9/11 Panel: No Qaeda-Iraq Link

It didn't have to happen! It could have been prevented! :D

link

WASHINGTON, DC--According to key members of the Bush Administration, the tragic proceedings of the 9/11 commission, which devastated the political lives of numerous government officials, could have been averted with preventive action in 2002 and 2003.

"A few adept legislative maneuvers could have saved the reputations of hundreds," President Bush's counterterrorism chief Fran Townsend told reporters Monday. "Had we foreseen the dangers of the commission's deceptively simple requests, we could have spared dozens of victims from the shocking, public mangling of their careers."

"It's tragic," Townsend added. "All those political futures snuffed out as millions of Americans watched on television. And to think there was a remote chance that they could've gotten our president."
Click to expand...
 
crackmonkey said:
When did he say that Saddam was involved in 9/11?
Click to expand...

All the following comes from the official white house press site, I entered in the area about the Iraq war where they had organised all the president press releases

Some more recent quotes
Whatever their past views, every nation now has an interest in a free, successful, stable Iraq. And the terrorists understand their own interest in the fate of that country. For them, the connection between Iraq's future and the course of the war on terror is very clear
Click to expand...
The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology, and give momentum to reformers across the region. This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power, and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world.
Click to expand...

From the Vetran's Day speech
Our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan is clear to our service members -- and clear to our enemies. Our men and women are fighting to secure the freedom of more than 50 million people who recently lived under two of the cruelest dictatorships on Earth. Our men and women are fighting to help democracy and peace and justice rise in a troubled and violent region. Our men and women are fighting terrorist enemies thousands of miles away in the heart and center of their power, so that we do not face those enemies in the heart of America.
Click to expand...



The Famous state of the Union Speech

At the start of the speech the president speaks at lenth about the 9-11 bombing. He calls it terroism and makes no distinction about diferent kinds of terrorism.
Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.
Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that the president started the speech talking about 9-11 and then talked about Afghanistan and how the 9-11 terrorists were trained in Afghanistan, and the success the war thier was having.

Then he talks about the axis of evil. And he talks about Iraq and at no point does he make any distinction between any kinds of terrorism and terrorists.

So either
A. You think that GWB is smart and he linked 9-11 to Afghanistan and then to Iraq
B. You think that GWB is stupid and didn't mean to make these links.

He did it on purpose, he invoked 9-11 then he talked about Afghanistan and then he talked about state sponsors of terror.

I don't think GWB is stupid, he did it know what he was saying.
 
He was right - Saddam was a sponsor of terror and harbored terrorists. There was a danger that he would hand off WMD to terrorist groups - as it was, he was funding and arming them. It wouldn;t be that much of a stretch to arms them with WMD instead of conventional weapons. It turned out that Saddam didn;t have the quantities of WMD that he was believed to have by most every intelligence estimate of the last 2 administrations.
As far as the Afghanistan reference - he says that the people there have been freed from repressive dictatorships. He's right. He said that we're fighting terrorists there. He's right.

Bush is correct here. You're really reaching here, trying to put words in his mouth that he didn;t say. If you're going to object to him, at least object to his statements, not things that you want him to say...
 
I'm watching quite a lot of news, and almost every station has reported that the 9/11 commission states that there were no links between Saddam and Osama - and then commented on Cheney still claiming the links are there.

Rebuffing Bush administration claims, the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday no evidence exists that al-Qaeda had strong ties to Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...
This quote is typical, and shows media thinking that 'Bush administration claims' were rebutted.

If anyone is 'reaching here, trying to put words into his mouth that he didn't say', it is 99% of the American and international media.
 
While the Hamburg operatives were just joining the 9/11 plot, Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar were already living in the United States, having arrived in Los Angeles on January 15, 2000. It has not been established where they stayed during the first two weeks after their arrival. They appear to have frequented the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, possibly staying in an apartment nearby. Much remains unknown about their activities and associates while in Los Angeles and our investigation of this period of the conspiracy is continuing.
Click to expand...

This commission doesn't even know for sure what the terrorists did while they were in the US to date, yet they know for sure that Saddam wasn't involved? And based on the secondhand testimony of one Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? So what is the great motivation for this scumbag to suddenly start telling the truth? It stinks of an election year moot court.

As a side note - California is now considering giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. If what the commission says is true, shouldn't we use this opportunity to learn from our mistakes, instead of repeat them? :eek:

link to quote
 
This is poor journalism. The commission noted contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda... they pointed out that there was no collusion in the 9/11 attack. Read the quote from Shemp's first post - the commission is saying there was no linkage specifically for the 9/11 attack. It does not say there were no links between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
 
Why would Saddam's motivation be to support terrorism against the US? He wasn't some nomadic idealog, he was a sovereign leader. He had no interest in provoking his own demise. He loved being god. Terrorism wouldn't strenghten his hold on Iraq, and it wasn't likely to make the US treat him better. On the other hand, he had reason to keep terrorists out, as he was tryign to normalize relations with the world as much as he could. There were terrorists in Iraq before the war, but they were in the Kurd controlled North. Now they're everywhere, and a new, democratic government is not going to be nearly strong enough to get rid of them.

Nice going, George, you've created a terrorist haven while pretending to do just the opposite.
 
He played host to a number of terrorists and their groups. Zarqawi was armed by Iraqi intelligence and given sanctuary in Baghdad
 
crackmonkey said:
This is poor journalism. The commission noted contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda... they pointed out that there was no collusion in the 9/11 attack. Read the quote from Shemp's first post - the commission is saying there was no linkage specifically for the 9/11 attack. It does not say there were no links between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
Click to expand...
But wasn't 9/11 the spark that allowed the Bush administration to start the war? Certainly Bush hinted very strongly that Saddam was in on 9/11, or else support for the Iraq invasion would have been much less.

And if Saddam had some ties to Al Qaeda, certainly other countries have much stronger ties. Why then did we invade the country with relatively weak ties?

The issue of whether Saddam had links to 9/11 is of paramount importance. That was where the US was attacked. If the US wanted to punish those who sponsored such terrorism against us, then they would have looked elsewhere. They would have rooted out terrorists, rather than providing them with an easy target and inspiring more Muslims to become terrorists.

The possibility that Saddam may have at one time had some Al Qaeda people in his country is just smoke and mirrors to obscure the most collosal bungle the US has made in years. Possibly ever.
 
Tricky said:

But wasn't 9/11 the spark that allowed the Bush administration to start the war? Certainly Bush hinted very strongly that Saddam was in on 9/11, or else support for the Iraq invasion would have been much less.

And if Saddam had some ties to Al Qaeda, certainly other countries have much stronger ties.
Click to expand...

In particular, if this the standard that is going to be applied, how do we get around a conclusion that the Bush family has "ties" to Osama bin Laden? The Bush family had links with ObL's father, and therefore is a source of some of ObL's wealth.

More to point, the article mentions explicitly that Saudi Arabia turned a blind eye to the funneling of funds to Al Queda. Shouldn't that be considered tacit endorsement?

Although Iraq did provide some support for Palestinian attackers in Israel, there is no indication that there was any Saddam support for Al Queda. OTOH, there are plenty of links of Saudi Arabia with Al Queda. So after Al Queda organizes an attack on the US, who do we go after?

While I am not one of those who view these activities as a fight over oil, I do see that oil plays a big role in the policy. Specifically, if Saudi Arabia wasn't the oil source it is, they would be the ones we would be invading in addition to Afghanistan.
 
pgwenthold said:
While I am not one of those who view these activities as a fight over oil, I do see that oil plays a big role in the policy. Specifically, if Saudi Arabia wasn't the oil source it is, they would be the ones we would be invading in addition to Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of your points, but this last one should be modified to "If Saudi Arabia wasn't the friendly oil source it is...". Obviously, Iraq is an oil source too, but we were unable to manipulate their government into using it the way we want to.

The Saud family for years turned a blind eye to terrorism for reasons we can probably guess: They didn't attack Saudi Arabia. As long as they were recruiting terrorists to operate in other places, the status quo was fine. Now, all of a sudden, they are suffering because they are so cooperative with the US. We shall see how this changes their attitude towards us. The Saudis are the ultimate in pragmatic appeasers, so their reaction to internal terrorism may be to ask the US to help them more, or it may be to cut ties. I have no faith in their ability to deal with the terrorism on their own.
 
Tricky said:

The possibility that Saddam may have at one time had some Al Qaeda people in his country is just smoke and mirrors to obscure the most collosal bungle the US has made in years. Possibly ever.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I can show you pictures of Donal Rumsfeld, among others, meeting with Saddam (he seemed to ignore us too, when it didn't fit with his policy designs)...maybe we should invade the U.S.
 
