Powell: No connection between Iraq and 9/11

[nakedemperor]

On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who "provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."

In Wisconsin on Friday, he said the "al Qaeda organization had a relationship with the Iraqis."

Ok, so he doesn't explicitly say that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, but does anyone else think this kind of language could be confusing people in terms of the scope and magnitude of the "relationship" between al Qaeda and Iraq, even thought the 9/11 Commission stated explicitly that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Saddam?

I think Powell has some balls for what he said the other day. He said "But I have seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11." Ok, good. That's very good. But shouldn't Cheney qualify his statements? Its not a far stretch. When you say al Qaeda, people think 9/11 9/11 9/11. When you say Iraq had "relationship" with and "habored and provided safe haven for al Qaeda", don't you think there's room for misinterpretation that needs to be addressed to avoid confusion and heavy misunderstanding among the American people? I mean, as recently as June, Cheney said they "didn't know" whether there was a relationship between Saddam and 9/11. COME ON. That's irresponsible and underhanded. We also "didn't know" if Argentina had anything to do with 9/11, but its not mentioned because there is no credible evidence that they did. What Cheney should have said was "there is no evidence that leads us to believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11", not "we don't know", which implies "maybe".

I got these quotes mostly from a CNN article... i'll edit and put the link up after I chow. Mmm.. forbidden donut..

 

[preemptingyou03]

No. It isn't confusing at all. Only liberals don't understand how you can support a terrorist group and not a specific attack.

 

[nakedemperor]

No. It isn't confusing at all. Only liberals don't understand how you can support a terrorist group and not a specific attack.

My point was there's plenty of room for misinterpretation. The IMPLICATION of the statement that Cheney/Bush/Rice gave over and over in speeches about 9/11 that specifically cited a relationship LED PEOPLE TO BELIEVE that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 (not Saddam and al Qaeda, but Saddam and 9/11). The majority of the country in the months following 9/11 thought there was a connection, even thought the administration never explicitly SAID Saddam had something to do with 9/11, but there were heavy implications. That's my point. In order to avoid misunderstandings (like those that have happened in the past on this same exact issue) you have to be CLEAR and NOT leave room for interpretation (unless your re-election depends on it, of course). Its not unheard of. Bush's people led South Carolinians to believe that McCain and sired and illegitimate black baby in 2000. Yes, they stooped that low, willfully.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

saddam is connected to alquada, alquada to 9/11, therefore saddam to 9/11. Anything saddam did for them freed up other resources for 9/11. So in a real way, he helped with 9/11. Support is support. Get a clue.

You libs have lost your minds. You are no longer logical.

 

[Merlin1047]

On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who "provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."

In Wisconsin on Friday, he said the "al Qaeda organization had a relationship with the Iraqis."

Ok, so he doesn't explicitly say that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, but does anyone else think this kind of language could be confusing people in terms of the scope and magnitude of the "relationship" between al Qaeda and Iraq, even thought the 9/11 Commission stated explicitly that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Saddam?

I believe it only "confuses" those who are pre-disposed to that state of mind because they want to hear the administration make contradictory and hopefully false statements.

This statement is "confusing" only if it is your purpose to be confused by it. Anybody else can understand it. After all, it is a simple declarative statement which can be easily comprehended by anyone who is paying the slightest bit of attention.

Apparently the Democrats need to be taught the difference between confusion and distortion. One is the accidental mistaking of one thing for another, the other is the favored tactic of the kerry election campaign.

 

[nakedemperor]

saddam is connected to alquada, alquada to 9/11, therefore saddam to 9/11. Anything saddam did for them freed up other resources for 9/11. So in a real way, he helped with 9/11. Support is support. Get a clue.

You libs have lost your minds. You are no longer logical.

Saddam never SUPPORTED al Qaeda, passively or not! 9/11 Commission said there was "NO COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP". That means no collaboration, last time I checked! You're basing "Saddam supported 9/11" on what? The fact that 9/11 Commission said there was "contact" between the two parties?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Saddam never SUPPORTED al Qaeda, passively or not! 9/11 Commission said there was "NO COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP". That means no collaboration, last time I checked! You're basing "Saddam supported 9/11" on what? The fact that 9/11 Commission said there was "contact" between the two parties?

Yes he did.

He's connected to nearly all terrorist groups. Get you head out of it.

 

[nakedemperor]

Yes he did.

He's connected to nearly all terrorist groups. Get you head out of it.

You're directly contradicting the exhaustive, extensive analysis and review of the 9/11 commission. Why am I the one with my head in it?

 

[NATO AIR]

the most important question here and now is:

what do we do about iran? according to the 9/11 commission and other sources, they supported al-queda directly, and continue to, this as well as being the world's no.1 supporter of terrorist groups. and can we add they're very close to having nuclear weapons?

we can argue over the past all we want (and i stupidly do more often than not) but right now we need to worry about the present and the future, which is figuring out what the hell to do with iran.

 

[nakedemperor]

the most important question here and now is:

what do we do about iran? according to the 9/11 commission and other sources, they supported al-queda directly, and continue to, this as well as being the world's no.1 supporter of terrorist groups. and can we add they're very close to having nuclear weapons?

we can argue over the past all we want (and i stupidly do more often than not) but right now we need to worry about the present and the future, which is figuring out what the hell to do with iran.

Agreed-- the point I was trying to make was about accountability though. I'm of the opinion that the administration willfully uses people's misinterpretation of what they are literally saying for political gain though, and therefore is unfit to continue in its executive role, come November. In that respect, it is about the future.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You're directly contradicting the exhaustive, extensive analysis and review of the 9/11 commission. Why am I the one with my head in it?

No I'm not. I know what it says. I don't know why you are, you tell me.

 

[nakedemperor]

No I'm not. I know what it says. I don't know why you are, you tell me.

They said that: "There were numerous points of contact between al Qaeda and Iraq" BUT "There was no collaborative relationship". Thus, they can talk all they want, but if there's no collaboration, there is no support.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

They said that: "There were numerous points of contact between al Qaeda and Iraq" BUT "There was no collaborative relationship". Thus, they can talk all they want, but if there's no collaboration, there is no support.

Just for the 9/11 event.

 

[insein]

You're directly contradicting the exhaustive, extensive analysis and review of the 9/11 commission. Why am I the one with my head in it?

Perhaps because the 9/11 report DID say that Bin Laden and Al queda had ties with Iraq.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

page 61

"To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Laden would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Laden apparently honered this agreement at least for a time, although he continued to aide a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990's, these extremists groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Laden's help they reformed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications by then that the Iraqi regime tolerated and may have even helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin laden is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procurring weapons, but there is no eveidence that Iraq responded to this request."

So because they knew that he met with IRaqi officials and they knew he asked for help with land for camps and weapons, your going to trust their conclusions that Iraq never followed through on them? They met, they discussed, whats to stop them from going through with it. The regime supported his war against the Kurds. So why would they stop there.

You seem to want to give Bin Laden and Saddam the benefit of the doubt for every thing and wquestion every action Bush makes as sinister. What warped world do you live in?

 

[Avatar4321]

You're directly contradicting the exhaustive, extensive analysis and review of the 9/11 commission. Why am I the one with my head in it?

Because, you havent gotten off your but to read the 911 commission report. The it freakin spells out Saddams links to terrorism, specifically when he invited Osama Bin Laden to stay in Iraq before Osama went to Aghanistan.

 

[nakedemperor]

Perhaps because the 9/11 report DID say that Bin Laden and Al queda had ties with Iraq.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf



So because they knew that he met with IRaqi officials and they knew he asked for help with land for camps and weapons, your going to trust their conclusions that Iraq never followed through on them? They met, they discussed, whats to stop them from going through with it. The regime supported his war against the Kurds. So why would they stop there.

You seem to want to give Bin Laden and Saddam the benefit of the doubt for every thing and wquestion every action Bush makes as sinister. What warped world do you live in?

Tolerating activity in Northern Iraq (again, outside of Baghdad's control) is an isolated case of passivity in which the Iraqi government "tolerated" al Qaeda. Then again Baghdad tolerated EVERYTHING in that region, as it exercised little to no political sway there.

And the more salient point you made, about Iraqi officials meeting with al Qaeda officials, is exactly what I was saying! There were points of contact, but NO evidence describing any sort of collaboration whatsoever. But then we just get into the paradigm of pre-emptive war. Some are willing to sacrfice 10s of thousands of innocent lives on the logic of "there's no evidence, but what's to stop them?" and some are not.

And you're not the first person on the board I'm going to respectfully ask to refrain from generalizing. I am nowhere near the opinion that "everything Bush does is sinister". Don't put words in my mouth. I just feel that the wrong course of action, in this case, was pursued, and untruths and misrepresentations were divulged in justification thereof.

 

[insein]

Tolerating activity in Northern Iraq (again, outside of Baghdad's control) is an isolated case of passivity in which the Iraqi government "tolerated" al Qaeda. Then again Baghdad tolerated EVERYTHING in that region, as it exercised little to no political sway there.

And the more salient point you made, about Iraqi officials meeting with al Qaeda officials, is exactly what I was saying! There were points of contact, but NO evidence describing any sort of collaboration whatsoever. But then we just get into the paradigm of pre-emptive war. Some are willing to sacrfice 10s of thousands of innocent lives on the logic of "there's no evidence, but what's to stop them?" and some are not.

And you're not the first person on the board I'm going to respectfully ask to refrain from generalizing. I am nowhere near the opinion that "everything Bush does is sinister". Don't put words in my mouth. I just feel that the wrong course of action, in this case, was pursued, and untruths and misrepresentations were divulged in justification thereof.

Again your giving the benefit of the doubt to a murderous dictator and the man who claims to have masterminded the mass-murder of 3000 American citizens despite evidence proving links between al queda and Saddam to have merit. You keep believing that these meetings where weapons transfers and camp negotiations were discussed never came through between 2 evil men bent on attacking the US in some way, shape or form.

Don't believe the 9/11 commissions own words? Here's more.

Iraq/Al Queda connections
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/26/223935.shtml
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109338,00.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html

But we didnt just goto Iraq because they had known terrorist ties. We went there to prevent them from attaining WMDs and to remove the ones they reportedly had. Not to mention stopping them from attaining nuclear capabilites.

Iraq has 2 tons of uranium removed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124924,00.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/5/114239.shtml

WMDs found in Syria despite that country's inability to make such weapons
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/141224.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/

Iraq ships WMDs to Syria
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=482

So im sick and tired of hearing that we were mislead with misinterpretations. If anything, the pretences for war were under exagerrated. Nevermind the fact that every Democrat under the sun though thought that it was a good idea to eliminate Saddam before 9/11, after 9/11 and right up until this election season. So i dont want to hear anymore about how Bush mislead us because Bin Laden and Saddam never held a press conference for their illicit dealings to let the world know what was up.

 

[acludem]

Face the facts, there is NO evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. Of course Sec. Powell is contradicting what VP Cheney said even as recent as Friday.

As for why we went into Iraq, clearly it wasn't WMD's or nuclear capability, Saddam had neither as the fact that we have found absolutely nothing proves. Iran and North Korea are far greater threats to our national security than Iraq ever was. Bush simply took the easy target.

acludem

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Face the facts, there is NO evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. Of course Sec. Powell is contradicting what VP Cheney said even as recent as Friday.

As for why we went into Iraq, clearly it wasn't WMD's or nuclear capability, Saddam had neither as the fact that we have found absolutely nothing proves. Iran and North Korea are far greater threats to our national security than Iraq ever was. Bush simply took the easy target.

acludem

But he has connections to world terrorism out the wazoo. Why doesn't that matter to you? Must you always falsely constrict and limit arguments to sound right?

 

[acludem]

I don't disagree that Saddam may have had contacts with terrorists. But once again, if we are going to base our foreign policy on invading countries who have contacts with or have supported terrorists, why haven't we invaded Iran, Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia, The Sudan, the United States (oh wait, that's us and we have had contact with and have in fact supported terrorist groups including the Taliban because they were anticommunist).

Saddam and 9/11 have nothing to do with one another. It seems to be the prevailing opinion that 9/11 was the work of Al Qaida, and organization that considers Saddam an infidel.

acludem