Saddam and 9/11

[Klink]

BTW, speaking of Clinton, how is it that Clinton was almost impeached for lying about his personal life, but Bush is not being impeached for publicly lying about intelligence, waging a war based on those lies and in which over a hundred thousand people are dead?

Always wondered about that. Seems to highlight a slight double standard.

 

[nbcrusader]

BTW, speaking of Clinton, how is it that Clinton was almost impeached for lying about his personal life, but Bush is not being impeached for publicly lying about intelligence, waging a war based on those lies and in which over a hundred thousand people are dead?

Always wondered about that. Seems to highlight a slight double standard.

Go ahead and bring the charge. I'm sure there are a couple thousand lawyers on the left who would love to file the case.





If it had any substance.

 

[phanan]

what hip hop said..

Saddam and 9/11 had NO connection whatsoever.

I dont how american people fell for it...

Cant they understand this?

all al-qaeda guys are in afghanistan and pakistan and some at other places...their financers are in europe

where does iraq come into picture

nowhere

The art of twisting the facts through propaganda is something that this current administration is very good at. And the media eats it up. And when the media eats it up and repeats it over and over, some people are going to start believing it, even if it's nowhere near the truth.

 

[Klink]

In looking at the statements posted, GWB did make factual statements.

Instead, some infer a different message because words were
used in the same paragraph, and then blast their own inference as misleading.

Is this a factual statement?: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses." -George W. Bush.

No Inference is necessary there. That's a direct link and it's never been proven. Show me a relaible intel source that proves this statement is true (such as the CIA). Further, obviously if you are in a position of power and associate two things often enough, your audience will eventually associate them, too. You're saying that if people were stupid enough to believe him, it's their own fault, but marketing works.



What about this statement?: "[Iraq] possesses and produces biological and chemical weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." -Bush

Is that factual? The Senate Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community (2004) says:

"Conclusion 1. ... The major key judgements in the NIE , partcularly that Iraq 'is reconstituting its nuclear program,' 'has chemical and biological weapons,' was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle 'probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents,' and that 'all Key aspects - research and development, production and weaponization - of Iraq's offensive biological weapons program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war,' either overstated or were not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting provided by the community... "

GWB never said Saddam was responsible for 9/11. But Saddam does have ties to terrorism.

"Ties"? What are those? You mean he once talked to a terrorist? Are you talking about Hezbollah or al-Qaeda? To go to war, obviously those ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda should have been sufficiently strong to pose a "threat", as Bush called it.


The Senate Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community (2004) says:

"Conclusion 93: The CIA resonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to a formal relationship

....

Conclusion 96: The CIA's assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaeda attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise.

....

Conclusion 99: Despite four decades of intelligence reporting on Iraq, there was little uselful intelligence collected that helped analysts determine the Iraqi regime's links to al Qaeda."


-99 sums it up. "Little useful evidence...". So, again, what ties and what do they have to do with the war? Please don't tell me that the "instances of contact" are ties because it doesn't amount to anything substancial, so it's irrelevant.



There's your substance.

If anything, the poll shows that people will believe what they want to believe - especially if it allows them to focus on a convenient enemy. This applies across many issues - not just terrorism.

If anything, it shows that people will believe what they are told, until evidence disproves it. People too often put conviction before the evidence.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The Bush administration is responsible for the war, the flaws in planning post-war and a litany of other mistakes. But this thread is truly telling in that it seems that people are more than willing to both have their cake and eat it too in regards to who built up the threats about Iraq .

I say that both administrations made statements that are in retrospect not in line with the facts about the material that Saddam has not verifiably destroyed.

 

[anitram]

This administration is imploding.

Murtha is a coward, he's equated to Michael Moore, what next?

Shameful, shameful, shameful. They should all be kicked out on their collective asses.

To be honest, A_W, this Clinton bullshit just sounds like it's coming from people whose ship is sinking faster than the Titanic and now they're trying to hang on for dear life.

 

[A_Wanderer]

1) It is ridiculous to blame the Clinton Admin., as they clearly saw no need to invade Iraq. But to say that Clinton had more to do with the public perception of Iraq than Bush Sr., who invaded Iraq and aged war against the country in the early 1990s, is so mind-bogglingly illogical that it stinks of Republican partisanship.

And the fact that the Reagan administration courted Saddam as a means of keeping the Iraq / Iran war going by taking them off the state sponser of terrorism list, the mixed messages given by Glaspie before Iraq invaded Kuwait and the war being one to drive Saddam out of the country andnot remove him from power are all examples of this?

It takes a lot more convincing to justify having US troops in SA to pursue a policy of containment that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands to millions of Iraqi civilians (and post-bellum it is painfully obvious the role of the UN oil for food programs corruption in that suffering post-1997.

For God sakes after Operation Desert Fox you have news articles, dated from 1998 / 1999 that talk about Saddam wanting revenge and sending his emisaries to OBL in regards to striking back. The idea being that Saddam would want to strike back in a way that wouldn't lead back to him.

The New York Times in 1998 wrote about the terror indictment against OBL

NYT November 5, 1998, Thursday, Late Edition - Final
SAUDI IS INDICTED IN BOMB ATTACKS ON U.S. EMBASSIES
By BENJAMIN WEISER

A Federal grand jury in Manhattan returned a 238-count indictment yesterday charging the Saudi exile Osama bin Laden in the bombings of two United States Embassies in Africa in August and with conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad.

Government officials immediately announced that they were offering two rewards of $5 million each for information leading to the arrest or conviction of Mr. bin Laden and another man charged yesterday, Muhammad Atef, who was described as Mr. bin Laden's chief military commander.

Mr. bin Laden is believed to be living in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban, the Islamic fundamentalist movement that rules that country.

Mr. Atef's whereabouts are unknown.

...


The new indictment, which supersedes the June action, accuses Mr. bin Laden of leading a vast terrorist conspiracy from 1989 to the present, in which he is said to have been working in concert with governments, including those of Sudan, Iraq and Iran, and terrorist groups to build weapons and attack American military installations. Excerpts, page A8.

But the indictment gives few details of Mr. bin Laden's alleged involvement in the embassy attacks. The indictment does not, for example, specify whether prosecutors have evidence that Mr. bin Laden gave direct orders to those who carried out the attacks.

Nothing in the document indicates why the original indictment was kept secret for months. But the secret charges were returned about the time that American officials were plotting a possible military attack into Afghanistan to arrest Mr. bin Laden.

Mary Jo White, the United States Attorney in Manhattan, said, "It's very common to have sealed indictments when you're trying to apprehend those who are indicted."

Both indictments offer new information about Mr. bin Laden's operations, including one deal he is said to have struck with Iraq to cooperate in the development of weapons in return for Mr. bin Laden's agreeing not to work against that country.

No details were given about whether the alleged deal with Iraq led to the development of actual weapons for Mr. bin Laden's group, which is called Al Qaeda.

I dug the archive up through the university database, if you want you can hunt it down.

The indictment against OBL can be found at the FAS or other places, I quote as follows the relevent section

4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist
group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their
perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.
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.

link

So at this point in time the story that Iraq and AQ were deadly enemies was being replaced by the truce against a common enemy P.O.V.

BBC on August 30th 1998

World: Africa

Sudan denies Bin Laden links

Barbara Plett reports from Khartoum on Sudan's denial of links with Osama bin Laden:

The Sudanese Foreign Minister said Khartoum had cut all links with Osama bin Laden since he left the country in 1995 under pressure from Saudi Arabia and the United States.

...

Mr bin Laden does own a Nile-front property here that he is trying to sell for two million dollars, but US officials have acknowledged the difficulty of determining the exact nature of his financial network, which is shrouded in secrecy.

Despite this, the American ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, said it was totally untrue that Sudan had cut ties with Osama bin Laden.

In a televised interview on Sunday, he said the US had evidence of links between Sudan, Mr bin Laden and Iraq.

Mr Richardson also rejected Sudanese calls for a UN investigation to verify American claims about the factory.

link

So the Clinton Administration is linking Iraq and AQ through 1998 when they are pursuing them by blowing up pharmaceutical factories.

These are just some examples of the policy and positions taken throughout the 1990's that explicitly linked Iraq and AQ together.

This stuff cannot be a Rovian plot, it was conducted by a different administration well before Bush was elected. To point out that this view of Iraq being a terrorist sponsering state (true fact, Iraq was a state sponser of terrorism) that was out to get the USA was already in the minds of people gets such harsh criticism. But hey, alls fair in love and war.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The art of twisting the facts through propaganda is something that this current administration is very good at. And the media eats it up. And when the media eats it up and repeats it over and over, some people are going to start believing it, even if it's nowhere near the truth.

This administration is deficient in this respect, they are stupendously ignorant in that they never defend their actions and allow their political opponents to set the agenda.

 

[A_Wanderer]

BTW, speaking of Clinton, how is it that Clinton was almost impeached for lying about his personal life, but Bush is not being impeached for publicly lying about intelligence, waging a war based on those lies and in which over a hundred thousand people are dead?

Always wondered about that. Seems to highlight a slight double standard.

Please cite your reference for "over 100 thousand dead", I ask only because the confidence intervals for the Lancet report were so outrageously large it could be anywhere from 10,000 to 190,000 dead.

Iraq Body Count Project and the UN have given figures between 20,000 and 30,000 in terms of Iraqi civilians, hardly pro-war organisations either one of them.

 

[Dreadsox]

BTW, speaking of Clinton, how is it that Clinton was almost impeached

Clinton was impeached.....Impeachment means charges were brought up against him. The charges happened to not be enough for removal from office as determined by a trial in the Senate. The trial has nothing to do with Impeachment other than to determine if the crime was serious enough to remove him from office. If there is evidence of a crime committed by President Bush, he will be impeached too.

 

[Dreadsox]

To be honest, A_W, this Clinton bullshit just sounds like it's coming from people whose ship is sinking faster than the Titanic and now they're trying to hang on for dear life.

This Clinton "bullshit" was mentioned by yours truly LONG before the war in this forum.

Does that mean it was bullshit for a sinking ship?

The facts are still the same. So what has changed?

Is it easier to dismiss them now, because we can say that they are said now to save a sinking ship?

 

[anitram]

Dread, I was referring to it popping up now. You may have mentioned it, but I didn't see A_W referring to it 2 years ago and I most certainly didn't see it in the media.

So my point was that it strikes me that right now, those whose ship is sinking - and let's face it this administration is up a shit creek without a paddle at the moment - are struggling to find rationalizations which do not involve their own admission of guilt. I think it's a lot easier for them to point fingers at Clinton than to openly admit what they've done wrong in the war on terra/war on Iraq.

 

[Dreadsox]

Dread, I was referring to it popping up now. You may have mentioned it, but I didn't see A_W referring to it 2 years ago and I most certainly didn't see it in the media.

It was more than mentioned in here. It was more than mentioned in numerous books written after 9/11.

 

[A_Wanderer]

So my point was that it strikes me that right now, those whose ship is sinking - and let's face it this administration is up a shit creek without a paddle at the moment - are struggling to find rationalizations which do not involve their own admission of guilt. I think it's a lot easier for them to point fingers at Clinton than to openly admit what they've done wrong in the war on terra/war on Iraq.

No, the removal of Saddam was the right thing to do, this illustrates that the problem posed by Saddam and the assesments that led this administration to decide to remove him were not all just inventions and lies of this administration. It cuts to the core of what the investigations into pre-war intelligence found, the group think mentality and assumptions, the poor sources of intelligence and the difficulty in reading the regimes actions (for all intensive purposes the regime gave the impression of posessing weapons, throwing out inspectors on charges of spying, suffering sanctions rather than openly demonstrate it was disarmed, claims by Rolf Ekeus that Tariq Aziz offered him 2 million dollars to doctor UNSCOM reports, the information gleaned from defectors, the INC).

I posted this thread now becase I only found that particular poll last week. I only posted those articles in this thread to defend a contention that I made, one that Dread made independently before ~ from what I can tell he has read up a lot more on the issue of pre-war intelligence and its use and has come to a conclusion that this administration did or may have used some of it innapropriately to make a case for war (specifically the moves by Iraq to obtain Uranium from Niger and that entire claim; now I would like to know about the independent intelligence apart from the forged documents that went into that and that the British have stood by). But Dread has also kept perspective on the issues that I have not seen many others for or against make; Iraq, WMD and terrorism go back before 2002, but the debate about them here has been dominated by statements and actions from that time frame onwards with a cognitive dissonance by some of the late 1990's.

 

[anitram]

It was more than mentioned in here. It was more than mentioned in numerous books written after 9/11.

I hate to sound glib, but so?

The mainstream media never picked up on it. The chickenhawks who pressed for this war never relied on this argument. Neither did their supporters in interviews on CNN, MSNBC, etc.

You may say it's opportunistic for us to now shoot it down.

I say it's equally as opportunistic for people to point at Clinton because the right does this constantly in order to deflect attention from the issues at hand.

I am not sure that I believe the American people were fooled primarily by Clinton on this issue. I am however sure that Bush has made a colossal mess over in Iraq, that he's a disgrace of a president, that his whole administration operates on a "we have done nothing wrong therefore there is nothing to fix" agenda. So when instead of talking about a comprehensive strategy for pull out, instead of talking about domestic issues other than divisive abortion and gay marriage, and instead of building some kind of global understanding we have people bringing up Clinton, I must admit, my eyes roll back in my head a bit. Honest to God, even if I were to accept that he convinced the American public that Saddam is the boogeyman, he's the least of your problems right now.

 

[deep]

If there is evidence of a crime committed by President Bush, he will be impeached too.

do you really believe this?


the GOP controlled house would investigate or impeach Bush or Cheney?



Was the Clinton impeachment necessary?

there was a consensus in the house to censure Clinton and move on.

but, DeLay in particular, would not have it,
he used his considerable power and influence to get the impeachment


but,hey, perhaps W will get a blow job and
we can impeach him too.

 

[BVS]

This thread has turned from funny to fucking hilarious.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[U2DMfan]

Iraq and Hussein were initially blamed for both the first WTC attack and the OKC bombing. 1993 and 1995 respectively.

Was this because of the Clinton administration or the first Bush administration?

Or is it just a symptom of a culture that had only been attacked by middle easterners in terrorist attacks, blaming public middle eastern enemy #1?

Hussein was public enemy #1, not because of the actions of HW Bush or Clinton, but because there wasn't anyone else to take his place.

If any other terrorist organization (other than Al Quaeda) in the world attacked America tomorrow, the opinion polls taken the next day will likely show that Americans blame Bin Laden AT least 78% of those polled, probably higher.

It's up to the authorities to differentiate between those who perpetrated the attacks and those who didn't. In this particular case, the adminstration didn't care if there was no direct link, therefore they didn't care to clear things up and consequently never did even to this day. They might pay lip service to it after the fact, but just read what they said prior to March '03.

In short, Americans were misled by their own pre-conceived notions prior to all of these events in blaming Hussein, just in the case of the most recent attack, those notions were endorsed by the administration if only because they were so vague as to not lose the political capital they had at the time.

They knew they'd need it, especially after figuring out how flimsy some of the evidence was. We were essentially misled because we weren't told the whole truth, not because of lies. It's a very clever method, pretty common it seems in politics.

When those methods alter thousands of lives, it becomes a huge issue. When those methods play on emotions of a bereaved and fearful people, that is a morally questionable thing to say the least. Especially when these authorities sell themselves as restoring honor and integrity to the White House on the first hour of the first day of their tenure.

I don't think there is ANY question about the admin playing into the publics pre conceived notions, anyone objectively watching American news for the lasst 4 years wouldn't have any other opinion.


Had America attacked and overthrew Hussein after the '93 WTC attack, and did the same things, made the same claims, same actions, same flimsy information and vague correlation, we'd have the same problems.

Only the partisan roles would be switched. There are those of us who would be against it in both cases. The problem becomes, in all of this silly back and forth bantering, there are legitimate questions and problems that just get overlooked time and time again, because they are seen as "Bush-bashing" or if the scenario in the prior paragraph "Clinton-bashing". How about just wanting some fucking honesty and answers? Too much to ask these days.

How any reasonably intelligent individual, be it conservative, right-winger, Bushie, whatever they would call themselves, any reasonably intelligent individual who doesn't have a multitude
of problems with this administrations policies is just blinded and caught up in the game or not that intelligent in the first place.

Has nothing to do with being anything other than not objectively looking for truth. I'm interested in facts, hard truth and I in fact could change my mind presented with facts and truth. I am not "assigned" to one side of this argument. In fact, I thought removing Hussein was a good idea after listening to all of the pre-war hype.

(Here comes the overblown analogy for effect....)
Maybe it still was a good idea, but it's also a good idea to end poverty. You shouldn't do that by nuking the ghettos.

Only point is, you can be justified and still be wrong. And you can be wrong about something and still be misled about that same thing. This is a nuanced world that doesn't like nuanced thought.
Much easier when you've got somebody to pin your hate on.
Much easier to beleive the person you hate is guilty at first impression. There needs to be an authority that seeks the truth. Is that too much to ask?

 

[U2DMfan]

I don't mean to sound pretentious, I figure most of us want to know the truth. You just can't be selective about it, that's all I am saying.

I hope we can all be open to the truth objectively, it doesn't matter who's right or wrong. I include myself as well, I do my best to be as objective as possible, it often leaves me sitting on the fence at times. Honestly, I'd rather be on a fence than play the partisan game, as it is.

 

[deep]

"We didn't lie,
we're just stupid"

 

[BonosSaint]

U2DMfan

Wonderful post.

 

[Dreadsox]

The mainstream media never picked up on it. The chickenhawks who pressed for this war never relied on this argument. Neither did their supporters in interviews on CNN, MSNBC, etc.

Interesting, two of the books I am thinking of are written by part of the "mainstream media" and the authors appear in print almost daily.

But, hey, enjoy yourself. I do not have the time to go through CNN and MSNBC transcripst to prove you wrong, but I would almost bet my paycheck you are.

I will slink back out. Have fun. Clearly I do not know what I am talking about.

 

[Dreadsox]

do you really believe this?


the GOP controlled house would investigate or impeach Bush or Cheney?

I absolutely believe this. Especially if they are losing ground politically in the next round of elections. FOr their political survival, you bet.

But there has to be a crime.

 

[Dreadsox]

I hate to sound glib, but so?

Congressional report After 9/11
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.htm

Article fropm May 2002
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1007

CNN Story Sept 18, 2001
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/inv.hijacking.philippines/index.html

Washington Post September 23, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A10543-2001Sep22

Village Voice September 26, 2001
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0139/francia.phpl

Washington Post May 19, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A39166-2002May18&notFound=true

Washington Post December 13, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/archives/front.htm

Condi Rice, Press Conference Transcript in which she details information not passed on by the Clinton Administration May 16, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html

Retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz” Patterson, March 2003 in his book
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/103-4529637-3473430?v=glance&s=books

David N. Bossie, "Intelligence Failure: How Clinton's National Security Policy Set the Stage for 9/11" http://www.amazon.com/gp/

Time Magazine August 2002
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html

Washington Post 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18972-2004Mar23.html

Washington Post July 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A127-2004Jul20.html

The fact is BOTH Administrations F'd up. The reality is Clinton had a larger amount of time to do something about it.

 

[melon]

The fact is BOTH Administrations F'd up. The reality is Clinton had a larger amount of time to do something about it.

I don't like how the "blame game" always gets shifted to Clinton. By all accounts, Bush et al. were off in la-la land and trying to figure out how to build their missile shield when 9/11 took them by surprise. And the GOP is supposed to be the "military" party.

You can, in fact, blame more than just the last two administrations. You can blame Bush, Sr. for doing such a shitty job with Gulf War I, then keeping a permanent troop presence in Saudi Arabia, inflaming the ire of Al Qaeda in the first place. You can blame Reagan for supporting a lot of these now-terrorists during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. You can blame the leadership of the 1950s for overthrowing elected leftist governments in favor of loyal dictatorships too. All the "moderates" just ended up dead.

The whole adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," during the Cold War really just came back to bite us in the ass. After all, Saddam was our best friend when we hated Iran in the early 1980s.

I'm sure Donald Rumsfeld would love to see this image destroyed.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

You can, in fact, blame more than just the last two administrations. You can blame Bush, Sr. for doing such a shitty job with Gulf War I, then keeping a permanent troop presence in Saudi Arabia, inflaming the ire of Al Qaeda in the first place.

Politics makes for an interesting blame game. GHWB took heat for not going far enough in taking out Saddam. Now GWB has taken too long.

Too bad we can't fight these conflicts with all the armchair generals we have in this country.

 

[financeguy]

"Blowback is a term used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. Because the public was unaware of the operation, the consequences transpire as a surprise, apparently random and without cause. In context, it can also mean retaliation as the result of actions undertaken by nations. The phrase is believed to have been coined by the CIA, in reference to the shrapnel that often flies back when shooting an automatic firearm.

In the 1980s, blowback became a central focus of the debate over the Reagan Doctrine, which advocated militarily supporting resistance movements opposing Soviet-supported, communist governments. Critics of the Reagan Doctrine argued that blowback was unavoidable, and that, through the doctrine, the United States was inflaming wars in the Third World. Conservative advocates, principally at the conservative Heritage Foundation, responded that support for anti-communist resistance movements would lead to a "correlation of forces," which would topple communist regimes without significant retaliatory consequence to the United States, while simultaneously altering the global balance of power in the Cold War.

Given prior CIA support of the Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan and purportedly also of Osama bin Laden, it could be argued that the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack is the most prominent contemporary example of blowback, since some contend that this U.S. support actually helped build Bin Laden as a geopolitical force. See Manchurian blowback.

See also deniability, Reagan Doctrine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm sure there will always be a difference in perspective between those who grew up in the era of communism and those who are growing up in the era of terrorism.

 

[melon]

Too bad we can't fight these conflicts with all the armchair generals we have in this country.

Oh but we do. How many in the Bush Administration have actually fought in a conflict? Blowing off your National Guard service and getting five draft deferrals don't count.

Melon

 

[melon]

I'm sure there will always be a difference in perspective between those who grew up in the era of communism and those who are growing up in the era of terrorism.

It makes me wonder how many of our "allies" will become our enemies in the era of "post-terrorism."

Melon