It's one thing for a representative of a government to meet with the leader of another government, but quite another for Saddam to arm, support, and give sanctuary to a terrorist group.
Iraqi intelligence DID arm and give haven to Zarqawi in Baghdad. Zarqawi is an Al Qaeda chief in the region.
 
crackmonkey said:
It's one thing for a representative of a government to meet with the leader of another government, but quite another for Saddam to arm, support, and give sanctuary to a terrorist group.
Iraqi intelligence DID arm and give haven to Zarqawi in Baghdad. Zarqawi is an Al Qaeda chief in the region.
Click to expand...



when you say give 'haven' wasn't he in the hospital? or was the iraqi govt. actively hiding him in safe houses etc. did he just stop off to use the potty

what weapons was he armed with. did they give him an AK and a pistol or a truck full of the missing WMDs?


Virgil
 
crackmonkey said:
It's one thing for a representative of a government to meet with the leader of another government, but quite another for Saddam to arm, support, and give sanctuary to a terrorist group.
Iraqi intelligence DID arm and give haven to Zarqawi in Baghdad. Zarqawi is an Al Qaeda chief in the region.
Click to expand...

You are right, it is a stupid comparison.

So, let me get to what I really think.

The Bush Administration is fighting over the definition of "is" (it is positively Clintonian). The experts say that there were no substantive links or connections between Saddam and AlQueda, Cheney and the Prez assert there were because of what the best information seems to show were some rather inconclusive efforts at establishing contact.

Your assertion that they armed and supported ALQeda directly, seems to be contradicted by what I've read of the Commission and other reports. Be that as it may.

The problem is that this is all a post hoc justification. Like the assertions about WMDs it isn't based on any hard facts, or generally agreed upon facts, it is based upon wishful thinking after the fact. IF Saddam had ties to AlQeda (regardless of how de-minum and insubstantial those links might have been) than they can say "ah ha, that is why we had to invade Iraq. Those links constitue the imminent danger we feared..."

Sure, 6 months ago it was WMDs, but now, they've found the real reason -- they essentially argue: "you have to trust us, we know these things, they were all plotting against us (with their WMDs, of course), we had to do it....Kerry, the Democrats and the growing number of unpatriotic Americans who question this Administrations stance just don't understand or have the best interest of the country at heart. They are weak. We are strong and resulte..." and on and on...

The problem is that neither their judgement or ability to interpret the facts has, IMO, much credibility anymore. They were so wrong about WMDs to look rediculous to the world. They have consitently deluded themselves and the public about our reception in Iraq (we were not received as Liberators, happy though most of the Iraqis were to be rid of Saddam...they are just as happy to kill us now). They have sullied our service men and women with their prison management, and put soldiers in real danger with their talk of putting aside the Geneva Convention.

It goes on and on. They just don't have much credibility, IMO, so Cheney's speech and assertions that he speaks the truth have little persuasive value.

Finally, if they really think this is an important point (as opposed to a "wink" point -- i.e. Saddam met with Al Qeda, supporters of the President draw your own conclusions (wink)). Than, as our leaders, they need to be out in front, saying it and proving it everyday. It is a failure of leadership that this debate is even happening. If these meetings were a threat or a reason to topple Saddam, say it out right. Say: "they were in cohoots, Americans died and would have died because of it, we took care of the problem..."

But that isn't what Cheney or Bush is saying...because the evidence is weak and the experts dispute thier interpretation of the meaning.

In the end, These are the actions of people desperately looking for post-hoc rationalizations for very bad decision making, IMO, and that is what concerns me.

So, I apologize for my stupid comment, Rummsfeld's meeting with Saddam was NOT of the same quality as what Cheney would have us believe (despite the contrary evidence) to have taken place betweeen Saddam and AlQeda.
 
crackmonkey said:
It's one thing for a representative of a government to meet with the leader of another government, but quite another for Saddam to arm, support, and give sanctuary to a terrorist group.
Iraqi intelligence DID arm and give haven to Zarqawi in Baghdad. Zarqawi is an Al Qaeda chief in the region.
Click to expand...
Like Virgil, I'm skeptical of this claim, especially given the proven accuracy of our intelligence in Iraq. But even if it were totally true, Iraq would still not be the biggest supporter, supplier and sanctuary-giver to Al Qaeda. Wouldn't it make sense to go after the big guys instead of a country with a very few, very tenuous links?

In short, why was it necessary to attack Iraq when the terrorists were mostly coming from other places?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom