Iraq and al Qaeda

The AP reports:

The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks found "no credible evidence" of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States, contradicting President Bush's assertion that such a connection was among the reasons it was necessary to topple Saddam Hussein.

In a report based on research and interviews by the commission staff, the panel said that Osama bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam even though he opposed the Iraqi leader's secular regime.

A senior Iraqi intelligence official reportedly met with bin Laden in 1994 in Sudan, the panel found, and 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-Qaida also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said. "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."

As recently as Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that Saddam had "long-established ties" with the terrorist network.

Read all about al Qaeda in the staff report here. (The Iraq paragraph is on page 5.)

Another interesting piece of info from the staff report:

Contrary to popular understanding, Bin Ladin did not fund al Qaeda through a personal fortune and network of businesses. Instead, al Qaeda relied primarily on a fundraising network developed over time. Bin Ladin never received a $300 million inheritance. From about 1970 until approximately 1994, he received about $1 million per year -- a significant sum, but hardly a $300 million fortune that could be used to fund a global jihad…"

Comments

[joe]

rst, you have successfully pointed out that the commission did not prove a negative. Well done.

When the commission says they have no conclusive evidence, they aren't making that statement after rummaging through my junk drawer, but after investiagating the issue for months, with a large budget and a staff. They are in the position where they would uncover such evidence if it existed.

[Kraorh]

While I certainly wouldn't rule out the possiblity of an al-Qaeda/Iraq connection (not on 9/11, but in other respects), conservatives who supported the Iraq War shouldn't really hang their hat on this. As I understand the nebulous "war on terror," the point is that it's not just a war against al-Qaeda, it's a war against any form, and any group, of terrorists that threaten American lives and interests. Conservatives who supported the war should therefore be ambivalent whether links between this one group and Iraq existed or not. All that really matters for their ideology should be whether Iraq had ties with any terrorist outfits, which they certainly did. Several terrorists sought and received safe harbor in Iraq, and Saddam directly funded Palestinian homocide bombers. There may be something wrong with the conservative ideology behind the war on terror, but it is internally consistent to argue for a war on Iraq from this perspective, regardless of al-Qaeda.

Now, did this make for a legitimate Casus Belli? I don't know. I didn't feel threatened by Iraq, but it's not like the regime there had a pure moral sovereign right to exist. I always wondered why the CIA couldn't just fund and assist an internal rebellion. Perhaps they were worried that all the activists and anti-war types who protested Reagan would come out of woodwork to say the same sorts of things they said about Central American interventions. Oh, wait, that didn't work, did it...

[fyodor]

rst,

"bipartisan commissions are fool's errands meant to give added weight to propaganda"

Potentially, sure. But what common propoganda goal would this commission be seeking in trying to hoodwink the country into thinking an Iraq-9/11 link didn't exist?

[Xrlq]

Are these findings unanimous, or are we reading the result of a vote? Depending on the answer, I can envision any of several scenarios:

• The paragraph about Iraq means just what it says. All that stuff about Mohammed Atta meeting top officials in the Czech Republic, Zarqawi getting safe harbor and top notch medical treatment in Baghdad, terror training camps in Iraq, etc. was just a bunch of crap, which sounds great in media sound bites but does not appear credible to anyone who takes the time to examine the evidence up close. The Commission found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States," because frankly, there wasn't any.
• The part about Atta was crap. The rest of the stuff in #1 wasn't, but it was associated with a different terrorist groups whose own connections to al Qaeda are debatable.
• As its name implies, the 9-11 Commission focused primarily on 9-11, not on Iraq, and not even on al Qaeda's own activities, other than the ones related to 9-11. Relatively little information on Iraq's role in international terrorism, with or without al Qaeda's involvement, was sought. What information on Iraq did come up was spotty, as it was ancillary to their investigation. As a result, the 9-11 Commission neither sought nor found "credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
• Ample evidence was found that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States, but the commission members couldn't agree as to how credible that evidence was.
• Some other explanation.

[Paul]

Per Instapundit, how does one reconcile the report with this book?

The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America
by Stephen F. Hayes

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060746734/reasonmagazinea-20/

[Ken Shultz]

...did the commission find no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam, or no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam ON THE 9/11 ATTACKS? Those are two very different things.

If the Bush Administration had made the same distinction, maybe we wouldn't see such confusion amongst the electorate. I remember a Washington Post poll, albeit from several months ago, showing that some seven out of ten Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was in some way complicit in 9/11.

I wonder how they got that idea?

[rst]

you have successfully pointed out that the commission did not prove a negative.

And nor did they disprove a positive. Like the grand unified theorem, which physicists and mathematicians feel free to pursue even lacking proof of its existence, we still don't know, and have only the fact that Iraq and a.Q. met and discussed teaming up. I wonder, if it was discovered that Cheney met with the board at Halliburton to discuss screwing over the American people by inflating contracts, but no evidence actually surfaced of having come to terms on that, whether that little formality would exonerate him. It's only the appearance of impropriety, after all.

They are in the position where they would uncover such evidence if it existed.

I do not believe you. It takes a leap of faith to believe that they are actually in that position, and are not merely mouthpieces who reached a compromise.

[R C Dean]

I can't tell if Shady is serious or sarcastic with this one:

There is no connection between Al Queda and Saddam. This was a conclusion reached by a bipartisan commision tasked with finding the facts surrounding 9/11. This is where facts come from . . .

Good one, Shady.

[meep]

Kraorh puts the debate back in something like the proper perspective: Bush never claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. If that is what the commissions findings say, then it is no surprise, and irrelevant.

But the media has successfully shifted history to make it seem as if A.Q. was the reason for the Iraq invasion. In fact, it was absolutely none of the justification. The UN resolution doesn't mention it, and if you go back and read Bush's speeches, it is only mentioned peripherially.

Did Saddam have connections to terrorists? Of course he did, but no one seems to remember his much-publicized payments to Palestinian suicide bombers.

Cheney is also a liar, but that has little to do with the commission's findings. They're all liars. Conservatives would be less reflexively defensive if liberals stopped trying to turn their every uncomfortable bowel movement into proof that "Bush lied".

[rst]

But what common propoganda goal would this commission be seeking in trying to hoodwink the country into thinking an Iraq-9/11 link didn't exist?

Sleight of hand to give us something meaningless to argue about.

[Steve]

Ken: Show me one instance where the Bush administration made that claim.

[Rick Barton]

Not only is Saddam not an "Islamo-fascist", albeit the truth of the fascist part; his regime was murderous terror on fundamentalist Islamists. A working relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida NEVER made sense.

This whole episode just illustrates the truth of what libertarians and conservatives have been telling us for a long time; you can't and shouldn't trust government!

[mxh]

Here's a question: why is that when the report states that "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq," some of you immediately conclude that this was part of a polite conversation? Something like: "did you guys have any connection with Saddam? No? Okay, thanks very much." Knowing what we now do about our willingness to use torture or torture-lite to get information from al Qaeda members (or those suspected of being al Qaeda members), isn't it more likely that these associates' "adamant" denials were tested by some extremely skeptical individuals who had the authority to do whatever they needed to do to get answers?

[HH]

This is the same commission which seemed clueless about Clinton's admitting that he turned down bin Laden, and has yet to call him back for falsely claiming to them that the quote was "out of context." Their credibility is zilch.

[Ken Shultz]

meep,

I don't claim that, "Bush lied", but I do claim that he was wrong. His administration sold the electorate on a list of items to justify bombing, invading and occupying Iraq, and all the items on that list turned out to be wrong on the facts.

The Bush Administration's biggest threat in this election isn't the perception that it lies, it's the perception that it's incompetent.

[rst]

I wonder how they got that idea?

People equate al Qaeda with 9/11 because they're stupid. When someone mentions that there is evidence that Iraq worked with al Qaeda, their little brains shortcircuit right to 9/11. It's the new Dawn Of Time for some of you dolts.

[mak_nas]

But the media has successfully shifted history to make it seem as if A.Q. was the reason for the Iraq invasion.

i think the media successfully reported what the polls show most americans believe -- and continue to believe. you can parse why they believe it and where responsibility lies.

rst, i respect your healthy skepticism of the commission report -- but, in the end, even if you don't take their conclusions as god's revealed truth, the report does underscore the non-existence of such evidence as would prove a linkage existed -- despite an exhaustive record of evidence and documentation reviewed

pair that fact -- and it is a fact -- with cheney's continuing affirmation as recently as yesterday that such links are not only evidenced but that, "he (saddam) had long-established ties with al qaida," and you have an example of a man who is telling The Big Lie, and will obviously continue to tell it.

[mxh]

When the Commission report states that "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq" some people here seem to want to conclude that it was part of a polite conversation. Something like "were you guys working with Saddam? No? Okay, thanks and sorry for the trouble." I guess that makes it easier to just ignore the the conclusions of a bipartisan panel that's been looking into 9/11 for months.

Knowing what we now do about our willingness to use torture or torture-lite to extract information from al Qaeda operatives (or those that we suspect of being al Qaeda operatives or Iraqi insurgents or those that we suspect of being Iraqi insurgents or those that mistakenly get caught up in a sweep of insurgents, etc.) isn't it far more likely that we got this information through some pretty extreme interrogation by some fairly skeptical people?

Not that that will convince those of you who cling to a Saddam-9/11 connection with religious fervor. Just food for thought for the non-tinfoil hat folks out there.

[mxh]

sorry for the double post

[meep]

I for one am certainly not claiming a Saddam/911 connection. I am claiming that it had nothing to do with Bush's stated reasons. "Proving" that what stupid people assumed--rather than what facts were presented--was wrong is irrelevant.

As for the credibility-via-torture angle, I don't really buy it. Most of the reports have indicated that our torture lite was done "for fun" rather than for information. At any rate, actual AQ operatives and organizers, themselves more than willing to use torture on others, have shown the basic wisdom of keeping cells seperate, and as many members in the dark as possible. If ties were at the upper, negotiating levels, no mare than a handful of people would even know it.

Again, I'm not saying those connections were there, only that the commission's findings make a larger claim to truth than their limited evidence supports. I don't buy Cheney's repeated assertions either.

[fyodor]

"Sleight of hand to give us something meaningless to argue about."

And they would want that because...?

[rst]

the report does underscore the non-existence of such evidence as would prove a linkage existed

Well yeah, but file that along with the beliefs in the "evidence" that asserts capital punishment does not deter crime, or that torture is not a more effective means of elucidating truthful accounts...

Again, you're confusing the statements about links between the Hussein regime and al Qaeda with statements about links between the Hussein regime and 9/11. The report opines only on the latter, not the former.

[mak_nas]

Most of the reports have indicated that our torture lite was done "for fun" rather than for information.

this, too, is a commonly consumed fantasy -- being as preferable as it is to the likelihood that americans tortured ordinary or mildly-suspicious iraqis for any information they might have as part of a systemic information-gathering program.

torture memos in the ny times, testimony for many armed services members including military intelligence agents, the active campaign to distance america from the geneva conventions -- though one might not have evidence to put the issue beyond a reasonable doubt, the preponderence of the evidence clearly suggests that the united states goverment sanctions torture in the aftermath of 9/11.

[mxh]

You said: "As for the credibility-via-torture angle, I don't really buy it. Most of the reports have indicated that our torture lite was done "for fun" rather than for information."

That's just incorrect.

"Paper: CIA Coerces Qaeda Suspects

Under secret interrogation rules approved after Sept. 11, CIA officers employed harsh, coercive measures against high-level terrorism suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay, a newspaper reports.

The New York Times reports CIA agents strapped suspected Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to a board, submerged him in water and made him think he might drown. The technique is known as "water boarding.""
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/13/terror/main617221.shtml

[HH]

"The paragraph about Iraq means just what it says. All that stuff about Mohammed Atta meeting top officials in the Czech Republic, Zarqawi getting safe harbor and top notch medical treatment in Baghdad, terror training camps in Iraq, etc. was just a bunch of crap, which sounds great in media sound bites but does not appear credible to anyone who takes the time to examine the evidence up close."

Oh no? In fact the idea that it was proven false is based mostly on media disinformation. As for Zarqawi, it can't be denied that he traveled with ease between Iraq and Afghanistan training and planning, and that a relative of Saddam Hussein was arrested as part of his organization.

[HH]

"I remember a Washington Post poll, albeit from several months ago, showing that some seven out of ten Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was in some way complicit in 9/11."

Yeah, a push poll. More Americans belive jobs were lost in the last 6 months, which is completely false.

[JDM]

Must resist urge to enter pointless Iraq debate..... will...failing...

Given:

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship"
,
"he (saddam) had long-established ties with al qaida,"

cannot be called a lie by any stretch of any sane person's imagination. Also, most of what Kraorh said, which is what I usually say.

Saddam was beyond any doubt a supporter of Islamo-terrorism, and al-Qaeda is not exactly a sharp line around particular groups.

In order to follow form, someone has to now ask me why we don't also invade Syria, Iran, etc, as if they'd never heard an ansnwer.

[Shady O'Grady]

You may have thought I was joking, but I was clear that it was better than the alternative.

[Ricky]

A.Q. had camps throughout northern Irag. That's a connection. Maybe they didn't work on 9/11 together but Iraq was definatly supporting and harboring terrorsts.

[Call me snake]

Anyone wonder now why George Mitchell and Kissinger sat this one out in favor of second and third stringers like Hamilton, Kean, Gorelick and Kerrey?? (That's the Debra Winger Kerrey, not the Catherine Oxenberg Kerry)

[Mark Bahner]

Is there anyone who disputes that Saddam Hussein provided support to the terrorists who tried to bring down the World Trade Center towers in 1993?

It seems to me that Saddam's support of the 1993 terrorists (AFTER the fact, which is even worse than before the fact, in my opinion) proves beyond doubt that he supported terrorists, and was a danger to U.S. citizens.

[Rick Barton]

The veracity of this report is supported by the fact that the Republicans control congress, this is a good thing for other reason's as well.

[mak_nas]

As for Zarqawi, it can't be denied that he traveled with ease between Iraq and Afghanistan training and planning, and that a relative of Saddam Hussein was arrested as part of his organization.

so did mohammed atta travel with ease between the united states, germany and afghanistan -- and relatives of the bin laden family are part of the saudi arabian government and were close confidants of george h.w. bush and his adminstration.

so what is your point? i would simply point out that none of that proved anything about iraq that it doesn't also prove about the united states.

[thoreau]

his regime was murderous terror on fundamentalist Islamists. A working relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida NEVER made sense.

Here's where I part company with Rick Barton. It's one thing to dispute the alleged evidence that would link Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda. It's another thing to argue that ideology would keep Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden from ever cooperating.

There are many reasons why they might not trust each other, but it's a bit flimsy to presume that they were too "principled" to forge a secular-Islamist alliance against a common enemy.

Dispute the claims of collaboration all you want. I'll even join in sometimes. Just don't try to argue that it's an impossibility. Evil sociopaths are capable of putting aside ideology to collaborate against common enemies. The question is not whether ideology would get in the way, the question is whether mistrust would get in the way. (e.g. Hussein would run the risk that collaboration might enable Bin Laden to get a stronger foothold in Iraq and then betray him.)

The distinction between ideological differences and plain old mistrust may sometimes be a small one, but it's important.

[Ken Shultz]

HH,

Most Americans are wrong about job losses, and they were wrong about Iraq being implicated in September 11. What's your point? You don't like push polls? So what does that have to do with anything? The link you gave doesn't even refer to the poll I was talking about; it goes to somebody's rant about Salon!

Somebody at a Republican Website made a reference to the poll I was talking about at the time it came out, maybe you can take it from them? It contains a blurb which appears to suggest that the Democrats feeble attempt to trick voters into thinking that Saddam Hussein wasn?t involved in 9/11, isn?t working.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/september/0908_hussein_911.shtml

[Skeptikos]

Report: 9/11 Commission Could Have Been Prevented

http://www.onion.com/news/index.php?issue=4024

"Think not only of these poor politicians, but of their families and their staffs," said Gerald Davis, spokesman for Stop The Panels, a group of advocates for the unseen victims of investigations. "Anyone who works for an important Washington politician has been touched by this tragedy."

[mak_nas]

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship"
,
"he (saddam) had long-established ties with al qaida,"

cannot be called a lie by any stretch of any sane person's imagination.

are you being serious? how does a meeting or two that came to naught become "long-established ties" *except* by spin and propaganda?

this is what i find so disturbing. by and large, the posters on this board think more than the average must-see-tv american -- and yet many are unable to extricate themselves from the simplest deceptions of white house spin.

even if you like cheney, it IS a lie -- one has only to have the courage to abandon their political faith and ideology for likely reality to see it. you can admire him for fooling many to advance his ideology of global democratic revolution if you like, but to be among the fooled is totally unnecessary. i don't pretend that that is an *easy* thing for any human -- i vote conservative ordinarily, i might add -- but it must be done if you are to see dictatorship coming.

[Nick]

You know there is a difference between Iraq not aiding al Qaeda in their attacks and the two not having any ties at all. I have not heard any Bush administration official claim the former, just the latter. As far as I know, Germany had no role in helping Japan bomb Pearl Harbor, but that does not mean there were no connections between the two.
Also, where does this insistence that we should be so narrow minded that we only care about Al Qaeda come from? Is it really inconceivable that there could be dangers from someone other than Osama Bin Laden?

[joe]

'This is the same commission which seemed clueless about Clinton's admitting that he turned down bin Laden, and has yet to call him back for falsely claiming to them that the quote '

I guess we're going to see the same "Smear the Commission" slime that oozed up when Richard Clarke and Condoleeza Rice testified. So COMPROMISED! So PARTISAN!

Yes, as somebody noticed, the "counterevidence just means you're part of the conspiracy" virus has jumped over from the JFK people.

[Kman]

There's a girl I knew in school once. We had some things in common, but some things not in common. After some persuading from friends one day, I approached her and asked her for a date. She said "no". No biggie.

I guess that means I had "long-established ties" with her, right?

[c]

kman, let's just say that if she turned out to be a terrorist, you'd be typing your posts from the bottom of a tank of water, strapped to a board.

[mak_nas]

Is it really inconceivable that there could be dangers from someone other than Osama Bin Laden?

conceivable, sure -- but EVERYTHING is conceivable. it's conceivable that france is plotting to destroy us next week with a nuclear strike. shall we invade?

besides the unwillingness (for i assume that is what it is) to see through the spin of your party heroes, the other thing that bothers me is the variable standards of proof and appreciation of nuance by both sides.

we are laymen, apart from the circles of power, about which we can only speculate. you'll never have absolute proof -- i accept this. and i never looked for absolute proof regarding the vital iraq question: is saddam an imminent threat to the united states? i looked for a preponderance of the evidence -- the civil court standard, not the criminal -- and i was never convinced that the standard was even nearly met.

yet many hawks, instead of bending their ideology, lowered their standard to include the most ridiculous "evidence" to support their case, and claimed it to be as valid as any physical property.

now we see in the aftermath that most or all of this evidence was (predictably) almost totally unsubstantiated. and the question becomes: who lied to us and why? the preponderance of the evidence is pretty clear.

and yet these same hawks raise the standard necessary to impeach their heroes to an absurdly high level, one that essentially cannot be met short of open confession. where they were once willing to countenance every slight potential nuance that favored their case as critically important, they now are flooded with nuances that oppose their received wisdom -- and dismiss it all with a wave of their hand.

it is this variability of standards of evidence that is the hallmark of implacable ideologues, people who need a church and not a party, imo -- and they number in the highest proportion among those who still manage to defend our acts in iraq, it seems to me.

[TJ]

"this is what i find so disturbing. by and large, the posters on this board think more than the average must-see-tv american -- and yet many are unable to extricate themselves from the simplest deceptions of white house spin."

mak_nas, it's like my grandad used to say: "son, you can't tell someone something they don't already know".

This thread is excellent proof of that notion.

For someone still convinced that the administrations original reasons for war in Iraq are true, the cognitive dissonence is so great that the 9/11 commission report just slips into the background noise.

[Kman]

LIES - a short list:

"No one has said that there is evidence that Saddam Hussein directed or controlled 9/11, but let's be very clear, he had ties to al-Qaeda, he had al-Qaeda operatives who had operated out of Baghdad." - Condleeza Rice, Meet the Press, 9/28/03

"You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam.- George Bush, 9/26/2002 (Source

"There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ?90s." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, 9/14/2003

"[Hussein] also had an established relationship to al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases and making conventional bombs." - Dick Cheney, as reported in the Boston Globe, 10/9/2003

"It is a connection that has unfolded, that we're learning more about as we are able to take the testimony of detainees, people who were high up in the al Qaeda organization. And what emerges is a picture of a Saddam Hussein who became impressed with what al Qaeda did after it bombed our embassies in 1998 in Kenya and Tanzania, began to give them assistance in chemical and biological weapons." - Condy Rice, Larry King Live, 2/5/2003

Please don't try to say "Hey, they never SAID there was cooperation" or try to sell the idea that the administration downplayed the "link".

[bigbigslacker]

I recall when the war on terror started speeches by Bush and Co. stating it wasn't going to be easy, or short, or popular at all times, and sometimes objectives would be public and other times secret, and there will be propaganda. Remember that when you are saying "Bush lied" or "where are the WMDs". I'm not saying you have to agree with that, but it was said. I dug the following article out of my 2001 news CD (I was an unemployed telecom worker in Sept and Oct of 2001 and had LOTS of time to read and save news articles - what "good" timing, eh). Here are some pieces of one article.

Friday September 21 08:56 AM EDT
Prepare for Casualties, Bush Says, While Asking Support of Nation
By ELISABETH BUMILLER - New York Times

The president outlined a broad framework for the campaign against terrorism, reaching far beyond Afghanistan and Mr. bin Laden's organization, Al Qaeda. He made it clear that American ground troops would be involved, and that a military strike could come soon. "Be ready," he said to the military.

"From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime," Mr. Bush said in a blunt warning that could encompass countries that the United States has previously identified as giving safe haven to terrorists, among them Iraq, Iran and Syria. The demands included an insistence that Americans be able to inspect every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan to ensure that they have been dismantled.

He warned the nation to expect a long campaign that will be fought with the visible weapons of war and secret operations.

The president implored the nation for its support and patience in what he described as a coming global struggle and made it clear that Americans should be prepared for casualties.
"Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have seen," Mr. Bush told Congress and a national television audience. "It may include dramatic strikes, visible on television, and covert operations, secret even in success."
The war, he added, would not be like the swift battle against Iraq a decade ago. Nor would it be like the air war waged by NATO over Kosovo in 1999 without a single American combat death

He posed a stark choice to other nations. "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make," he said. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

"The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends, it is not our many Arab friends," Mr. Bush said. "Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them."

[dead_elvis]

"You jerks-off"!

I want to know William Safire's opinion on that one.

[HH]

"Smear the commission?" I have yet to see a single substantive refutation of the fact that Jamie Gorelick ought to have resigned that commission and the fact that the questioning was clearly of a slanted, partisan nature when you compare the treatment of Rice and Clarke.

Salon pointed to a similar poll... asking a question like that is a push poll, no matter how many times it's done, and without comparative data, like say, the economic misinformation pushed by John Kerry and the media and swallowed by the public, it says nothing.

[wellfellow]

dead elvis,

I believe Kenner OK'd it, WFB condemned it, and Kilpatrick says the jury's still out.

[wellfellow]

Kilpatrick loving cliches and all...

[HH]

"When someone mentions that there is evidence that Iraq worked with al Qaeda, their little brains shortcircuit right to 9/11."

And now of course Michael Moore is downplaying connections between al Qaeda and 9/11. If only we could be as intelligent as Mikey!

[JDM]

"are you being serious? how does a meeting or two that came to naught become "long-established ties" *except* by spin and propaganda?"

I don't know, how does "long-established ties" mean Saddam planned 9/11? For that matter how does:

"no collaborative relationship" make "long established ties" a lie?

I have long established ties to my father, for example, but no "collaborative relationship."

You can believe whatever relationship/ties/contacts that existed between the two were not signifigant in terms of justifying the Iraq war, without defying all sense to claim that this proves Cheney is lying. The word "lie" has a specific meaning.

[Kman]

JDM writes: "You can believe whatever relationship/ties/contacts that existed between the two were not signifigant in terms of justifying the Iraq war, without defying all sense to claim that this proves Cheney is lying."

It doesn't "defy all sense".

Cheney has said that Saddam "had an established relationship to al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases and making conventional bombs." It's on the White House website here.

Now, if the 9/11 Commission is saying there was "no collaberative relationship", that's point-blank contradictory of what Cheney said. SOMEONE is being disingenuous.

[thoreau]

I'm pretty sure that at some point Robert Mugabe (dictator of Zimbabwe) must have done business with a militia that bought weapons from an arms dealer who sold weapons to some guys whose friends trained in an Al Qaeda camp.

Should we invade Zimbabwe?

[JDM]

The state department's indictment of bin Laden:

http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/Bin_Laden_Atef_Indicted_in_U.S._Federal_Court_for_African_Bombings.html

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Note the report is from 1998. Obviously, the authors were lying. That's right, lying. Knowingly spreading falsehoods. We know this to be so, because the the words "no collaborative relationship" appear in the 9/11 comission report.

[JDM]

"Now, if the 9/11 Commission is saying there was "no collaberative relationship", that's point-blank contradictory of what Cheney said. SOMEONE is being disingenuous."

Perhaps they disagree.

"You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam.- George Bush, 9/26/2002

Ha ha, what a liar! Al Qaeda has beards, while Saddam has a mustache! It's easy to distinguish between them!

[Larry]

I haven't had time to read this whole nonsenical thread, but it is interesting that the 9/11 commission finally admits there are extensive contacts between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, as opposed to what many had been claiming, and the media treats it like they contradict Bush and Cheney, who specifically have not tied these connections to 9/11.

But I was disppointed that someone on this thread repeated the lie about that poll on how many Americans connect Iraq and 9/11. I mean new lies are interesting to refute, but old lies just get tiresome. The poll showed, approximately, that a third of Americans thought Saddam was one of the guys behind 9/11, one third thought he might be behind it, and one third thought he had nothing to do with it. To be honest, that sounds about right--I personally feel each is about equally likely.

[TJ]

"Perhaps they disagree."

Someone is being disingenuous.

[Ken Shultz]

A similar poll?

You got your fingers in your ears and your eyes are closed.

[meep]

"Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."

Now, I won't suggest that Cheney is a paragon of verity, but since when do we take the word of OBL's buddies at face value?

[Douglas Fletcher]

When you're a lefty Democrat, probably.

[joe]

It's probably best to remain silent at this point, fellas.

[godspeed]

It's a bipartisan commission, headed by a republican, you jerks-off. Would you have believed it if Henry Kissinger told you so?

[thoreau]

Saddam is a Middle-Eastern Islamo-fascist who hates America.

Al Qaeda is composed of Middle-Eastern Islamo-fascists who hate America.

How could the ties be any more clear?

[s.a.m.]

When you're a lefty Democrat, probably.

So I guess the republicans on the panel have no say, Douglas?

[Les]

This topic, I find, is a good way of separating true conservatives from useless loyalists.

[meep]

Bipartisan commisions are fully capable of being moronic. Remember, unlike markets, bureaucracy puts the worst component of each of its constituent parts into the final product, rather than the best.

But regardless of your politics, it is ridiculous to put the word of OBL & friends on par with Cheney's. This is more of a commentary on the media than the commission. By putting Cheney's "assertion" after known terrorists' denial, the AP rhetorically lets OBL set the terms of the debate, and puts Cheney on defense.

And if subtle mind games like that from the mainstream media don't turn you off, you're further to the left than you think, because you're letting hatred of Bush get in the way of clear analysis of what you're being told.

[Shady O'Grady]

Okay, so the record is straight. There is no connection between Al Queda and Saddam. This was a conclusion reached by a bipartisan commision tasked with finding the facts surrounding 9/11. This is where facts come from, not from right wing pundit specualtion based on a wholly warped worldview with a very obvious axe to grind. I think you should retain you grains of salt for these assholes, and until you can come up with some proof to the contrary, take this finding as fact.

Now excuse me while I explain this to the 30% of people who apparently can't read but still like to take part in CNN polls.

[Ted Barlow]

Since the commission reviewed the same evidence that the Vice-President had, it hardly seems fair to assert that they're doing nothing more than taking the word of bin Ladin's associates. Rather, it seems that they've weighed the evidence and, on balance, rejected the hypothesis that there was a significant connection.

[Douglas Fletcher]

>> So I guess the republicans on the panel have no say, Douglas?

Who cares. The point is that, as meep suggests, the fact that senior Al Queda terrorists have denied any link with Saddam's government means only that they have decided to make that denial, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they are telling the truth.

If the republicans on the panel want to sign off on that as being a piece of telling evidence, good enough, I'll know I can safely ignore their bleatings in the future as well as I can whatever alternative versions of reality Bob Kerrey, Al Gore, and the LA Times poll might decide to spew between now and November.

[rst]

California had no credible evidence that OJ killed Nicole, either.

I am reasonably sure of two things: one, this has significance mainly for people who had little or no desire to take down Hussein before before 9/11, and two, bipartisan commissions are fool's errands meant to give added weight to propaganda.

I am regaled by your pageantry, big brother. Now tell us something we don't already know.

[Steve]

Wait just a damn minute -- did the commission find no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam, or no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam ON THE 9/11 ATTACKS? Those are two very different things. The AP report can't seem to keep them straight. Another news report I read (CNN, I think), said there were some connections, but not on 9/11.

I don't think anyone in the Bush administration ever said there was collaboration on 9/11. Just that there were enough connections that future collaboration was a possibility. Is that true? Who knows. But this doesn't answer the question.

[rst]

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994

Good thing the assertion that an Iraqi intelligence officer having met with a.Q. in Europe was proven to be baseless...apparently...

Bin Ladin 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 Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.

Between all these appearances, and the word of two Wahhabists who would rather be killing us than answering our questions, well, I'm about ready to pack up this whole thing, bring all our troops home and go back to arguing about tits on TV. Really, I'm glad we've cleared this mystery up.

[mak_nas]

les, your point is the most relevant one.

But regardless of your politics, it is ridiculous to put the word of OBL & friends on par with Cheney's.

actually, that is the only intelligent thing to do. cheney is a politician. need that be reiterated? he is a career liar. why would you trust anything he said more than the average street bum seeking spare change for booze?

the interesting subsequent act will be cheney's continued assertion that such ties exist, in open conflict with virtually anyone who is paying attention -- again, even the vast majority of CONSERVATIVE punidts openly admit the links never did exist. one must assume he will continue to reiterate the lie, as he knew as well as anyone what the commission report would say.

that cheney is so willing to so boldly lie to anyone who will listen -- and i agree, les, there are many who will grovel to his words, regardless of their truth -- makes him the most dangerous man in washington today. bold lies, after all, are the implements of revolution. i think it was hitler who said: "the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility since the great masses of the people?. more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one."

if there is anyone inside the beltway today who would attempt a coup d'etat "for the good of the people", it is cheney, imo.

[joe]

Doug, what intel on international terrorism, Saddam's government, and Al Qaeda are you privy to that the 9/11 Commission is not?

Didn't think so.

[Jennifer]

I forget who first said this, but I'll paraphrase:

The way to identify a fanatic is this: the more evidence you have to show that his belief is wrong, the more firmly he'll cling to said belief.

[in my name]

hey, Douglas & meep: maybe we ought to parade those al Qaeda bastards around camp X-ray in Gitmo naked, with feather dusters protruding from their rectums til they tell us the truth! 😉 that'll get a big thumbs up from me!

[mak_nas]

Since the commission reviewed the same evidence that the Vice-President had, it hardly seems fair to assert that they're doing nothing more than taking the word of bin Ladin's associates. Rather, it seems that they've weighed the evidence and, on balance, rejected the hypothesis that there was a significant connection.

exactly -- but that obviously won't stop the loyalists from taking every liberty wiht the truth to diminish the months-long imperfect-but-bipartisan-and-thorough review as a he-said-she-said between evil (obl) and "good" (cheney) that can safely be ignored because it contradicts their received wisdom.

[rst]

the more evidence you have to show that his belief is wrong

Be careful what you call evidence. Read that status report and count the qualifiers. You'll lose count before page 3. Besides the presentation of a.Q.'s structure and history, it is a long-winded and fancy paraphrasing of, "we still have no idea what happened between Iraq and al Qaeda."

[Paul Z]

"You jerks-off"? That's great!

[Jason Ligon]

throeau says it jokingly, but am I the only one who thinks this:

"Saddam is a Middle-Eastern Islamo-fascist who hates America.

Al Qaeda is composed of Middle-Eastern Islamo-fascists who hate America."

Plus this:

"Bin Ladin 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 Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,"

Equals bad?

What is the argument here? That AQ was actively seeking cooperation with Saddam, but probably didn't get a returned phone call, so we don't need to worry about the two teaming up? If the point we wind up making is that tyrants had better make loud public refusals to grant aid to terrorists when AQ attempted to contact them, I'm fine with that.

Before everyone jumps on me, I agree that strong statements about an ongoing connection are/were misleading. I just don't happen to think that this is much better.

[joe]

Like the, "Ha! Bush never said Niger!" argument, the president's defense of "I never said Saddam was involved in the September 11 attacks" rings hollow, since they worked so hard to suggest it, made sure the idea was widely known, never did anything to correct the impression, and responded to direct questions by saying "Yes" to a slightly different question, in order to produce the dishonest effect they wanted, without technically lying. I believe intel types call this disinformation (or misinformation, I can never keep them straight).

Anyway, the Bushies certainly have demonstrated an appreciation for nuance lately, eh?

[Andrew Lynch]

Sorry, can't bother to read through 81 posts. All I have to say to the original thread is, "Well, duh!"

[Gary Gunnels]

*chuckle*

Might I suggest that everyone read the staff report? 🙂

[mak_nas]

dubya is being obtuse again today -- particularly by INFERRING from possible meetings (in his view, a "relationship") a "collaborative relationship". these two things are far from the same, obviously -- but, like cheney, he must spin to survive, and in so doing is plainly being disingenuous.

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Thursday disputed the Sept. 11 commission's finding that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida terrorist network responsible for the attacks.

"There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida," Bush insisted following a meeting with his Cabinet at the White House.

"This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida," he said.

"We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida in Sudan."

[thoreau]

Salon.com's editors once had a meeting with Roger Ailes at Fox to discuss a joint venture, but the ideas never got off the ground.

Do Salon.com and Fox News have a relationship?