9/11 Commission finds no Credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam
POSTED BY: Zoriah
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 7, 2004 14:06
VIEWED: 22022
PAGE 5 of 10
I don't know what mental defect makes me think that facts actually count for something. But here goes. Regarding Iraq and al Qaeda, the 9/11 Commission actually looked at a broad time-frame and make sweeping statements about the lack of ANY connection between the two over since al Qaeda's inception, not just in regards to 9/11.
Here are extended quotes, which are much more informative that carefully culled snippets:
We have examined the allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9. Based on the evidence available — including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting — we do not believe that such a meeting occurred. The FBI ’s investigation places him in Virginia as of April 4, as evidenced by this bank surveillance camera shot of Atta withdrawing $8,000 from his account. Atta was back in Florida by April 11, if not before. Indeed, investigation has established that, on April 6, 9, 10, and 11, Atta ’s cellular telephone was used numerous times to call Florida phone numbers from cell sites within Florida.
Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan (1991 - 1996 dates added), despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact 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 (1996 date added), but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes Rue, statement 15 is all about the history of Al Qaeda going back decades, they looked at possible links to Saddam in the 90's and found nothing. And I have no doubt they examined ALL of the available evidence regarding Al Qaeda's formation, operation, sponsors and connections dating back to its inception. Unless Cheney is still withholding something, which is possible.
Of course now they are jumping to say - oh but um it was only in regard to 9/11 absolutely, specifically, cos gee the government is pissed that we worded it that way in the statements.
Proving attempts at contact is one thing, proving established co-operation and collaboration as implied by the Bush government is another entirely.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And here is more stuff regarding Reagan's and Bush the First's cozy relationship with Iraq (even after knowing Iraq gassed the Kurds)
"September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war."
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php (1)
'Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982.' (3)
"November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians." (1)
In December 19-20 1983 Ronald Reagan sent Rumsfeld as an envoy to Iraq, carrying a hand-written letter stating the US wished to resume diplomatic relations. Rumsfeld met with Hussein personally during that time.
On March 5, 1984 the US State Department issued a report stating it had evidence Iraq had used chemical weapons. On March 7, the International Committee of the Red Cross issued a statement saying that injuries to soldiers were consistent with chemical weapons. http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html (2)
Around that time the UN sent investigators into Iran to investigate the use of chemical weapons.
On March 23, the UN released a report indicating evidence Hussein was using CW. 'Commenting on the UN report, US Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick was quoted by The New York Times as saying, “We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular.”''The Saddam in Rumsfeld’s Closet' by Jeremy Scahill http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm (3)
'[during a return visit to Iraq] March 24th, ... U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination.”' Later 'The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, “American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.” (3)
"Rumsfeld went to Baghdad ... to assure Hussein that while President Reagan was on record publicly decrying their use of chemical weapons, that in no way ''intended to imply a shift in policy, and the U.S. desire 'to improve bilateral relations, at a pace of Iraq's choosing, remained undiminished.''' http://wilmingtonjournal.blackpressusa.com/News/article/article.asp?Ne
wsID=36687&sID=4 (4)
On March 30, 1984 the UN Security Council issued a statement condemning the use of chemical weapons.
"July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops." (1)
"March, 1986. **The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons."** (1)
Iraq purchased military helicopters of various US manufacture. Other purchases and assistance over a long time frame:
"Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified ... the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean firm, Cardoen, to send cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave" attacks.
A congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under license from the commerce department."
The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html (5)
"Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq." (1)
'In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times ... they “believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs.”
**In response to the
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
But he didn't do any of those things because we all live in Fantasyland. And in Fantasyland Saddam and Bin Ladden could rape Jessica Lynch live on national TV and somehow Bush would be responsible. The Fantasylanders would argue that the FCC should never have allowed this to be broadcast.
Hero, you are ... well... my hero! Thanks for putting this in terms that simpletons might be able to understand... but I doubt it.
==============================================
Mal: You are very much lacking in imagination.
Zoe: I imagine that's so, sir.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf
Yeah, the US were the MAIN suppliers of arms to Iraq. Much as it may seem by what you supplied the US had very little to do with the number of arms supplied to Iraq, and I am still not sure we did the wrong thing, (though I think chemical weapons was definately the wrong thing to do). Iran wasn't all puppies and sunflowers.
And even then the conventional weapons bought from the US, (all helicoptors) were bought for conventional usage, then pressed into service by the airforce. (Source: http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPRTS_73-02.pdf)
Check out the military contributions for military usage of the other countries, bud. Furthermore, France and Germany also exported equipment used in the manufacture of chemical weapons to Iraq. (Things that governments are supposed to "know" about.)
http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/whoarmediraq.pdf
Here is a far more neutral article in my opinion.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1230-04.htm
I don't care, I'm still free.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, at least we seem to have put to rest some proposals:
1) that al Qaeda, international terrorism, and WMD were reasons to invade Iraq (even you agree)
2) that Hussein was so evil the US just had to invade! Which falls apart in light of US support of same, such as giving billions of dollars of credit; providing intelligence; selling dual-use supplies and equipment; stonewalling UN action re: Iraq's CBW against Iran and the Kurds; etc (BTW, the notion the UN was idle 'forcing' the US to take action, goes in the same dust-bin.)
3) that while it was OK for the US to help Iraq's dictator Hussein against Iran's dictator Khomeini (all in a good cause - to protect the US mid-east oil supply) other countries were nasty and evil for having financial interests in Iraq
4) that the 'perhaps million' killed by Hussein get to be counted on the outrage meter, but the hundreds of thousands directly killed by the US (US Gulf War I and II), the millions killed in the Iraq/Iran war with US assistance and agreement (originally called the Gulf War), and the half-million to million who died as a result of sanctions, don't (selectively parsing outrage doesn't cut it)
5) that the US stands for democracy (the US described by you as a Constitutional Republic and Bush, the Lesser, as a benevolent dictator)
6) that the US didn't know about Iraq gassing the Kurds in Halabja and elsewhere, and so its continued support for Hussein was an innocent mistake
Out of the various proposals you've made, that leaves ... Well, what does that leave?
Other countries as well as the US had financial interests in Iraq which made sense of supporting Hussein against Iran, despite his well-known evil ways. And so other countries as well as the US sold conventional and unconventional arms and supplies to Iraq. And the US continued diplomatic and financial relations, providing billions in credit, selling questionable items etc up to 1992.
But how does moral outrage over Hussein's evil dictatorship now get retrofitted onto history?
The true threshold to the most recent war was the oil contracts (1993 - 2003). Other countries got them, the US and Britain didn't. Not one. Considering Iraq has the world's largest known oil reserves, it was a big deal.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Below
Quote:
that Hussein was so evil the US just had to invade! Which falls apart in light of US support of same, such as giving billions of dollars of...
I don't know why you think that falls into the dustbin... Just because someone is the lesser of two evils, doesn't mean they aren't still evil. I think you are missing the point, either wittingly or unwittingly.
Quote:
that while it was OK for the US to help Iraq's dictator Hussein against Iran's dictator Khomeini (all in a good cause - to protect the US mid-east oil supply) other countries were nasty and evil for having financial interests in Iraq
Erm...
No, that is the most RIDICULOUS thing I have ever heard.
Come to think of it, build a time machine and go back to Iran in the early 80's, hell, go there now. I am sure you will absolutely LOVE what that Ayatollah has done with the place.
Quote:
4) that the 'perhaps million' killed by Hussein get to be counted on the outrage meter, but the hundreds of thousands directly killed by the US (US Gulf War I and II), the millions killed in the Iraq/Iran war with US assistance and agreement (originally called the Gulf War), and the half-million to million who died as a result of sanctions, don't (selectively parsing outrage doesn't cut it)
Please provide credible sources for these numbers, including the number of dead noncombatants, and the supposed link to US involvement in these deaths, which as far as providing intel is comprised of can be very sticky to determine. Furthermore, where do you get hundreds of thousands killed in the first Gulf War? (Sanctions deaths are an interesting thing to be appalled at, perhaps you would WANT to give money/arms to Saddam? Maybe you think he's a good guy, who knows what crazy things you believe.)
From Wikipedia.
Gulf War casualty numbers are controversial. Coalition military deaths seem to be around 378, with US forces suffering 148 battle-related and 145 non-battle-related deaths (included in the 378). The UK suffered 47 deaths. The largest single loss of Coalition forces happened on February 25, 1991 when an Iraqi Scud missile hit an American military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia killing 28 U.S. Army Reservists from Pennsylvania. The number of coalition wounded seems to have been less than 1,000. Iraqi casualty numbers are highly disputed. Some claim as low as 1,500 military killed, some 200,000. Many scholars believe a number around 25,000 to 75,000. The number of military wounded is equally unknown. 71,000 Iraqis were taken as prisoners of war by US troops. Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths range from just 100 persons to 200,000 excess deaths as a result of the war.
Yes, if you want to take Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf word, I am sure you can total the number of deaths to 400,000.
But lets not be competely insane and go with the logical 25,000 or so.
Quote:
that the US stands for democracy (the US described by you as a Constitutional Republic and Bush, the Lesser, as a benevolent dictator)
Okay, you have me in stitches. I think you must have a selective reading problem here bud. Furthermore I don't think you know the terms you are using. We are a Constitutional Republic, which is a form of Democracy. Furthermore, I never described Bush as a benevolent dictator, I said that being in a democracy did not equal freedom. If you want to ACTUALLY read, (I know, a novel concept) I said that a benevolent dicatorship can provide as much, if not more freedom, then any democracy can provide. I suggest that you actually try READING in the future. Might save you some trouble.
Quote:
6) that the US didn't know about Iraq gassing the Kurds in Halabja and elsewhere, and so its continued support for Hussein was an innocent mistake
Yeah, I definately said that.
Sounds to me like you need to look more at France. Perhaps the fact that they armed Iraq with more conventional weapons in 1990 ALONE, (even after all he had done,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, this thread is full of the sort of lies and bullsheit that I've come to expect from neocon Americans.
I suppose the thing to remember here is that the rest of us in the world aren't brainwashed by American media liars, nor are we so foolish as to think the USA has ever done anything but install dictators, kill citizens, and generally impose thier inhuman foreign policy on the rest of the world like the Empire it is. After all, can you give me one country the USA has helped? EVER? Well, I can site bombings, killings, dictators created, and Iran/Contra till the cows come home. You see, many in the world are beginning to see a pattern with the USA and the world is not amused.
As I said before (sorry if I was so OT there Zoriah), I wanted to forward the opinion that the American motivation for a War against Islam is the same as Cold War motivations... and the results are the same: Iraq will have American troops dieing there for 10 years at least (come back in a year to see if Ghoulman is right!).
The Pentagon Papers... someone please look it up since jcobb refuses too. What a jerk!
Nice little site from the Vets in the USA. Check it out. Vietnam History.
http://www.vva.org/about_the_war.htm
Oh, and of course Nixon excalated the Vietnam Conflict, (btw it's not called a "war" because the US didn't want to call it that. Tell that to a Veteran and watch the responce). Nixon DID excalate the number of troops too. However, he did drop the number of American soldiers (but still exculated the number of Allied troops in Vietnam) in 1969 while still insisting to Kissinger that "we should just nuke em!" - that's an actual quote btw. So I'm right of course, but liars like to pick on one detail to "prove" you're wrong. It's an underhanded lie and a common tacktic of the legions of Limbaugh liars out on the Media cyberwaves.
Getting to the real topic - the American Media is a liars dream!
Take the Putin announcement. Putin says "he" had passed information to the White House that a top Iraqi Officer was an Al Quada member. At the same time, Bubba Clintons' book has come out (a memoir). Now, Billy Boys book is no big thing but the Neocons all over CNN constantly spun the Clinton book into a greedy push for book money and that Clinton was a terrible President and liar because of the Monica thing.
Yea, big hairy deal! What shitters they are on Meet the Press!
While at the same time. the Putin thing is presented as pure truth. Well, any fool can see that Putin might have gotten this from the recent G8 meeting in Georgia State from Dick Cheney himself. Further, presenting this after the 9/11 Commission is OVER (done! finished!) just shows it's propoganda for the American Media. They will repeat this (soon to be disproved) bullsheit over and over like it's truth.
But it isn't.
So Clinton is demonized for writing a book (what a horrid thing for an ex-President to do eh!) while information about Putins' lie (which he got from the White House in my opinion) will be repeated and repeated for the rest of the year as truth... but it's not.
America is the matrix. TAKE THE RED PILL!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow...
I think my IQ dropped 20 points, (and I don't have that much to lose, bud 
) just by reading your posts.
I wonder, if you keep lying to yourself, do you actually start to believe your lies? I guess you are evidence enough of that, Ghoulman.
Nixon didn't start Vietnam, he did end it. What happened in the middle all were very valid steps twords a pullout, but, of course, we wouldn't want to recognize that.
Keep lying to yourself, bud, its much easier that way apparently.
(Oh, by the by, I recognize I am influenced by the media I listen to, you, obviously are not. I think that is the ma jor difference. You can watch any media and you will get a slant, I don't think you recognize that, and that is the root of your problems, I would wadger.)
I don't care, I'm still free.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME