View Full Version : 9/11 panel: No al Qaeda cooperation with Iraq
interesting to read their assesment as well as give information about the apparent workings of al-qaeda pre 9/11 and bin-laden's influence before and after...
http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/index.html
and interesting to see bush's assertions just the day before...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/index.html
I would love to see someone come forth and provide to me "concrete and irrefutable" evidence about the ties between al-qaeda and iraq given the scope of the report which appears to contain some rather interesting insights (ie bin-laden's inheritance question is answered as well as operations and functionality of al-qaeda)
btw for those who believe saddam was involved in 9/11
In September, after Cheney asserted that Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," Bush acknowledged there was no evidence that Saddam's government was connected to those attacks
Son Goku
06-16-04, 02:08 PM
It would seem that you beat both me and the server crash to this news story :D Another link with some more details though
The commission's report says Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.
"The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda."
A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.
Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.
"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.
There is also mention of another development, which is well disturbing.
The commission said that al Qaeda was still seeking to obtain a nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Al Qaeda "remains interested in using a radiological dispersal device or 'dirty bomb,' a conventional explosive designed to spread radioactive material," the commission said.
The report said that al Qaeda may also seek to launch a chemical attack using widely-available chemicals or by attacking a chemical plant or chemical shipments.
The commission also said stdhat Tenet testified that a possible anthrax attack is "one of the most immediate threats the United States is likely to face."
Nuclear weapons, directly in the hands of terrorists organizations and cells themselves :eek: :(
Edit: My link was just an abridged story of one of saz's links.
What I want to know is why I could not get on the forums for the last 3 hours. I saw this story and was trying to beat saz ;) to the post. Well here it is and I flat out reject this panel from the begining and I still do. The amount of evidence by intelligence all over the world disagrees with them.
"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.
They have not given any evidence that there wasn't any arrangement agreed on.
BTW the panel said there doesn't seem to be any credible evidence. It did not say there wasn't any connection.
Now for the panel to be truethful they would have to say that Iraqi documents which have been substantiated by intelligence agencies and Iraqi officers that say there was cooperation.
Now first off the left said there weren't any meetings between Iraqi intelligence officers. The panel says there were these meetings this contradicts what the left said before. How can this be? First there were no meetings now there were BUT there is thrown in this little qualifiyer "appears nothing resulted in these meetings". First off how do they know when the evidence goes against them with factual documents found in Iraq.
So what is it no meetings or ya meetings but nothing happend. This is such a weak argument.
Onsar al Islam was in the north of Iraq and Saddam still supported them. I suggest you check out this book. The Connection (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060746734/qid=1087414842/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-7310965-4207834)
This is the same panel that has Jamie Gorelick on the panel. She was the person that set up the wall during the Clinton administration that seperated the intelligence agencies. Yet she is on the panel. When this came out it blew the credibility of the panel and all of Washington DC was emberassed.
I still find it funny how the meetings with al qaeda and Iraq were lies but now that the panel says they did happen BUT nothing came from it, it is ok to "believe" it.
BTW you questioned the title of my thread yet yours does not reflect what the panel said. The panel chose very weasley words very carefully. "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." This also relates to the the "attacks against the US" with reference to 9/11. This is different from a cooperation with a terrorist group.
What I want to know is why I could not get on the forums for the last 3 hours. I saw this story and was trying to beat saz ;) to the post. Well here it is and I flat out reject this panel from the begining and I still do. The amount of evidence by intelligence all over the world disagrees with them.
that is your opinion and you are entitled to it...
They have not given any evidence that there wasn't any arrangement agreed on.
BTW the panel said there doesn't seem to be any credible evidence. It did not say there wasn't any connection.
Now for the panel to be truethful they would have to say that Iraqi documents which have been substantiated by intelligence agencies and Iraqi officers that say there was cooperation.
here's the thing... per this and various other reports of this finding from various news sources around the world the information is corroborated not only by iraqi officials but also al-qaeda officials in custody... I am sure you read the little excerpt about osama's al-qaeda lending a hand to training kurdish factions to overthrow saddam or lead insurgencies against him? naturally a close collaboration yields such results :cool:
Now first off the left said there weren't any meetings between Iraqi intelligence officers. The panel says there were these meetings this contradicts what the left said before. How can this be? First there were no meetings now there were BUT there is thrown in this little qualifiyer "appears nothing resulted in these meetings". First off how do they know when the evidence goes against them with factual documents found in Iraq.
the meetings are supposed to have taken place... there is a no substantiated information for or against that as per the panels findings though the information gathered from al-qaeda and iraqi officials tends to point to the fact meetngs may well have taken place but nothing was acted upon...
this is a far-cry from the rights assertion that not only were saddam and osama in cahoots but iraq was responsible for 9-11...
also I am STILL waiting for corroborating bits of info from anyone about these documents that supposedly highlight the solid links between saddam and osama that have been found in iraq... I have not heard of them and having a read through these links and so on/so forth might actually lend credibility to alternate claims and allow me to see that point of view..
So what is it no meetings or ya meetings but nothing happend. This is such a weak argument.
I am not saying we have all the information but at least it is now clear that dick cheney and the white house did try to blatantly mis-lead the nation by assosciating iraq with what happened on 9/11...
Onsar al Islam was in the north of Iraq and Saddam still supported them. I suggest you check out this book. The Connection (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060746734/qid=1087414842/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-7310965-4207834)
This is the same panel that has Jamie Gorelick on the panel. She was the person that set up the wall during the Clinton administration that seperated the intelligence agencies. Yet she is on the panel. When this came out it blew the credibility of the panel and all of Washington DC was emberassed.
I still find it funny how the meetings with al qaeda and Iraq were lies but now that the panel says they did happen BUT nothing came from it, it is ok to "believe" it.
BTW you questioned the title of my thread yet yours does not reflect what the panel said. The panel chose very weasley words very carefully. "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." This also relates to the the "attacks against the US" with reference to 9/11. This is different from a cooperation with a terrorist group.
my threads title is the exact same one as the title of the article... your threads title was not in any way relevant to the thread topic...
btw read this... http://www.davincicode.org/
good book too... explains a lot of stuff... :cool:
the meetings are supposed to have taken place... there is a no substantiated information for or against that as per the panels findings though the information gathered from al-qaeda and iraqi officials tends to point to the fact meetngs may well have taken place but nothing was acted upon...
There isn't any proof provided that nothing took place. There is zero. There is proof to the contrary.
Keep in mind that we are not just in a war against Al Qaeda. We are in a war against terror. This means as the title suggests that there are more than one group we are fighting. There are other groups that are trying to attack us and other affiliates.
I am not saying we have all the information but at least it is now clear that dick cheney and the white house did try to blatantly mis-lead the nation by assosciating iraq with what happened on 9/11...
That was never the major focus. It was the WMD and that area is starting to pan out as true as we had said it was.
Oh and your title is still wrong :D Mine was a play on words, yours is wrong as is the article. :D but seriously I am only messing with you because I don't mind if you spin or what title you put up. ;)
also I am STILL waiting for corroborating bits of info from anyone about these documents that supposedly highlight the solid links between saddam and osama that have been found in iraq... I have not heard of them and having a read through these links and so on/so forth might actually lend credibility to alternate claims and allow me to see that point of view..
I'm still waiting for you to bring forth credible evidence that those documents are fake. Nobody but critics of the administration say they are fake and don't blame this one on Chalibi. He was right on the WMD and the fact that some of what he said may have been wrong it proves there were more than one source to back up the WMD that were there but now can be picked up at your local junk yard.
what documents?
if I know about the documents perhaps I can say something regarding them but thus far all I have is you saying that these damning documents have been found... I have not seen any other information from any other channel wrt this udawg... how do you expect me to comment on something which I don't have any information about?
wrt wmd's... we still dont have anything wrt what was claimed nor what we were supposed to have found in the places they were supposed to have been found...
as for titles the ones I list are generally derived from the articles title... were I to have imagined a whole new title which had nothing to do with the article perhaps you would have something to mess with or have an argument with...
on a slightly related note... muqtada al-sadr has sent his militants home and appears to have made peace in iraq...
:thumbsup:
if I know about the documents perhaps I can say something regarding them but thus far all I have is you saying that these damning documents have been found... I have not seen any other information from any other channel wrt this udawg... how do you expect me to comment on something which I don't have any information about?
on a slightly related note... muqtada al-sadr has sent his militants home and appears to have made peace in iraq...
These documents have been written about in the press when they were discovered last late summer and early fall. Not all have been made completely public. The CIA does keep much of them top secret. Can I give you a link to them? Prolly not.
That is good news.
On a lighter note. We should have put a bullet between his eyes long ago.
wrt wmd's... we still dont have anything wrt what was claimed nor what we were supposed to have found in the places they were supposed to have been found...
So because they were moved then that makes is not credible if they pop up some place else? I'm trying to follow this argument here.
They are finding out more and more of what happend to them. Banned components have been found. Solid fuel rocket engines have been found. The evidence keeps mounting like a porn star to his co-star.
These documents have been written about in the press when they were discovered last late summer and early fall. Not all have been made completely public. The CIA does keep much of them top secret. Can I give you a link to them? Prolly not. That is good news.
so how do you expect me to comment on these things that you seem to have gotten to know about and many others apparently have not...
On a lighter note. We should have put a bullet between his eyes long ago.
So because they were moved then that makes is not credible if they pop up some place else? I'm trying to follow this argument here.
They are finding out more and more of what happend to them. Banned components have been found. Solid fuel rocket engines have been found. The evidence keeps mounting like a porn star to his co-star.
we have found 20 missle engines and items that were tagged by the UN wrt machinery... not munitions afaik...
you are adding 2 + 2 and getting 22... its a little hard to follow the logic when assumptions are made of the nature seen occasionally in these threads...
it is easy to assume various things based on vague references and flimsy evidence @ best and yet it is somehow convenient to dismiss rather solid information right from the horses mouth in many others... I am sure you will say the same about me though... :)
Little update. At the top of the hour news updates on the radio, CBS news reported with a audio clip of the spokesman for the 9/11 panel.
He said that there was not link between Saddam and the al qaeda terrorist. He said the President was right that there were connections and contacts with Iraq and Al Qaeda but the panel was focused on the the possible connection wrt 9/11.
Now this is different than the title of this thread would suggest. It is also different than what the statement 15 says in the report.
Bush also repeated a couple of times today that the administration never said there was a connection with iraq and 9/11. Collin Powel was on the Michael Medved Show today and he said that the administration never said there was a connection with Iraq and 9/11. He also repeated that Iraq and Al Qaeda had contacs with each other. These same contacts were poo poo by ALL the liberals on this board. Now the liberals on this board say "well... the panel says there were contacs with the two parties BUT! the panels says NOTHING "SEEMS" TO HAVE HAPPENED from those contacts".
Hmm seems to me like a argument is crumbling. We have gone from and absolute NO contacs to Yeah well but nothing happend.
BTW how bout that 3,000 body mass grave found in Iraq? ehh, pretty cool stuff. /rolls eyes.
Rakeesh
06-18-04, 01:18 AM
I don't believe that Bush lied about anything...
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
Drumphil
06-18-04, 07:52 AM
It sounds like you are grasping at straws UDawg. The statement that there was some contact between Iraq and Al Qaeda doesn't proove a thing by itself. You seem to be suggesting that the fact that there was contact prooves that there was much more going on.
Even if there was, how is this suppose to prove anything, unless you are using the logic that they ovbiously did it, to therefore any hint that they might have is proof that they did...
Why are you so confident that they are wrong about the result of these contacts. What do you know that the people on this panel don't??
If there was a whole stack of credible evidence of the links between saddam and al qaeda, and this was just one more piece, ok, but you are going on like this is another piece in the pile, when the pile has allready disappeared.
And the reference to the mass graves?? We allready knew saddam was a bad man who did terrible things.. We knew that long before 9/11. Wether or not going to war against him was the right thing to do is a separate issue, that is looking less and less related to 9/11 every day.
1998 indictment (http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html) against Bin Laden:
The indictment noted that Al Qaeda, Bin Laden's international
terrorist group, forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in
Sudan and with the government of Iran and with its associated group
Hezballah to "work together against their perceived common enemies in
the West, particularly the United States."
Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.
So regardless of whether Saddam had a hand in 9/11, Iraq was thought to have links to al Qaeda back in our previous administration.
It sounds like you are grasping at straws UDawg. The statement that there was some contact between Iraq and Al Qaeda doesn't proove a thing by itself. You seem to be suggesting that the fact that there was contact prooves that there was much more going on.
No you guys are trying to say something the panel did not say. Now as I have said many times and it keeps getting ignore. You guys on the left said there was NO contacts between Iraq and Al. This is proven wrong. Now you back off and say "well nothing seems to have happen" How do you now that? That is a MUCH weaker argument. What does the panel know that the administration know? I bet less.
The panel did not focus on Iraq and Al's connections only the connection wrt to 9/11. You should really read the statements. It might clear some confusion up.
Even if there was, how is this suppose to prove anything, unless you are using the logic that they ovbiously did it, to therefore any hint that they might have is proof that they did...
Your statement doesn't make sense. You are saying "in a way" maybe there was but what does this prove? The proof is that Saddam supports, funds and harbors terrorist. Whether it be Al Qaeda or other organizations hostile to America. This is what the war on terrorism is all about.
Saddam was a loud and open supporter of terrorism. This cannot even bee questioned. He has given speeches about the down fall of America.
Why are you so confident that they are wrong about the result of these contacts. What do you know that the people on this panel don't??
They did not even come to a conclusion wrt these contacs. Read the statements. They use words like "seemed" or "appeared" when talking about contacts and such. They make NO conclusion. This leaves a unfinished report. They are in essence saying
"yes they meet but we cannot find any evidence the we know of that supports a relationship or that there wasn't a relationship".
If there was a whole stack of credible evidence of the links between saddam and al qaeda, and this was just one more piece, ok, but you are going on like this is another piece in the pile, when the pile has allready disappeared.
The pieces are there. People choose which piece fit their agenda best. The less pieces looked at is best for those opposed to the war. The more you look at all the pieces the more clear the reality becomes.
And the reference to the mass graves?? We allready knew saddam was a bad man who did terrible things.. We knew that long before 9/11. Wether or not going to war against him was the right thing to do is a separate issue, that is looking less and less related to 9/11 every day.
It seems to me the left needs to be reminded who they are defending. The left routinely cries about human rights EXCEPT when it comes to actually doing something about it.
UPDATE:
The members of the panel, namely John Thompson said the press got it wrong. This was a live interview and it is recorded. He said we were only "concerned about 9/11"
He also said the president was "correct" when he said there were contacts between Iraq and Saddam.
Even the 9/11 panel said the media got this completely wrong.
I will wait for your retractions. :D
BTW Foxnews was the only one that got this story correct. They did not lead with the false titles that the NYT and all the rest of the liberal media lead with. Now I cannot speak for Foxnew channel. I don't watch it but on Foxnews.net they got the story right.
Rakeesh
06-18-04, 12:32 PM
Oops, I forgot to mention where those quotes came from:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
DiscipleDOC
06-18-04, 12:43 PM
:lol2: owned:
Rakeesh
06-18-04, 01:40 PM
Further reading:
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
hang on a minit... so the whole claim that al-qaeda was working in iraq to increase insurgency against saddam's secular government is bogus then?
Ninja Prime
06-18-04, 09:42 PM
Typical liberal press stupidity.
"Der, I only gotsa reads duh headline, teh rest aren't none gr00d."
Try reading what actually was said next time, and you'd find out that all they said is that there is none evidence they can find that the Iraqi governemnt colaborated on the 9/11 attacks with Al-Qaeda. I don't recall anyone saying specifically that anywhere in the Bush Admin.
This means that:
#1: Al-Qaeda could have colaborated with people in Iraq for 9/11, even prominent people, under the awareness of the Iraqi governement, just no cooperation took place.
#2: Al-Qaeda could have worked with the Iraqi governement on other terrorist attacks and activities, just not 9/11.(as seen by Russian intellegence)
#3: The Iraqi governement did colaborate with Al-Qaeda, but the commission just couldn't find evidence of it.
#4: Various other possiblities I don't care to take the time to outline when super libs won't believe those outlined above, and anyone who isn't a disillusioned lib will probably understand by now anyway, so no use wasting more of my time.
Edit: I see that Udawg has already mentioned how it was all wrong, didn't read the second page before posting.
lotsa coulda's and maybe's there ninja.. if it were typical stupidity by the "liberal" press you would easily have been able to refute whatever it is you are refuting with solid facts...
unfortunately since this is not the case and the overwhelming evidence shows that no collabaration has taken place (again keep in mind that none of the prisoners interogated so far has, to my knowledge, said anything about a collabaration taking place... some have alluded to training camps and the like but the only ones that al-qaeda are KNOWN to have trained in were in the kurdish regions in areas that were not loyal to saddam and were in fact setup to undertake insurgencies v/s saddam's rule)
time and again the whole "but this is FACT because so and so said so" has been put forth but to date there is nothing to say that saddam had anything to do with al-qaeda...
Drumphil
06-18-04, 10:28 PM
No you guys are trying to say something the panel did not say. Now as I have said many times and it keeps getting ignore. You guys on the left said there was NO contacts between Iraq and Al. This is proven wrong. Now you back off and say "well nothing seems to have happen" How do you now that? That is a MUCH weaker argument. What does the panel know that the administration know? I bet less.
You have gone backwards from "the iraq war is a response to a direct threat from WMD by saddam and al qeada", to 'saddam is a bad man, so its good what we did", to "there was no direct involvement of saddam in 9/11, but we know they have had contacts before" and you seem to think this is a victory over liberals somehow.. Practically everything we were told before the war has turned out to be false, and here we are arguing over exactly how much contact there was between saddam and al qeada, as if its the key argument to decide wether or not the war was right.. This argument wouldn't matter so much, but its the only thing the right has left to hold on to as a justification of their war.
Of course it doesn't make much of a justification for the war when you have allready been told something else was the justification, and all of a sudden nobody is talking about it anymore..
You have gone backwards from "the iraq war is a response to a direct threat from WMD by saddam and al qeada", to 'saddam is a bad man, so its good what we did", to "there was no direct involvement of saddam in 9/11, but we know they have had contacts before" and you seem to think this is a victory over liberals somehow.. Practically everything we were told before the war has turned out to be false, and here we are arguing over exactly how much contact there was between saddam and al qeada, as if its the key argument to decide wether or not the war was right.. This argument wouldn't matter so much, but its the only thing the right has left to hold on to as a justification of their war.
Of course it doesn't make much of a justification for the war when you have allready been told something else was the justification, and all of a sudden nobody is talking about it anymore..
You don't read or listen to much news do you? I am not going over this. We have laid out the case and you completely missed it. Is it a time zone thing? Should I post a day before I actually need to so it will get to you before our tomorrow so it wont be your yesterday?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.