Official verdict: White House misled world over Saddam

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Official verdict: White House misled world over Saddam

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
17 June 2004


President George Bush,

1 May 2003

The liberation of Iraq removed... an ally of al-Qa'ida

Vice-President Cheney,

22 January 2004

There's overwhelming evidence... of a connection between al-Qa'ida and Iraq

Donald Rumsfeld,

14 November 2002

Within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qa'ida

Condoleezza Rice,

17 September 2003

Saddam was a danger in the region where the 9/11 threat emerged

The Bush administration's credibility was dealt a devastating blow yesterday when the commission investigating the attacks of 11 September said there was no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had assisted al-Qa'ida - something repeatedly suggested by the President and his senior officials and held up as a reason for the invasion of Iraq.

A report by the independent commission said while there were contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida operatives in the 1990s, it appeared Osama bin Laden's requests for a partnership were rebuffed. "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qa'ida co-operated on attacks against the United States," the commission said. It also discounted widespread claims that Mohamed Atta, the hijackers' ringleader, met an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague.

The report forced the Bush administration on to the defensive, as it appeared to undermine one of its key justifications for the invasion of Iraq.

While Mr Bush has been forced to admit there was no specific evidence to link Saddam to 11 September, his deputy, Dick Cheney, claimed on Monday that the former Iraqi leader was "a patron of terrorism [with] long-established ties with al-Qa'ida''.

Last autumn Mr Cheney referred to the disputed meeting between Atta and an Iraqi official in the Czech Republic.

Critics of the White House say there was a deliberate policy to manipulate public opinion and create an association between Saddam and the attacks on New York and Washington. If true, such a plan has certainly been successful: a poll taken last September by the Washington Post newspaper found 69 per cent of Americans believed that Saddam was involved in the 11 September attacks.

The Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry seized on the commission's report last night. "The administration misled America and the administration reached too far," he told Michigan National Public Radio.

The commission's report - issued at the start of its final two days of public hearings into the circumstances surrounding the attacks - confirmed that in the early Nineties al-Qa'ida and Saddam's regime had made overtures to each other.

In 1994, for instance, Saddam had dispatched a senior intelligence official to Sudan to meet Bin Laden, making three visits before he finally met the al-Qa'ida leader.

Bin Laden requested help to procure weapons and establish training camps but Iraq did not respond, the report said. There were also reports of contact with Bin Laden once he moved to Afghanistan in 1996 but these "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship". It added: "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qa'ida and Iraq." The commission's report also revealed that the initial plan for the attack on the US - drawn up by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a senior al-Qa'ida operative who is now in US custody - envisioned a much broader assault, simultaneously targeting 10 different US cities on both the east and west coasts.

That expanded target list included the FBI headquarters in the plot was to have been the 10th plane - on which he which personally have flown. Rather than attacking a building, Mohammed would have killed all of the male passengers on board, before contacting media and landing at an airport where he would have released women and children. He then was to make a speech denouncing the US. That ambitious plan was rejected by Bin Laden, who gave his approval to a scaled-back mission involving four planes and costing as little as between $4-500,000. Mohammed had wanted to use more hijackers for those planes - 25 or 26, instead of 19. It said at least 10 other al-Qa'ida operatives who were initially due to participate in the attacks had been identified. They did not take part in the mission for a variety of reasons including visa problems and suspicions by airport officials in the US.

The report also revealed that the plot was riven by internal dissent, including over whether to target the White House or the Capitol building that were apparently not resolved prior to the attacks. Bin Laden also had to overcome opposition to attacking the US from Mullah Omar, leader of the former Taliban regime, who was under pressure from Pakistan to keep al-Qa'ida confined.

The commission confirmed that al-Qa'ida, though drastically changed and decentralised since 9-11, retained regional networks that were seeking to attack the US.

"Al-Qa'ida remains extremely interested in conducting chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attacks," said the report. It said that its ability to conduct an anthrax attack is one of the most immediate threats. The network may also try to attack a chemical plant or shipment of hazardous materials, or to use industrial chemicals as a weapon.

The report said the CIA estimated the network spent $30m a year before September 11 on training camps and terrorist operations. The money was also used to support the Taliban.

--------------------------

It is high time to impeach this gang of criminally insane murderers and put them in jail.
 

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Someone should take a poll of the American public right now. I bet over 60% will still say there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam...
 

Bowmaster

Senior member
Mar 11, 2002
523
0
0
Do I have to say it AGAIN?!? OK...

The moto of the Bush regieme is: if you say something loud enough and enough times, some people will believe it - namely people who listen to Rush...
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
"... It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
 

laFiera

Senior member
May 12, 2001
862
0
0
and most people just listen to the news and they dont research or analyze so if you repeat it long enough yea, there's a link somewhere....
 

InfectedMushroom

Golden Member
Aug 15, 2001
1,064
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
"... It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

you forgot to include this:
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

MonstaThrilla is right, probably more than 60% of americans still think there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. That is just sad. That is also why bush is the perfect anti-intelectual president. he offers the masses dumbed down information that they don't even bother to find out more about.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
What makes you think Sadam didnt sell or smuggle out weapons of mass destruction?

In the recent news there have been reports that the Rocket Engines of the rockets that the weapons inspectors forced Sadam to Destroy, have shown up in other countries. They were smuggled out in piles of scrap metal. Blix did not verify that they were even destroyed. He failed to do his job. We should ask for all our money back from the UN. Never ever trust the UN.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Asking for your money back would be particularly galling, since you frequently forget to pay your UN dues:

Try here

Particularly pointed statements include:

For more than twenty years, the United States has been regularly delinquent in the payment of its annual assessed contributions to the United Nations and its agencies.

Based on U.N. figures, as of 28 February 2003, the United States owed $1.327 billion in both past and current (2003) obligations to the United Nations regular budget, international tribunals, and peacekeeping. Of this amount, arrears owed prior to 1 January 2003 total $738 million.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
What makes you think Sadam didnt sell or smuggle out weapons of mass destruction?

In the recent news there have been reports that the Rocket Engines of the rockets that the weapons inspectors forced Sadam to Destroy, have shown up in other countries. They were smuggled out in piles of scrap metal. Blix did not verify that they were even destroyed. He failed to do his job. We should ask for all our money back from the UN. Never ever trust the UN.

the inspectors left Iraq before the job of destroying the missiles was finished
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom
Originally posted by: GrGr
"... It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

you forgot to include this:
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

No I didn't forget. That quote is interchangable between Goering and Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush/Rice/Limbaugh/Michael Reagan/Tom DeLay etc. and et al.
 

InfectedMushroom

Golden Member
Aug 15, 2001
1,064
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom
Originally posted by: GrGr
"... It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

you forgot to include this:
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

No I didn't forget. That quote is interchangable between Goering and Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush/Rice/Limbaugh/Michael Reagan/Tom DeLay etc. and et al.

And that's the scary part.
 

boran

Golden Member
Jun 17, 2001
1,526
0
76
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: piasabird
What makes you think Sadam didnt sell or smuggle out weapons of mass destruction?

In the recent news there have been reports that the Rocket Engines of the rockets that the weapons inspectors forced Sadam to Destroy, have shown up in other countries. They were smuggled out in piles of scrap metal. Blix did not verify that they were even destroyed. He failed to do his job. We should ask for all our money back from the UN. Never ever trust the UN.

the inspectors left Iraq before the job of destroying the missiles was finished

they had to, there was a war coming

think before you make such statements next time please.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
I must say I find it curious that the White House has not only continued to beat this drum, but have increased the frequency and strength of this claim.

I would have thought that once the administration got what they wanted (that is, war in Iraq), they would have toned down the rhetoric on this issue rather than continuing to hammer it. I see this issue as a loser for the White House, and one that will continue to leach credibility as long as they press the point. Frankly I would have thought the politically expedient thing to do would have been to call it an overstatement, based on bad poop from the CIA (particularly now that Tenet is gone, and it appears the CIA is about to get dragged through the mud anyway).
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Don:

With no WMD, and no AQ link, the case for the war is weakened. The lies to support the war cannot fall apart before November. So, we have the spectacle of Senator Shelby on Hard Ball saying there is a connection between AQ and SH, but "I don't have the facts to support that view." (or, words to that effect)

Facts are inconvenient things, as you know. They are stubborn little boogers. Politicians used to pound on the table, like good lawyers do, but they have found it more expedient to lie and distort the truth.

Poor Governor Kean is presiding over this debacle for his own party and trying to sound judicious like the college president he is (or was).

-Robert
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Some interesting questions asked on the conclusionsOf course, it's an opinion from a very conservative news sight, but well written. Feel free to question any of his conclusions rather than attacking the source.

Is the commission staff saying that the CIA director has provided faulty information to Congress? That doesn't appear to be what it is saying at all. This is clear ? if anything in this regard can be said to be "clear" ? from the staff's murky but carefully phrased summation sentence, which is worth parsing since it is already being gleefully misreported: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." (Italics mine.) That is, the staff is not saying al Qaeda and Iraq did cooperate ? far from it. The staff seems to be saying: "they appear to have cooperated but we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that they worked in tandem on a specific terrorist attack, such as 9/11, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, or the embassy bombings."


What is the staff's reason for rejecting the eyewitness identification? Is the "Hamburg student" entry bogus? Since the staff is purporting to provide a comprehensive explanation of the 9/11 plot ? the origins of which it traces back to 1999 ? what is their explanation for what Atta was doing in Prague in 2000? Why, when the staff went into minute detail about the travels of other hijackers (even when it conceded it did not know the relevance of those trips), was Atta's trip to Prague not worthy of even a passing mention? Why was it so important for Atta to be in Prague on May 30, 2000 that he couldn't delay for one day, until May 31, when his visa would have been ready? Why was it so important for him to be in Prague on May 30 that he opted to go despite the fact that, without a visa, he could not leave the airport terminal? How did he happen to find the spot in the terminal where surveillance cameras would not capture him for nearly six hours? Why did he go back again on June 2? Was he meeting with al-Ani? If so, why would it be important for him to see al-Ani right before entering the United States in June 2000? And jumping ahead to 2001, if Atta wasn't using cash to travel anonymously, what did he do with the $8000 he suddenly withdrew before disappearing on April 4? If his cell phone was used in Florida between April 4 and April 11, what follow-up investigation has been done about that by the 9/11 Commission? By the FBI? By anybody? Whom was the cell phone used to call? Do any of those people remember speaking to Atta at that time? Perhaps someone would remember speaking with the ringleader of the most infamous attack in the history of the United States if he had called to chat, no?
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
McCarthy goes too far with far too little. My, my what did our Precious Dorothy learn on the Yellow Brick Road that neocons want to discover? "If wishing made it so...."

I have never seen more intellectual scrambling-but mostly bumbling- by the apologists for a failed policy in my life.

-Robert
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: chess9
McCarthy goes too far with far too little. My, my what did our Precious Dorothy learn on the Yellow Brick Road that neocons want to discover? "If wishing made it so...."

I have never seen more intellectual scrambling-but mostly bumbling- by the apologists for a failed policy in my life.

-Robert

So the evidence presented that he (Atta) was in the US is sufficient for you? You've never loaned your cell phone to anyone? You can't possibly comprehend that the $8,000 cash was withdrawn prior to a overseas trip? Must have been grocery money...
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
maybe you libs should hear what the 9/11 commissioner stated to Wolf Blitzer this evening..
Pres. Bush's statements and the 9/11 commisson states do not conflict with each other. Bush never stated that Saddam had a role in 9/11, yes, there were relationships and cooperation between Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Saddam. He further stated that the NYT's only reported on half of the report, and drew inferences that the commission did not state, nor find.

the libs have overplayed their hand, yet again...
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You just want that connection SO bad, don't you Al?

Just as badly as you don't want it

If only you guys had any evidence supporting anything but the most tangential contacts. You know, something that would validate blowing up an entire country over? Please get back to me when you do.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You just want that connection SO bad, don't you Al?

Just as badly as you don't want it

If only you guys had any evidence supporting anything but the most tangential contacts. You know, something that would validate blowing up an entire country over? Please get back to me when you do.

What about Zarqawi(a highly wanted terrorist even at that time) leaving his training camps in Afghanistan and going to Baghdad to be treated for an injury at a hospital run by Uday Hussein?
It's not exactly the closest hospital so why did he go there and why was he given safe haven there?

I know my reputation, but I'm honestly not trying to argue one position or the other on this issue. I'm just wondering what the explanation for that is.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Salon.com nicely summarizes the BS

Saddam and al-Qaida: It's true because it's true

Though the bipartisan 9/11 commission argues strongly to the contrary, President Bush insists on a direct link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaida [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida."

With its careful (if fumbling) ambiguity, Bush's statement today has the ring of truth, but it seems to indicate that the White House remains wholly uninterested in seriously addressing the critical intelligence miscalculations -- some of them perhaps conscious ones -- that led the nation to war. Bush's statement cruises straight past the numerous times the White House has implied a direct connection between Saddam, al-Qaida and the 9/11 attacks.

A key part of the administration's case for war, argued most loudly by Vice President Cheney, rested on the assertion that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had colluded with Saddam's intelligence agents in Prague in April 2000. In late 2001, Cheney argued the Prague story was "pretty well confirmed," though Cheney later acknowledged the meeting could not be proved or disproved.

Even as Cheney's office now declares, "Hell, no!" the vice president won't retract any statements he's made regarding Saddam and al-Qaida, Cheney may want to compare notes with the 9/11 commission. According to the Post, "As for the Atta meeting in Prague mentioned by Cheney, the commission staff concluded: 'We do not believe that such a meeting occurred.'"

Last November the conservative press played the Atta "evidence" at full volume, when flagship neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard published a clarion call titled "Case Closed," based on a leaked intelligence memo that came from Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith's office. A number of U.S. intelligence officials were quick to warn against relying on the memo, which reportedly was unvetted. That didn't stop the Standard from declaring [emphasis is War Room's]: "Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda -- perhaps even for Mohammed Atta -- according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum."

Undeniably riveting stuff -- and well worth comparing to the 9/11 commission's staff statement:

"Bin Laden 'explored possible cooperation with Iraq' while in Sudan through 1996, but 'Iraq apparently never responded' to a bin Laden request for help in 1994," reported the Post. "The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, 'but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.'" [/b]

See that Al? Prague meeting: Cheney cannot prove or disprove. 9/11 commission doesn't believe it ever happened. Check. Weekly Standard rails about a connection between AQ and Iraq that doesn't exist based on an unvetted memo from inside the administration. Check.

Like I said, you just want that connection SO bad I'll bet it hurts, doesn't it?
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |