No collaboration between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

[Voronwë]

why did i say "brayd to the wolves? lol

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Actually I find the constant badgering and word twisting by the questioners aggrivating. You get off on that constant negativity and word twisting trying to make someone look bad. I don't.

[Truant]

No, you get off putting down anyone who questions anything. You think we are morally wrong for questioning.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

No I think questioning is cool. But, you never listen to any of the answers or believe any of them.

[Voronwë]

No I think questioning is cool. But, you never listen to any of the answers or believe any of them.

well since Scott McClellan was repeatedly using Colin Powell's UN presintation to justify his answers, the badgering is justifying. especially since many of the key points have been acknowledged by Powell himself to be inaccurate or patently false. This is why Powell has been furious behind the scenes with persons at the CIA and the Pentagon.

For instance the Pentagon lied to Powell about having multiple sources for the "mobile biological weapons trailer data", when in fact they had only one source for it, and the source was somebody the CIA did not trust - which is why their designation for this person was "Curveball". Additionally, this was one of Chalabi's guys, and I think we all know how much credibility we can put in that camp.

So the bottom line Mid is the reason they were badgering McClellan is because HE WAS BULLSHITTING THEM.

[Kylere]

I just spent way too much time looking at the actual Zelikow Report, guess what, it does not say there is no link between Osama and Saddam, it says their is not evidence of a link between them as it relates to the September 11th attacks.

That is a cookie of an entirely different flavor than it was being reported as, okay so Saddam did not order 911, or have prior knowlegde. Nothing in the report says he did not give them money, aid, etc for other terrorist activities.

I am surprised the factual data here is being so heavily under reported by MSNBC and the conservative press.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I am surprised the factual data here is being so heavily under reported by MSNBC and the conservative press.

I've heard it reported on Hannity and O'Reilly. Problem is the Bush-haters don't listen to those shows. So they come on boards like this and rant with their limited information. They don't really want to hear both sides anyway. Only negative news is good news to them. Positive news is for those scum sucking conservative types.

[Sylvus]

So they come on boards like this and rant with their limited information.

Then it is your opinion that given limited information, one should not act on it until they are certain that they are right? Odd...

[Voronwë]

I just spent way too much time looking at the actual Zelikow Report, guess what, it does not say there is no link between Osama and Saddam, it says their is not evidence of a link between them as it relates to the September 11th attacks.

That is a cookie of an entirely different flavor than it was being reported as, okay so Saddam did not order 911, or have prior knowlegde. Nothing in the report says he did not give them money, aid, etc for other terrorist activities.

I am surprised the factual data here is being so heavily under reported by MSNBC and the conservative press.

actually that is wrong Kylere.

it says (I quote again). if you want you can compare the bold sentences in the two quoted paragraphs.

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. Two senior Bin Ladin 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.

this is fro the US government's website (which i linked before in this thread already).

THe President said IRaq wanted to use Al Qaeda is a "forward army" and provided "chemical and biological weapons training".

so would you say that being a forward army for somebody or receiving chemical and biological weapons training from somebody could be construed as a "collaborative relationship?"

[Voronwë]

But in September -- after Cheney asserted in a televised interview 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 said there was no evidence that Saddam's government was connected to those attacks.

trying to find the transcript and show that thsi interview occured on...

Edit:

Meet the Press 9/14/03

Tim, we can do what we have to do to prevail in this conflict. Failure’s not an option. And go back again and think about what’s involved here. This is not just about Iraq or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it’s very, very important we get it right. If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. They understand what’s at stake here. That’s one of the reasons they’re putting up as much of a struggle as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that that’s going to strike a major blow at their capabilities.

i believe it was Kylere who described MSNBC as "conservative media" a post or two ago (though MSNBC certainly wouldnt say that).


at any rate the interview proceeds:

MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that. With respect to 9/11, 9/11, as I said at the beginning of the show, changed everything.

without putting too fine a point on it though, I think Cheney clearly does attempt to associate Iraq with 9/11 in the first question. The follow-up question is about post-war Iraq ("the resistiance...."). So in that regard, I do not think I am quoting Cheney out of context.

[Arundel Pajo]

I've heard it reported on Hannity and O'Reilly. Problem is the Bush-haters don't listen to those shows.

Well, there's a problem, right there.

Hannity is total infotainment. He plays to a crowd, and is often not only biased, but flat-out wrong. Most of the other pundits on FOX are just as bad. And it's not so much a liberal/conservative thing, either - that level of willful slant and disinformation makes my bile rise regardless of who is purveying it. It's the same reason I don't much like to read the comics of Ted Rall, or take Michael Moore too seriously. It's more entertainment than it is news.

O'Reilly I at least give *some* consideration to. I will occasionally listen to him. Even though he usually aggravates the ever-living shit out of me, he does occasionally have a salient point. He bullies his guests way too much, and is often way too biased. Still - he's more of an ultra-libertarian than he is a true Republican. You could have knocked me over with a feather, for instance, when he came out very vocally in favor of gay marriage. I'd say O'Reilly has an 90-10 rule with me... 90% of the time, he makes me angry.

Hannity, though? Not a shred of news anywhere near that shit. Might as well pick up the latest Anne Coulter book.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I guess it's all in the way you read it and what you want to hear. I didn't read it that way at all.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

So they come on boards like this and rant with their limited information.

Then it is your opinion that given limited information, one should not act on it until they are certain that they are right? Odd...

You're assuming I think they didn't have anough iunformation to attack Iraq. I'm perfectly fine with the amount they had. I would have been perfectly fine if they gave no reason at all. His past agressions are reason enough in my mind. Watch Hannity and Colmes tonight. They are showing the tapes of the torturing that went on by Saddam's people. And no, it doesn't have anything to do with putting underwear on peoples heads. Not that gruesome! LOL

[archeiron]

You're assuming I think they didn't have anough iunformation to attack Iraq. I'm perfectly fine with the amount they had. I would have been perfectly fine if they gave no reason at all. His past agressions are reason enough in my mind. Watch Hannity and Colmes tonight. They are showing the tapes of the torturing that went on by Saddam's people. And no, it doesn't have anything to do with putting underwear on peoples heads. Not that gruesome! LOL

This is where you and I fundamentally differ. I am a civilized man with a humble respect for civilization. War is an anathema to civilized society that should be avoid if at all possible. Military force should be reserved for a clear and present, unavoidable danger to our (civilized) way of life.

The act of war and the its pursuit can irreperably tarnish that civilized side within all of us.

I do not believe that the American people were given sufficient facts to show that Iraq represented a clear and present danger to the United States. I expect a democratically elected official to be held accountable for his decisions and have this information made available to public scrutiny (within reason) that his actions can be accounted for.

It appears that we did not have a massive intelligence network working within Iraq that would have been comprimised by the (limited) intelligence we had before the war, which was the shroud our president used to avoid justifying himself to his constituency (The US).

His behavior was and continues to be disturbingly authoritarian and secretive.

[Kylere]

Hey Voronwe, your last quoted sentence reads, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." that is the point I am making. This leaves a world of open interpretation because this is not an explicit, It did not happen, it is a "it did not do X"

I am starting to read this type of stuff the same way I listen to my stepdaughters, when they say, "I did not do anything in the kitchen" I am safe in assuming 99% of the time that means they did something wrong in the living room.

I have found reports that say this language was not approved by the entire commitee but was in fact a sub report, I read stuff that says this was not intended for public release because it weas but a single facet of information.

At this point I can say that I doubt ever finding the truth about all this for a minimum of 20 years. But I do firmly believe that our government officials were being told on a daily basis that this stuff WAS occuring, and I think Bush ran with his support post 911 to pursue it because he, and his staff felt it was true. Do I think they were right? No, but I have the benefit of hindsight. If Clinton/Gore had stood up on the day Shock and Awe kicked off, and said uncategorically that there was no WMD, there was no Osama link etc, I would be singing their praises now, but obviously they did not feel that way and they had the next best set of eyes on the same info Bush had. Yes I think Bush is more the cowboy type on such decisions, and yes I think he is more likely to have been less questioning of the information he received, but I do not feel that he went to war building an intentional for the American public. I really think he acted on what he thought was right, not right now, but what he felt was right at the time.

Now I know the ranting foaming at their mouth types insist he is the antichrist and the demon from the pit, but if he was spinning his head around, throwing up pea soup and levitating in the Oval Office, I figure SOMEONE would have leaked it by now.

[Forthe]

Kylere,

Too many stories from civil servants and former administration officials have come out for me to give the benefit of the doubt that you do. They used talking points that they knew were wrong and exagerated others. They were selling the war like a used car salesman.

I do not believe the administration just used intelligence they believed to be true. They created and shaped that intelligence on the back of 9/11 to facilitate their agenda. An agenda that existed very publicly prior to 9/11.

[Kylere]

See Forthe, I can believe Cheney would do something like that in a heartbeat, he is a fucking scumbag, I even believe Bush could be sucked up into it.

But Colin Powell is a man of honor.

[Animale]

And that's why he's not going to be Secretary of State next term. His honor was USED by the rest of the administration for their own advantage. Maybe he'll talk about it some day, maybe not. I would be an interesting read/interview thats for sure.

Animale

[Kylere]

Since he is not dumb, nor a patsy Animale, I am willing to bet that he held the same beliefs based on the intelligence available or he would have said something at the time.

Now to be fair, I met him, and his cult of personality may have had an effect on me, but I don't think he willingly went along with a lie.

[Voronwë]

kylere the report is their 15th published staff statement. I have a hard time believing that the document accidentally was published on the government's website, and still after some weeks remains there, if this was not the original intention.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/ ... ent_15.pdf

page 5.

anyways, not to split hairs or get lost on a tangent. I agree with you that the executive branch was hearing that this stuff was going on (WMDs in Iraq, helping Al Qaeda, etc).

And the problem was the manner in which they were hearing it. Chalabi's group had gotten basically connected to people who reported directly to Cheney, and they were able to get "intelligence" to the Office of the Vice President that was not vetted properly through ordinary channels. Because Chalabi's group also had the parallel agenda of wanting Saddam removed (for their own different reasons...namely taking power in that country), they certainly were motivated to provide the US government with information that would move that process forward.

Certainly, our government did not only use that information, and I don't think Bush himself willingly corrupted intelligence information for the purposes of decision making. I do however think that persons who worked for him did, and Bush either was aware of this and let it occur, or he was ignorant of it. In either case, it is an indictment of his presidency if my original point is correct.

Back to my quote from Dick Cheney. I will concede that after thinking about it further, I can say that it is possible that through the paragraph he switched the emphasis (without verbally clarifying) to talk about "The Middle East" as opposed to "Iraq". Regardless, I think the statement would be vague and still not entirely accurate. He has been a CEO of a publically traded company as well as a Congressman, and a Secretary of Defense, so he is intimately aware of the importance of speaking clearly. I would also suggest that any ambiguity could have also been introduced intentionally (he does say he 'was very careful' in his language in that answer when Russert followed up with him) to give the impression that the administration believed Iraq was associated wiht 9/11, but said it "without saying it".