Probe rules out Iraq-9/11 links

[Klaus]

BBC News:

The commission investigating the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US has found no "credible evidence" that Iraq helped al-Qaeda carry them out.

So can we still talk about the war in Iraq as a part of the War on terrorism?

And other interesting points:

Report's other findings:

# Late 1980s: al-Qaeda founded; early 1990s: centralised organisation following Bin Laden's orders.

# Bin Laden did not fund al-Qaeda through a personal fortune - it relied on a fundraising network.

# There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al-Qaeda before the 11 September attacks.

# Bin Laden assisted Somali warlords fighting the Americans.

# No "credible evidence" that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the US.

# Bin Laden role in WTC attacks in 1993 and a failed plot to blow up commercial aircraft in 1994 in Manila, Philippines are "uncertain".

# 1996: In Afghanistan, Bin Laden makes public his war against the US.

# Bin Laden cemented ties with the Taleban with Pakistani support.

# Early 1998: al-Qaeda merges with Ayman Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

# The 1998 attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania "were planned, directed, and executed by al-Qaeda, under the direct supervision of Bin Laden and his chief aides".

# Bin Laden remained willing to provide support to attacks initiated by more independent actors.

# Al-Qaeda's funding has "decreased significantly", and the organisation is "far more decentralised", now that Bin Laden has lost his Afghan base.

# Al-Qaeda remains extremely interested in conducting chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attacks.

 

[ThatGuy]

The commission investigating the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US has found no "credible evidence" that Iraq helped al-Qaeda carry them out.

bu, but ... that's not what Dick Cheney is saying!

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/06/15/a3.nat.cheney.0615.html

And the President agrees with him:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...cheney_on_assertion_linking_hussein_al_qaeda/

So the 9/11 commission must be wrong because we know that the President and the Vice President would never intentionally mislead the American people. Right?

 

[Scarletwine]

But surely you jest.

Just last night our esteemed Vice-President told his fundraising audience there were clear ties between Iraq and Alqaeda.
In the words of Joe Pesci - LIAR

 

[ThatGuy]

Nice to see that the liberal media is complicit with the administration's agenda.

From a White House press conference yesterday:

Go ahead, Jeff. You had one.

Q Thanks. Why hasn't the administration made more of the U.N. inspectors' report that says Saddam Hussein was dismantling his missile and WMD sites before and during the war? And doesn't that, combined with the now proven al Qaeda link between Iraq -- between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization -- unequivocally make the case for going to war in Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think in terms of Iraq and ties to terrorism, Secretary Powell outlined the former regime's support for and ties to terrorists when he went before the United Nations. Director Tenet has testified in open session before Congress about what we know about those ties. You heard the President talk about some of those ties earlier today in the Rose Garden when he was asked a question. So I think those ties are well known, and we have talked about them previously.

Certainly, when you look at someone like al Zarqawi, he was an individual who was in Iraq prior to the decision to go to war, and he is someone who remains in Iraq. And he is a senior al Qaeda associate.

Q Is that why you went to war?

MR. McCLELLAN: And -- Helen, I think we spelled out our reasons why we went to war.

Q I think you did.

MR. McCLELLAN: And certainly ties between the regime --

Q There were weapons of mass destruction.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- ties between the regime and terrorism was a very serious concern.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040615-7.html#13

 

[Klaus]

ThatGuy: you're right of course, the President and the Vice President would never intentionally mislead the American people therefore this commission tries to misslead the American people and traitors like these men must be punished
Did i get it right this time?

 

[Scarletwine]

Yes, absolutely.

 

[ThatGuy]

ThatGuy: you're right of course, the President and the Vice President would never intentionally mislead the American people therefore this commission tries to misslead the American people and traitors like these men must be punished
Did i get it right this time?

Yes, I hope we prosecute these traitorous members of the 9/11 commission to the fullest extent of the law! Actually, if the power to overrule law is inherent in the power of the Presidency, then maybe we can go beyond the bounds of the law, if you know what I mean.

Seriously, though. Bush and Cheney testified in front of the 9/11 commission. I would think that at that time they would have presented their evidence of Iraq-al-Qaeda links, since they wouldn't want to withhould eveidence from an investigatory body. Since the 9/11 commission concluded that there was no credible evidence of a link, then logically one of the following must be true.

1. The eveidence that Bush and Cheney presented to the 9/11 commission regarding an Iraq-al-Qaeda connection were not credible.

2. Bush and Cheney are lying.

 

[Klaus]

or 3. they didn't tell the comission about the links because they were too sectret and a matter of national security?

anyway i wonder why so many people are still willing to trust these men

Did Bush and Cheney tell the public why they had to testify together?

 

[nbcrusader]

Ties with terrorists and aiding in the 9/11 attacks are two different things.

 

[ThatGuy]

or 3. they didn't tell the comission about the links because they were too sectret and a matter of national security?

anyway i wonder why so many people are still willing to trust these men

Did Bush and Cheney tell the public why they had to testify together?

Well I discount #3 because they testified behind closed doors. If they had something secret to say they had nothing stopping them.

Ties with terrorists and aiding in the 9/11 attacks are two different things.

You're right, but Cheney calimed that Iraq had "long-established ties" to al-Qaeda. Too often the administration has tried to make the link indirectly by mentioning Saddam's "links" to al-Qaeda and then raising the spectre of the 9/11 attacks.

Plus, you have to wonder, if Saddam and al-Qaeda were tight, then why wouldn't Saddam help them carry out their biggest ever attack on the Great Satan? I realize that's speculation, but it's not such a crazy question.

Edited to add: this from a Washington Post article about the commission's report.:

In an overview of al Qaeda released in a separate report earlier this morning, the commission also found "no credible evidence" that al Qaeda collaborated with Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq on the Sept. 11 strikes or any other attacks on the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45853-2004Jun16.html

 

[deep]

or 3. they didn't tell the comission about the links because they were too sectret and a matter of national security?

Yes, that is it.

They are so "top secret" only Cheney can know them.

Bush believes him without any evidence.

Why can't you?

Do you want Saddam back in power?

Whose side are you on?

Saddam tortured people and took over the oil fields for his own purposes, don't you remember?

We can't let those kind of things happen again.

 

[Klaus]

deep:
Obviousely i'm not with him so..
..well erm... see ya in Guantanamo Bay

nbcrusader:
Well if he "just" supported the palestinensian president Arafat i'm affraid the EU is also a supporter of terrorism, i'm glad that Mr. President didn't lead the American people to believe that the EU supported 9/11
And if it's all about supporting terrorism a long time ago he should look at his own country.

So i think we shouldn't waste our time in the war against terrorism and remember imminent threats

# Al-Qaeda remains extremely interested in conducting chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attacks.

And i think that because of the latest Iraq war chances increased dramatically that a-quaida now has WMD.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that Bush never said that there were Saddam to 9/11 links.

It is a fact that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism and flaunted this overtly.

It is a fact that Al Qaeda and Iraqi Intelligence did have meetings however the extent of linkage is still undetermined.

The Casus Beli for war was that Saddam had not complied with UN resolutions and since the war this has been proven to be true, hence the war was perfectly legal.

Iraq is now better off than it was before the war and the world is going to be safer if we have a sweeping shift in the way affairs in the ME work.

 

[Klaus]

I think that Bush never said that there were Saddam to 9/11 links.

That's true he just talked about Saddam supporting terrorism and 9/11 terrorism so that many US citizens were lead to the false asumtion that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
If you look at the polls during the Iraq invasion you see that more people believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 than al-quaida/UBL

It is a fact that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism and flaunted this overtly.

Yes, so did the US government so did the EU

It is a fact that Al Qaeda and Iraqi Intelligence did have meetings however the extent of linkage is still undetermined.

It's also a fact that UBL had meetings with US Inteligence

The Casus Beli for war was that Saddam had not complied with UN resolutions and since the war this has been proven to be true, hence the war was perfectly legal.

Right, but i want to talk about the War on Terror in this thread, not about if the Iraqi invasion was legal or just

Iraq is now better off than it was before the war and the world is going to be safer if we have a sweeping shift in the way affairs in the ME work.

There are MANY things which are better because of this war there are some countries which are safer because of this war but I doubt that that the world is going to be safer because of this war. Maybe huge amounts of WMDs got into the hand of al-quaida because of this invasion.
Maybe because of that a terrorist strike with WMDs against the US is possible now.
Al-quaida is now also much stronger in iraq than before this war.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Al Qaeda has poured its resources into Iraq therefore if we suceed there it will have exausted a lot of its structure thus giving us a victory in the war on terror, it is also important to remember that we still have other states that sponser terrorism and possess such weapons, key here are Syria, Iran and Pakistan. We must work on all fronts to disarm all these regimes through all means at out disposal.

The postwar situation in Iraq and the WoT are now closely entwined and must be won. We need to analyse the way these battles are being waged and come up with a strong and united front in mutal agreement, there is a very real risk that partisan politics will cost lives in any western nation. If Bush looses the election and Kerry is not given a proper lead in before his inauguration there will be a solid 2 months in which terrorists could strike a politically readjusting country.

The world will be safer when we wipe Islamic Terrorism from the face of the earth, it is a scourge of the modern world that must be stopped. The only way to do this is to fix the problems that drive their support base (a lasting Palestinian state, a free Iraq and Stable ME) while at the same time fighting them on every front (Iraq, Afghanistan millitarily, intelligence operations over SE Asia and Europe as well as support for usefull client regimes - Pakistan) as well as on the diplomatic front (encouraging disarment in Iran and Pakistan). We cannot drop the ball or loose sight of our objectives in the war on terrorism as failure to so would doom humanity, we are at a point where men who are willing to use nuclear weapons are able to obtain them, destroying any rogue regime that seeks to obtain such technology is the only way to guarantee victory. I would rather have an attack with nerve gas that kills 200 people because of invading Iraq than leave saddam in power and have a nuclear attack in 10 years that kills 200,000.

 

[Klaus]

A_Wanderer:

You're right - after we invaded Iraq success is verry important so that democratic structures can sperad, western politics can be called credible and therefore al-quaeda looses linfluence!

If i remember it correctly CIA mentioned about 60 countries who harbour al-quaida terrorists, some of them even having training camps for them (remember al-quaida? the organisation who is responsible for 9/11?) and - i hope i remember that correctly Iraq wasn't on that list.
Surprisingly one of the top al-quaida supporters - Pakistan (Chances are pretty good that they harbour Mr. Bin Laden) is now our ally against terrorism.

For several years the public wasn't informed what lead to 9/11. Which mistakes lead to the desaster of 9/11.
Did http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS) on 9/1
lead to 9/11 because NORAD and FAA couldn't act like before?
Is there any direct responsibility of Mr. Rumsfeld because of these new directives?

Learning from mistakes is verry important so that 9/11 can't hapen again

Ok sorry now i'm loosing focus on the subject Iraq too.

So back to the 60 countries who harbor or support al-quaida according to Mr. Tennet. Do you think it's a good idea to go to war against these 60 countries, do you think that makes this world a safer place?

It's much more likely that Pakistan would sell WMDs to al-quaida than the former iraq and Pakistan has allready the atomic bomb.
Do you think it was a wise decision to focus first on Iraq?

Don't get me wrong. It's important that after all these years of glorification of terrorism (supoorted freedom fighters as long as the terror hits an enemy of the US) there is a mayor change in judging these people.
Terrorism is never a good thing and in the end democracy and international laws are damaged most.
But i think the war against terrorism isn't done by invading countries - terrorism isn't like the traditional enemies if you bomb afghanistan they move to pakistan they don't care about the country you bomb.
In the end they might even profit from western attacks.
Afghanistan is controlled by warlords again except the capitol city which is controlled by UN troops. Why? maybee because we wasted military engergy in iraq instead of turning Afghanistan into a democratic lighttower?
It would be EXTREMELY helpful if the war against terror would care more about:

-priorities
-lasting effectiveness
-not feeding your enemy with dishonest or questionable actions
(comparison Arafat he almost lost his support in Palestine before Sharon started his actions against him)

We can't defend democracy and our lifestyle in the world by copying or supporting the behaviour of people we officially condemn.

Klaus

 

[A_Wanderer]

See now we get to the key problem, war is a tool at our disposal and one that must be used sparingly (you cannot fight 1.1 billion muslims, it just won't work). Saddam Husseins Iraq is a situation where I think millitary action was the only way to force a resolution, he knew how to manipulate diplomatic efforts and obfuscate weapon inspectors. Unlinke Iraq Pakistan is a country that has many competing interests within it, you have the ISI running operations within Afghanistan backing Al Qaeda while at the same time Musharraf is waging war against these same men, unlike Iraq we can use these various groups in a carrot and stick type way to force compliance, provided we play our cards right and can use them properly we can prevent these weapons falling into the hands of nasty customers. We cannot allow this type of action to blind us to human rights abuses or dictatorship so again we must use leverage to encourage change within these countries, the worst thing the US could do in this current climate is to make deals with regimes coming in from the cold (Libya anyone?) in which we don't make conditional human rights obligations. If force is used properly in the right situations it can be a good thing however in the vast majority of situations diplomatic and economic pressure can force resolution.

I don't think that it is as likely Pakistan in its current state would sell its weapons to Islamist terrorists, I think the real risk is another coup in which islamists find themselves in possesion of a bunch of nuclear weapons. Here we have a problem, if we force Musharraf to democratize to quickly it is entirely possible the country becomes unstable and a taliban type regime siezes control, there are a few stops to this happening (Millitary, Intelligence Service and Foreign Intervention) but the threat is still there.

In an Ideal world we would have a magic wand that would force countries to stop supporting terrorism and turn them into stalwart allies against Al Qaeda with strong human rights in exchange for trade deals and international aid, in reality we must deal with a variety of regimes in different levels of power and corruption that all require different courses of action. I do not advocate a war against Saudi Arabia or Pakistan because they have no strategic value in terms of winning the war, I do advocate a strong coercion of these countries to crack down on terrorists and cooperate in the fight against terrorism with the threat of cutting business links or exposing some of their misdeeds to the world. Politics is a very dirty game and we must make sure that when we pursue a just cause we don't loose the moral high ground, it is impossible to operate in the world without dealing with demons - we just have to ensure that we save more lives and make the world safer, it is very difficult because compromises do happen, this bloody will to power bullshit will be the death of me - I need to concentrate on this question. I strongly believe that there is a right and wrong and I also know that without proper action the western world is in serious danger, reconciling this with morality is a difficult thing to do, there is no easy answer to this and if you think it is then you are lying. Will respond when I have thought about it furthur.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Um, did my post just go through?

 

[TylerDurden]

There are MANY things which are better because of this war there are some countries which are safer because of this war but I doubt that that the world is going to be safer because of this war. Maybe huge amounts of WMDs got into the hand of al-quaida because of this invasion.
Maybe because of that a terrorist strike with WMDs against the US is possible now.
Al-quaida is now also much stronger in iraq than before this war.

My little summary...
There's two arguments on Iraq, why the US did it - was it right or wrong or truthful or whatever and that can go around in circles forever and the other argument is, well, it's done, but was it successful. I think it is going to take a huge miracle for Iraq to end up a successful democracy that can function on it's own without 150,000 foreign troops watching over them. I can't see 'trouble' leaving Iraq for a long time, and I think even if on the surface it all looks great, it's only ever a heartbeat away from chaos or civil war. I think the real dark cloud is how deep the hand of Iran is in all of this. I think there's a lot more to that then we know (and even then, what is out there in the public deserves more attention) and some of the movements Israel has been making lately are pretty interesting. I don't think we are any where near out of the woods as far as a wider problem goes. I'm betting if Bush is re-elected there'll be another twist to the story. My point is, this thing still has years and years to go before a proper judgement can be made. Fully functioning democracy without 150,000 troops watching over anytime soon? Bullsh*t. It's election time.

On terrorism, I don't think Bush etc ever actually said there was a direct Iraq/911 connection, but there is no doubt that what they said was carefully managed to leave that impression. Read back over any of their speeches leading up to the war and the two (Iraq/AQ) are always mentioned very closely. And they never said there wasn't a link, just gave those fluffy non-answers that Bush is so good at. For a large % of Americans who probably only get their news from the soundbites on the 6 o'clock news, thats probably enough to get them to believe there's a connection. I don't think the fact that 80% of Americans thought there was a link was not the intention of the Administration.

On the WMD's, if you truly believe there were a lot of them there, and now they have disappeared, then you can only believe two things. They are still in Iraq and are hidden/buried/whatever, or they have left the country. Either way, if you still believe they exist somewhere, and you still believe that WMD's were the reason for the war, then you have to believe that the danger levels are higher now than ever before. Pre-war you believed they were in Iraq . You believed that Saddam Hussein may or may not use them against someone, or may or may not pass them on to a terrorist organisation. But you knew they were in Iraq and that Saddam wasn't completely insane. Why would he use them and face certain, swift destruction? And if he still did, you knew exactly where to hit back, and who to hit back at. You didn't know for certain that he ever had or ever would pass them on to a terrorist group. How about now? You have no idea where they are, no idea who has them, a guarantee that whoever has them now has them with the intent of using them, not just as a "don't f*ck with me" defence system, and if they are used you have no idea where others may be, when they will be used and really who has them.
Not good. Not better. Worse.

 

[Klaus]

A_Wanderer:
Cool new haircut

I agree on most things TylerDurden said and because of that i think the war against Iraq wasn't part of the war on terror - I guess it even supported international terrorism.

 

[najeena]

A-Wanderer... war is 'a tool at our disposal'? War should be a last effort in the pursuit for peace when all else has failed, never a tool to get what we want.

