9/11 Panel: No Qaeda-Iraq Link

[DanishDynamite]

[Post deleted]

Sorry, I wasn't intending to post, just hit the wrong button.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Osama Bin Ladin.......You've bombed the Trade Towers in NY!! What's next?
"I am going to Disneyworld...and Disneyland, and the Sears tower in Chicago and.....

Some here assert that Iraq was arming and funding Al Quida. Saddam was indirectly involved in terrorism by giving relitive's of Mayrters ( suicide no, sorry, homicide bombers) in Isreal He also "cleansed" the world of his critics mostly ex-patriot Iraqi's . That pretty much sums up his flertation. Remember he was like Sauron - he did not share power.

To Those who claim a closer relationship between Saddam and Al Quida I have one thing to say. Prove it, not some speculation from one CIA agent relying on a bad source nor the tsunami of bullsiht that flows regularly from the White house nor your analisys of unconnected facts to justify President Penochiio's masivly stupid blundering in all poclies international, but facts and evidence. Facts that have been published by reliable sources , that have been independently documented, physical evedance , not morfed mouthed platudes that start at WMD and end at .."whatever the facts are , the world is a better place without Saddam".

Failing to do that I propose that You go hang out with the TAG ( The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God ) crowd because your crithical thinking skills seem to be cut from the same cloth.

 

[Dancing David]

He played host to a number of terrorists and their groups. Zarqawi was armed by Iraqi intelligence and given sanctuary in Baghdad

See , see there you go again, puting words in someone's mouth and making my point for me, today the news room released that 'there were contacts between AlQueda and Saddam's Iraq', so who is streching here
?

PPPHHHFFFTT you Monkey of Crack

 

[crackmonkey]

To clarify a bit... I'm not saying the invasion of Iraq was justified because there was some non-collaborative ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam. His supporting Zarqawi in itself wouldn;t necessarily be an adequate reason to invade.
I believe the invasion was primarily about the (apparently non-existant) WMD. Bush should say "We thought it was there. We were wrong".
Regardless of his motives for saying it, Cheney's statements were correct, as I pointed out.

 

[Virgil]

I believe the invasion was primarily about the (apparently non-existant) WMD. Bush should say "We thought it was there. We were wrong".
[/B]

that is a pickle. if he admits to being wrong well there goes the election. if he keeps changing to things like the ecomony, some link between iraq and osama, etc. he doesn't have to admit he made a huge mistake.


I guess it all depends on his personal sense of ethics and WWJD. Jesus would cover up so that he is re-elected to be son of god.



Virgil

 

[Virgil]

PS...they did find the WMD that one 155mm shell and those rusty handgrenades. therefore the war was legal.


Virgil

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Bush/Blair stick to their claims

We do know of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq

Blair, to British parliament before the war

The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda

-Bush, Thurs. June 17, 2004

...an absence of evidence does not mean there is an absence of evidence

Defence Secretary Rumsfeld

" absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,"

-Former CIA Director James Woolsey

 

[crackmonkey]

Again - both correct. There is no evidence of collaboration between the two, but there are links.

 

[Tricky]

Again - both correct. There is no evidence of collaboration between the two, but there are links.

The problem is the context. Cheney made his remarks in response to the release of 9/11 investigation results, so they are nothing more than an attempt to tie Saddam to 9/11 in people's minds.

This would be like saying in a courtroom:

Judge: We find the defendant not guilty of this crime
Cheney: But he has committed other crimes!

Whether true or not, it is irrelevant and meant only to justify charging the defendant with a different crime of which he was found innocent.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Again - both correct. There is no evidence of collaboration between the two, but there are links.

Say I make a claim:

crackmonkey sexually assaults his young neice.


I have no strong evidence of sexual assault, but then again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. crackmonkey has access to his neice's bedroom, has been seen in his neice's bedroom, and babysat his neice on a regular basis.
crackmonkey has access to pornography on BETA tapes, but his BETA machine is broken. crackmonkey was charged with assualt causing bodily harm 15 years ago.

I keep insisting that crackmonkey sexually assaults his neice, because crackmonkey had access to his neice, her bedroom, pornography, and he had been charged with assault.


what might be your response crackmonkey to my repeated allegations, that can not be backed up by strong evidence.

 

[Tricky]

Say I make a claim:

crackmonkey sexually assaults his young neice.


I have no strong evidence of sexual assault, but then again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. crackmonkey has access to his neice's bedroom, has been seen in his neice's bedroom, and babysat his neice on a regular basis.
crackmonkey has access to pornography on BETA tapes, but his BETA machine is broken. crackmonkey was charged with assualt causing bodily harm 15 years ago.

I keep insisting that crackmonkey sexually assaults his neice, because crackmonkey had access to his neice, her bedroom, pornography, and he had been charged with assault.


what might be your response crackmonkey to my repeated allegations, that can not be backed up by strong evidence.

If you were relying on US intelligence to gather this evidence, then Crackmonkey most likely has a parakeet, several old copies of Playboy and a broken Super-8 movie projector.

 

[headscratcher4]

From Peter Bergen author of Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden,,

"One of the striking things about al-Qaeda is how few Iraqis there are in the organisation. A lot of Saudis, a lot of Algerians, a lot of Yemenis, but no Iraqis. There are probably more American members of al-Qaeda than Iraqis, and stronger ties to Brooklyn than Baghdad, if al-Qaeda had an office in Brooklyn.

"But I mean the larger point is there were no substantive dealings between al-Qaeda and Iraq. I mean, they met in Sudan on a number of occasions. We know from the United Nations you can have meetings without results, and that was the case – you can't point to any outcomes."

Q: So when President Bush says there are numerous contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein...

PETER BERGEN: "Well, it's an interesting kind of construct, isn't it? Because, I mean, I have contacts with all sorts of people, I met with bin Laden – it's doesn't mean I did business with him. You know, I think this is grasping at straws at this point ... The point is that there's no there there, there's just nothing... I mean, some of the things that were supposed to have been true aren't true, for example, a meeting between the hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent, well, it just never happened."

From Salon

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

I believe the invasion was primarily about the (apparently non-existant) WMD. Bush should say "We thought it was there. We were wrong".
.

Crack I couldn't agree with You more . People make mistakes , especially people who receive massive amounts of information by various sources , that don't even necessarily agree. That's a major part of the problem tho, to my knowledge I have never heard this administration state culpability or that a position was wrong. It's always either denial or shifting responsibility.

Anyone who steamed when Clinton said " I did not have sex with woman" or " It depends of what your definition of "is" is and does not have the same response of the BS the Bush Whitehouse pulls , needs to re-examine their objectivity. That's the object of law and the nature of the Constitution, the principles put forth must apply to everyone , equally, or it makes them a show vessel of malleable abstracts.

Political expediency at the cost of the blood and treasure of the American people is a damnable thing, by any party.

 

[crackmonkey]

I've found that using analogies in this kind of situation tends to be counterproductive - you state an analogy that you feel represents the situation perfectly. I contest your representation, and offer my own analogy. You criticize aspects of my analogy, and the thread turns into a quarrel about pedophiles and Betamax.

Cheney's latest statement was in response to the press's assertion that there were no ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Cheney rejected that, saying that there were ties, but no operational cooperation. He's absolutely correct, and in fact several members of the 9/11 commission have agreed with him, saying that the press had misstated their findings.

Once again, I'm not saying that the contacts were necessarily enough to justify a war - I'm just correcting posters who asserted that there was no contact between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Once again, I'm not saying that the contacts were necessarily enough to justify a war -


I'm just correcting posters who asserted that there was no contact between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

regarding first part, understood.


regarding 2nd part... I just woke up and maybe I am missing it but who is stating that? We are discussing evidence, or the lack of it, that shows a link, a relationship between Iraq and or Saddam and Al Queda. Once again evidence and the lack of it. If there is no evidence of links how is that proof that there were links, and how is it incorrect to say that there is no evidence to support the allegation?

 

[crackmonkey]

Perhaps a clarification of 'links' is needed, then. Saddam had long and fairly extensive ties with Al Qaeda in various aspects... he met with Al Qaeda representatives several times in the 90s, he hosted Zarqawi (who was treated in Saddam's son's hospital in Baghdad after he fled his camp in Afghanistan, and was then armed by Iraq intelligence) as well as one of the original '93 WTC bombers Abdul Rahman Yasin.
Would this not be sufficient to be considered linkage, or do you prefer to call it something else?

 

[Tricky]

Perhaps a clarification of 'links' is needed, then. Saddam had long and fairly extensive ties with Al Qaeda in various aspects... he met with Al Qaeda representatives several times in the 90s, he hosted Zarqawi (who was treated in Saddam's son's hospital in Baghdad after he fled his camp in Afghanistan, and was then armed by Iraq intelligence) as well as one of the original '93 WTC bombers Abdul Rahman Yasin.
Would this not be sufficient to be considered linkage, or do you prefer to call it something else?

I'd call it a meeting. Unless you can show where Saddam gave substantial material support to Al Qaeda, then it is no different from a meeting with Rusmsfeld to discuss policy. If Rumsfeld had become sick in Iraq, I have no doubt that he would have been sent to a hospital there.

Links are not necessarily support. Why is this hard for you to understand?

 

[pgwenthold]

I'd call it a meeting. Unless you can show where Saddam gave substantial material support to Al Qaeda, then it is no different from a meeting with Rusmsfeld to discuss policy. If Rumsfeld had become sick in Iraq, I have no doubt that he would have been sent to a hospital there.

Links are not necessarily support. Why is this hard for you to understand?

And note tha the administration keeps saying, "relationship."

To me and most people, the concept of a "relationship" is far beyond simple meetings and contacts.

As you note, if the concept is "links," then Iraq is no different from many countries, and far no worse. Moreover, if there were evidence that Al Queda got a morsal of the "support" from Iraq that they have undeniably have gotten from Saudi Arabia, the administration would be crowing from the highest roofs.

 

[crackmonkey]

As I've pointed out in another thread, the commission has reported that there were ties (as in repeated contacts short of operational cooperation) between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda, yet no evidence of the same between AL Qaeda and the Saudis. Your assertion is that the 'relationship' between the Saudis and Saddam was undeniable, yet the commission contradicts you.
So there are a few ways to take this:

A) There were no links between the house of Saud and Al Qaeda

B) The commission was wrong

C) The commission has yet to find evidence of links between the Saudis and Al Qaeda, but such a link is probable.

Interesting parallel to the Saddam/Al Qaeda situation (which you mock the administration for). I'm curious how you justify believing beyond a doubt that the Saudis were behind Al Qaeda without a shred of supporting evidence, yet you scream bloody murder about Bush's assertion that there were ties(short of operational cooperation) between Saddam and Al Qaeda, which the commission affirmed.

 

[pgwenthold]

As I've pointed out in another thread, the commission has reported that there were ties (as in repeated contacts short of operational cooperation) between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda, yet no evidence of the same between AL Qaeda and the Saudis. Your assertion is that the 'relationship' between the Saudis and Saddam was undeniable, yet the commission contradicts you.

According to the commission, the Saudis "turned a blind eye" to Al Queda activities in their country. Of course, most of Al Queda members are Saudi in the first place.

They knew terrorists were training within their borders and allowed money to go to them. But according to you, that's not a relationship (hell, I'd call it cooperation with terrorists, and indirect support).

But an Al Queda guy gets hurt and goes to a Baghdad hospital, and it is proof of an Iraqi/Al Queda relationship.