the investigation.

So which side do you think the commission is leaning towards? These people were all picked by Bush people, right?

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by menewa
So which side do you think the commission is leaning towards? These people were all picked by Bush people, right?

follow the money

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by SlappyJack
The meeting in Prague bewteen Atta and the "unidentified Iraqi agent" (convenient) has been refuted by both the 9/11 commission and was long ago by the Czechs.

Bullshit.

I argued this same subject a while back. Behold!

PRAGUE, Czech Republic (CNN) -- Suspected terrorist hijacker Mohammed Atta contacted an Iraqi agent to discuss a terror attack on the Radio Free Europe building in the Czech capital, Prague, Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman told CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europ...inv.czech.atta/

Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross said last year he took issue with U.S. press reports that the meeting did not take place. "I believe the counterintelligence services more than journalists," Mr. Gross told a Prague newspaper.
Mr. Gross told reporters last year that Atta visited Prague twice in 2000 and then met al-Ani, who was expelled from the country on April 22, 2001, for intelligence activities.
U.S. officials said Czech intelligence is 70 percent certain the meeting took place at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague.
The Bush administration made no reference to any Prague meeting in the months leading up to the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.
The intelligence community released information indicating that an al Qaeda "associate," Abu Zarqawi, ran a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq with the support of Iraqi intelligence.

http://washingtontimes.com/national...93909-9839r.htm

The Czech envoy to the UN has confirmed that an Iraqi agent met with suspected Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, in the latest rebuke to widespread U.S. media reports dismissing the Prague encounter as a fabrication.

"The meeting took place," Hynek Kmonicek, a former deputy foreign minister, told The Prague Post flatly in a New York City interview.

Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross announced last fall that Atta and Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a second consul at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague, had conversed at least once, in April 2001. Gross would not rule out other encounters.

The controversial meeting became known as "the Prague connection" and was mentioned frequently as a possible pretext for renewed hostilities between the United States and Iraq.

Al-Ani was expelled from the Czech Republic April 22, 2001 -- less than a month after the conversation -- for "engaging in activities beyond his diplomatic duties," a phrase usually reserved for allegations of spying or terrorist-related activities.

http://www.praguepost.com/P02/2002/20605/news1a.php



And, finally, here's another one by Ken Adelman (a favorite writer of mine) :


My occasional breakfast-mate, CNN's Bob Novak, gets it right most of the time.

But last week, he got it all wrong on the most important issue facing our national security.

Shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross shocked the world by saying: "We can confirm now that during his trip to the Czech Republic" in April 2001 (his second such trip there), Sept. 11 terrorist ringleader Mohamed Atta "did have a contact with an officer of the Iraqi intelligence, Mr. Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani."

But recent reports in The Washington Post and its sister publication Newsweek called that assessment into question. This prompted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to profess "I don’t know" when Novak asked him whether or not Atta flew to Prague to meet with an Iraqi agent before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Novak then used Rumsfeld’s remarks to justify his own longstanding opposition to the United States attacking Saddam Hussein and removing him from power [see "A Must Meeting for the Attack-Iraq Crowd," Washington Post, May 13].

But in doing so, the ace reporter got it all wrong.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53349,00.html

Here's a few other bonus articles that people seem to forget :

Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...4/27/walq27.xml


(AP) Documents discovered in the bombed out headquarters of Iraq's intelligence service provide evidence of a direct link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network, a newspaper reported Sunday.

Papers found Saturday by journalists working for the Sunday Telegraph reveal that an al Qaeda envoy met with officials in Baghdad in March 1998, the newspaper reported.
One document, dated Sept. 25, 2001, from Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri to Saddam's palace, was based on a briefing from the French ambassador in Baghdad and covered talks between presidents Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush.

Separately, The Sunday Times reported that its own journalists had found documents in the Iraqi foreign ministry that indicate that France gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials.

The newspaper said the documents reveal that Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private transatlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003...ain551632.shtml

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
Does anyone wonder when Cheney will come back to the real world? Just two days ago, Cheney said Iraq had "long established ties" with al Qaeda, which is completely unsubstantiated.(Forgive me if I ignore what the rightwing WSJ and newsmax have to say on that matter)

If al-Qaeda and Iraq are so close, how can there be no connection between 9/11 and Iraq?

I may be late in saying this but why dont you read what the commission actually said and what Cheney actually said.

1)No one in the administration has ever claimed that Iraq was directly tied to 911.

2)Both the administration and the 911 commission have sited connections between Iraq and Al Queda. the commission in the very paragraphs that the media has been pulling this quote out of context in.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

1)No one in the administration has ever claimed that Iraq was directly tied to 911.

Yes they did. Look at the quote of Cheney's:"long established ties "

2)Both the administration and the 911 commission have sited connections between Iraq and Al Queda. the commission in the very paragraphs that the media has been pulling this quote out of context in.

But what are those connections? It seems like nothing but a word game. The US and al Qaeda have had connections, Spain and al Qaeda have had connections, but they are all very bad connections.

For all we know they were trying to sell shoes to the guy.:

 

[Avatar4321]

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/110598africa-bomb.html

Interesting. an indictment against Bin Laden in 98 citing connectins between Osama and Iraq.

So the facts are the Al Queda and Saddam have been known to be connected for the last 6 years! Anyone want to tell me how President Bush had the forsight to get the former administration to lie for him?

Whats more, this interesting enough proves that President Clinton is lying when he said he had nothing to prosecute Bin Laden on so he never pursued him. Obviously he must have had something if the administration indicted him.