 

[BVS]

The war on Iraq has done nothing to diminish terrorism in fact it's probably escalated it.

 

[melon]

If one had read Paul Wolfowitz's off-hand comments on Iraq, we went to war to establish a permanent military presence somewhere in the Middle East outside of Saudi Arabia, as the Bush Administration was mindful that our military presence in the Arabian Peninsula was pissing off Al-Qaeda (so much for not caving in to terrorism, yes?). With Iraq "liberated," then the U.S. would be in a better position to deal with Syria and Iran, if need be, if based in Iraq.

So why WMDs? Well, they needed a justification for such military aggression, and since they did have prior UN resolutions on Iraq, it was a justification for war that "all sides could agree upon." That's really why Bush only supported the resumption of UN weapon inspections insincerely; almost as soon as they were in Iraq, Bush was ready to declare it ineffective, and anyone paying attention to the media could tell that he was itching for war.

But there's the problem: there are no WMDs to be found even by the U.S. "Oops." That's the problem with a "faith-based war." When you are searching for justifications for a pre-planned war, you'd better find a justification that you can actually follow through with. The Bush Administration clearly failed in that matter; if you're going to lie to the American public, to the UN, and to the entire world, the least you can do is pick something that you know you can follow through with. And that's where WMDs came in; they just miscalculated.

The commission is likely right on target with Al Qaeda and Iraq. The fundamentalist leadership of Al Qaeda was in direct contrast to the secular dictatorship of Iraq. Sure, they might have hated America, but this would be comparable to getting the Kurds and the Sunnis and the Shiites to get along and work together--a nice thought, but it just won't happen (the Shiites are looking forward to bullying the other two by their sheer numbers and Al Qaeda hates both the Kurds and the Shiites; a happy Islamic family! ).

Bush, frankly, is grasping for straws; it would have been incredibly convenient for him to be able to link Saddam to Al Qaeda, but the logic just isn't there. A mutual hatred of America isn't enough to get the Islamic world to stop hating each other.

Melon

 

[Earnie Shavers]

No Melon, President Bush is very serious about stopping the spread of WMD. Please notice how he's punished Pakistan for their pretty much open trading of nuclear info and technology to Iran and North Korea. President Bush is just waiting for God to tell him which sand dune the WMD's are hidden under in Iraq, and then you will see how wrong you are. Paul Wolfowitz is always taken out of context by the anti-American, pro-terrorist left wing media, and besides he's a cheap drunk and gets muddled sometimes. President Bush liberated Iraq so that they could be free and enjoy liberty which is the opposite of tyranny in case you didn't know.

 

[pub crawler]

Ties with terrorists and aiding in the 9/11 attacks are two different things.

Not according to some of the pro-war folk who post on Interference. Some here have been insistent on such linkage since the beginning of the invasion of Iraq but they are thinking with their hearts and not their heads.

 

[Dreadsox]

Not according to some of the pro-war folk who post on Interference. Some here have been insistent on such linkage since the beginning of the invasion of Iraq but they are thinking with their hearts and not their heads.

Name them.....

I am curious.....

And please....link me to the post....so I know for sure who said it.

 

[DrTeeth]

Bush Insists on Iraq-Al Qaeda Links Despite Report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush, on the defensive over the Iraq war, insisted on Thursday that Saddam Hussein had a dangerous relationship with al Qaeda, a day after the independent Sept. 11 commission reported no evidence of collaboration between the two.

Responding to the latest challenge to his policy in Iraq, Bush asserted that there were "numerous contacts" between Saddam and al Qaeda operatives that justified the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

 

[nbcrusader]

First, we should verify if we are all talking about the same thing. There is a sliding scale between Saddam and Osama planning 9/11 together on one side, and terrorist ties to Iraq on the other side. Both sides have been playing word games on this scale.

While there has always been a gap between public knowledge (what the 9/11 Commission could discover) and secured knowledge (what the CIA, NSA, etc. knows), I am not happy with the abuse of this gap with these follow-up statements. If evidence of a link between Saddam and al Qaeda exists, I would hope more evidence would be release to substantiate the statements.

 

[Dreadsox]

 

[ThatGuy]

The 9/11 commission did find that there were links between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Sudan set up some meetings between Saddam and representatives of al-Qaeda in the mid-90s, and they also had some contact after bin Laden moved operations to Afghanistan. However, the 9/11 commission report found that these meetings ultimately did not produce an operational relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda. So while yes, there are links, they did not amount to anything. Though what Bush and Cheney are saying is factually correct, it is intellectually dishonest when the "links" are put into their proper context.