It takes two, it takes two, me and you.
- Thread starter SmallTown
- Start date
From the article linked,
Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said in the staff report, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.
While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a "collaborative relationship."
"Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded," the report said.
"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred" after bin Laden moved his operations to Afghanistan in 1996, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," it said
What is a “collaborative relationship” if it isn’t multiple meetings/conversations/communiqués discussing matters of common interest, like attacking the USA? And these are what we know about, could there have been more that we know nothing about? You bet, our intelligence from that region was skimpy at best. I think we were lucky to be able to show any tie at all.
Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said in the staff report, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.
While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a "collaborative relationship."
"Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded," the report said.
"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred" after bin Laden moved his operations to Afghanistan in 1996, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," it said
What is a “collaborative relationship” if it isn’t multiple meetings/conversations/communiqués discussing matters of common interest, like attacking the USA? And these are what we know about, could there have been more that we know nothing about? You bet, our intelligence from that region was skimpy at best. I think we were lucky to be able to show any tie at all.
SmallTown
Football season!
Also from the article:
The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq.
On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator "had long established ties with Al Qaeda."
Although not in this article, the report also dismisses the allegation that Atta met with iraqi officials, which has been claimed many times.
Considering what all is in the report, I don't think our intelligence was skimpy. True, many of the items were proven after the fact, but the writing on the wall was there back then. And mind you this is the unclassed report, who knows how deep the intelligence actually goes.
Yeah yeah. And OJ is innocent and Bill Clinton didn't inhale.
How do they explain the Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq? How about the Madrid bombing? What about all those Iraqi defectors saying that there was a direct link?
You'll pardon me if I scoff at the "findings" of the 9-11 Commission.
How do they explain the Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq? How about the Madrid bombing? What about all those Iraqi defectors saying that there was a direct link?
You'll pardon me if I scoff at the "findings" of the 9-11 Commission.
Hey! You're right! bin Laden's guys say there was no tie so it MUST be true!
Doesn't matter - that statement shouldn't even have been in there. But they obviously care what bin Laden's henchmen think and are willing to believe them. So that negates the whole 9-11 Commission charade, in my opinion.
I'm surprised you're just willing to take this as the truth, but you were all over the Bushies, the Blairies and whoever else said there was a connection. Did someone finally say what you wanted to hear?
SmallTown
Football season!
People like you are the ones who took solice in the fact that Bush and Blair were making the connection, I had nothing to lose or gain by the report.
So now we don't care what bin laden's people have to say? What about all those tactics we used in the iraqi prison? We did all of that for fun, not because we were trying to get information from them? We have spent countless hours interrogating saddam and other suspected terrorists when in reality we really didn't care what they had to say? Come on Vrai.
Okay, I will. If this report is honest and true, the next step is to bring Bush up on impeachment charges for lying about intelligence in order to start a war. While they're at it, they need to slap Powell and Rice with a perjury charge for giving false testimony at the hearings.
Wouldn't that make sense?
Okay, I'll buy that "out" as far as Bush is concerned. But what about Powell and Rice's testimony?
I'll dig up a transcript to make sure but I thought they both testified that there was a connection. If so, that's perjury, which is a crime (no really, it is).
And Bush actually repeated the connection so I'm not so sure he'd be exempt from impeachment charges.
I mean, what DO you do when your President lies about evidence, along with his Secretary of State AND his National Security Advisor, in order to start a war with a sovreign nation that posed no threat to us?
I'll bet the papers are being drawn up right now. Say bye bye, Bushie. Cause at the very least, he's toast in November. Right?
SmallTown
Football season!
At the very least, anyone who comes forward with allegations better be sure that the "intelligence" they were given is accurate. Everyone will just claim gigo. We are hearing a pattern coming out of washington recently "The intelligence was faulty", "terrorist attack report was wrong", "there doesn't seem to be a connection after all". Makes wonder how many more of these things will come out.
What the hell - I was really hoping you'd have some integrity and put this out yourself but I should've known better.
The 9-11 commission said that Iraq wasn't tied to Al Qaeda with regard to 9-11. As in Saddam didn't help bin Laden plan and carry out the WTC/Pentagon attacks. But no one said they did. What the Bushies have been saying is that there are ties between the two factions - which there are, unless you think every news reporter and commentator is a liar and you're the only one that knows the truth.
So close but no cigar.
SmallTown
Football season!
Wrong again. This was the 9/11 commission, so of course it will talk abot the iraqi-al-qaida relationship with regards to 9/11. But the points the reports discusses or many of the same points that Bush discussed when trying to convince the world that we should go into Iraq. Remember, a year or so ago I was here complaining that everytime Bush mentioned going into Iraq, he conveniently mentioned 9/11 and al-qaida. I said back then it was wrong to use the same terms in the same discussion, because people would get the wrong idea (of course, this is a great way to try ad join two separate entities without actually coming out and stating it)
But then there were the other statements Bush made that tried to clearly make a link, such as Atta visiting Iraqi officials which was later not proven to be true.
But then there were the other statements Bush made that tried to clearly make a link, such as Atta visiting Iraqi officials which was later not proven to be true.
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
I found the reports interesting. Especially the part that there was no evidence al-Quaeda was linked to the 1993 WTC attack, no evidence of illegal drug money going to al-Quaeda (remember the TV ads) and no evidence of Iraq/al-Quaeda.
Found this article interesting from the liberal Ft. Wayne, IN press
From the San Jose Mercury News
Bush is the teflon president, every lie has been exposed but he still isn't being impeached.
Found this article interesting from the liberal Ft. Wayne, IN press
From the San Jose Mercury News
Bush is the teflon president, every lie has been exposed but he still isn't being impeached.
Interesting comment made on Hannity & Colmes last night....it is believed that the Dems won't seek for impeachment....YET. they are going to see what happens in November, and if Bush is elected again, they plan on coming out guns a'blazing for an impeachment process.
