9/11 staff: No al Qaeda cooperation with Iraq

I am shocked, shocked I tell you.

Quote:

T the phrase "kool aid gulpers", brought to mind Jonestown and how people will swallow anything if the mesianic leader tells them to...

Quote:
#2 is scarier to me.

#1 would just make him a liar, like most politicians.

#2 makes him a fanatic because he actually believes this stuff. That's scary.

Okay, going to take a deep breath and straighten my backbone to make this post : ) Please be gentle...trying to engage in civil debate : )

If can do enough research to find a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, how did the 9/11 committee not? There were over 50 meetings between Iraqi high level governing members and noted Al Qaeda members. 50! I think 1 would be enough...

I believe that Iraq being in material breach of UN Sec. Council resolutions was enough reason for the US to go to war. Hussein's obstruction of UNSCOM was mentioned frequently and Bush went to the UN and listed the resolutions Iraq had been violating. In fact, inspectors were kicked out shortly after the 4 day stand off over documentation of Iraq's nuclear program! And for those of you crying treason: There is also the pesky little problem of all those Democrats in 1998 declaring Iraq's WMDs a threat and issuing threats against Iraq for non-compliance with inspections! Such as Bill Clinton, Tom Dachele, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albright and so on...

As for the Al Qaeda-Iraq connection, we now know that one of the 1993 WTC bombing actors gained assylum in Iraq after the bombing! If you are asking me to believe that a country who had VERY tightly controlled boarders did not know (and I believe Zarkawi (probably spelled wrong) took shelter in Iraq after being wounded in Afghanistan...) the comings and goings of everyone, I just can't do it. Bush never defined terrorists as only those who attacked us on 9/11. Because of Iraq's past support of terrorism (including Al Qaeda), its defiance of WMD inspections under UNSCOM, 11 years of resolutions demanding compliance, the cease fire agreement which mandated those inspections and disclosures are each alone reason enough.

In a woefully underreported decision on May 8, 2003, Manhattan U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer ruled in favor of two 9/11 victim families who had sued Iraq and others claiming they were culpable in the attacks. The court awarded plaintiffs $104 million based on the Baer's findings. If there was no connection how did this happen????

The ruling by Judge Baer - a Carter appointee, by the way - was quite detailed. In fact, I suspect that the reason for the media's near-blackout on the case is because most Americans would consider his findings to be very persuasive.

Iraq provided support to two of the main perpetrators of the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Specifically, Abdul Rahman Yasin returned to Baghdad after the bombing and Iraq has provided him safe haven ever since. Also, Ramsey Yusef arrived in the United States on an Iraqi passport in his own name but left on false documentation - a passport of a Pakistani who was living in Kuwait and whom the Kuwaiti government kept a file on at the time that Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Okay, I realize this is in no way a coherent set of statements but it is late and I'm turning into a pumpkin. I do not hope that any of this changed your mind but instead just provided some information...

Cool breezes,

Jenne

For those interested here, in part, is what Judge Baer had to say about the Iraq-9/11 connection (from NewsMax):

"The opinion testimony of the plaintiffs' experts is sufficient to meet plaintiffs' burden that Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al Qaeda's terrorist acts of September 11. . .which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further al Qaeda's criminal acts."

Judge Baer continued:

"[Former CIA] Director [James] Woolsey reviewed several facts that tended in his view to show Iraq's involvement in acts of terrorism against the United States in general and likely in the events of September 11 specifically.

"First, Director Woolsey described the existence of a highly secure military facility in Iraq where non-Iraqi fundamentalists [e.g., Egyptians and Saudis] are trained in airplane hijacking and other forms of terrorism. Through satellite imagery and the testimony of three Iraqi defectors, [he] demonstrated the existence of this facility, called Salman Pak, which has an airplane but no runway...fundamentalists were taught methods of hijacking using utensils or short knives. Plaintiffs contend it is farfetched to believe that Iraqi agents trained fundamentalists in a top-secret facility for any purpose other than to promote terrorism...Second, Director Woolsey mentioned a meeting that allegedly occurred in Prague in April 2001 between Mohammad Atta, the apparent leader of the hijackings, and a high-level Iraqi intelligence agent...the evidence indicates that this was an 'operational meeting' because Atta flew to the Czech Republic and then returned to the United States shortly afterwards. The Minister of Interior of the Czech Republic, Stanislav Gross, stated on October 26, 2001:
In this moment we can confirm, that during the next stay of Muhammad Atta in the Czech republic there was the contact with the official of the Iraqi Intelligence, Mr. Al Ani, Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir, who was on 22nd April 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities which were not compatible with the diplomatic status . . .
Third, Director Woolsey noted that his conclusion was also based on 'contacts,' which refer to interactions between Hussein/Iraq and bin Laden/al Qaeda that are described in a letter from George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, to Senator Bob Graham on October 7, 2002. Director Tenet's carefully worded letter included in substance the same allegations, but with less detail, that Secretary of State Colin Powell made before the U.N. Security Counsel on Feb. 5, 2003, in his remarks about 'the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network. . . .Both Director Tenet and Secretary Powell mentioned 'senior level contacts' between Iraq and al Qaeda going back to the early 1990s [although both acknowledged that part of the interactions in the early to mid-1990s pertained to achieving a mutual non-aggression understanding]; both mentioned that al Qaeda sought to acquire poison gas and training in its use from Iraq; both mentioned that al Qaeda members have been in Iraq, including Baghdad, after September 2001. . . an article that appeared in a regional Iraqi newspaper in July 2001, two months before the disaster of September 11. This article, a paean to bin Laden, mentions that bin Laden 1] 'will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House,' 2] 'is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,' and 3] 'will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs.' See Exs. 16-18, Naeem Abd Muhalhal, America, An Obsession Called Osama Bin Ladin, Al-Nasiriya, July 21, 2001 [original, translation, and certificate of accuracy of translation]...all publications in Iraq really appear at the sufferance of and with a full vetting by the Iraqi regime, and because of the coincidences and the fact that '[t]here is a certain propensity, I think, on bin Laden's part and on Saddam's part ... to try to communicate in somewhat vague terms,' Director Woolsey concluded that there is a probability of a vague foreknowledge of what was contemplated. See Tr. 159."

Y'know...sorry to say I just don't have the time or patience for this.

Did you know that just before the war, there was a news conference with both Tony Blair and George Bush, and Bush said clearly that there was not a connection even then? They KNEW that even BEFORE they went to war!!!! Shall I link yet again, to the statement made in January before they even went to war?

I mean what does it take? They KNEW before they put my cousin in harm's way, and before they put the local guy from my town, and the guy from the nearby city, in harm's way. They KNEW before they tortured people in Abu Ghraib. They knew before the first soldiers landed....or before they took off for Iraq...!

They have all but admitted lying because admitting it would make them wrong, and those brave few who cannot stand the lies have left their employ and exposed the lies...and yet we are still treated as if we are stupid, with obfuscation and more lies to cover the other lies. This is a frickin' nightmare since Jan 2001!!!!

And you know....as someone who has lost an extended family member I just say, how dare ANYONE try to tell me that they'd rather keep believing the lies because that way their president will look good and that is what this amounts to in my opinion, as well a bid to keep power as their hold weakens daily.

Fact is that OBL and Saddam are always lumped together which shows the very same mindset as folks lumping all of us, who find the policies and actions of Bushco damaging, together calling us unpatriotic or unAmerican. Fact is that there is a WORLD of difference between Saddam, a secular, VERY secular nationalist and OBL, who is a religious nationalist. I mean really. OBL has stated distaste and even contempt for Saddam laughing at Saddam's capture and defeat, so that's all mighty interesting. In fact we have played into just what OBL wanted: a holy war.

Now shall I yet again provide the original and perhaps ONLY scrap of truth left to any of this and link to the article wherein Bush himself states very clearly that is no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

All else pales in view of that.

Y'know....when our hometown soldier died and the whole town turned out to mourn, I attended because I worked with his mom for a time. I SAW the flag-draped coffin, the wife numbed with grief, the mother mourning he who she carried within her womb, the little son who cried and will not go fishing with his dad tomorrow. I SAW a town stunned with the sudden dose of reality after taunting me, spitting at me, flipping me off for standing on the corner- in fact standing on the corner just opposite the new community center where the town held its' tribute to this soldier and his family- with my flag because I LOVE my country, and with the sign that talked about all we lose: the real costs of war that no one would acknowledge. And every one of those costs to America: her good will, her credibility, her own children's blood, her precious resources...ALL of those things were true. When we buried our hometown soldier, THEN and ONLY then did all those wrapped in their flags patriots ask "WHY" we were even in Iraq.

My husband handed our very Republican town supervisor the quote to which I have repeatedly referred here, and his eyes widened and he was speechless and when someone asked him at that memorial service why this loss happened, why we were even IN Iraq, he had to say he didn't know! I have known him a LOOOONG time and we have a lovely relationship. I respect him.

You cannot know the anger or the sense of loss; loss of SO MUCH MORE than just mere mortal, corporeal beings, but of their potentials, and loss of the REAL America- which IS my country, to which I am loyal. I truly feel that I have lost my country. Her real heart and her caring and loving way is COMPLETELY gone now and I wonder if she will be given a chance to regain all she has lost.

And people would rather swallow what they are told by those who benefit most by this illegal folly of war. Fine. But I tell you...we are on the most slippery slope when we continue to belabor that which has already been disproven by a Bushco's HANDPICKED commission to investigate the reality of what is what with regard to 9/11; that there was/is NO connection between Iraq and AlQaeda. We all knew it and if everyone had been carefully paying attention, they would have read that even before the US went to war, back a few months previous, even Bush said so, and Blair backed him up.

Since then, it's been shucking and jiving with bullshit. And folks ate it up.

That is NOT my path nor my walk as an American.

And the above post is in violation of copyright, so under 100 words will be fine, thank you, with a link.

I wouldn't trust NewsMax to report that my cat had kittens without a spin to the right. But that is me. Get your news where you wish.

And I am in no mood.

So that is what I think and what I KNOW. I have not forgotten a little boy who will not be able to go fishing tomorrow with his daddy, because of a war that was based on lie after lie, nor that Bush could NOT ever himself say that there was a connection between Iraq and AlQaeda. I will continue in the inability to reconcile that little boy's loss with the importance put on convincing me that there was a link when there was not.

What's the point of this? The cat is OUT of the bag!

There IS however a direct link between what the US has done and the increasingly well organized and committed, increased numbers of terrorists assembling now, though, isn't there? So I would say there is MORE chance of a linkage between the US' actions and increased danger of terrorism, and then, extrapolating, there is more of a connection between Bush and AlQaeda...and we know that the Bin Ladens and the Bush's go back a LONG way.

I will post that link if you like, but I don't care to since I have done so numerous times before. Google it.

Look here even though you won't like it, for info on how BUSH put Iraq and AlQaeda together and further down the page you will also find info on how Iraq actually REBUFFED AlQaeda in fact:
http://www.dailykos.com/section/bush_admin

You won't like that source anymore than I like News Max. I guarantee.

Here's the DADDY of all PREWAR quotes:

Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question. The one thing I would say, however, is I've absolutely no doubt at all that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after September the 11th? We know that these terrorists networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction. And we know also that they will do whatever they can to acquire the most deadly weaponry they can. And that's why it's important to deal with these issues together.

<<

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030131-23.html

And Dr. Rice also rejected the connection and so did others of Bush's own staff. Yet my cousin is still dead and that little boy STILL won't EVER be able to go fishing with his dad again. Those Iraqi children are still wetting their beds nightly and can't overcome the sleepwalking and night terrors. The abused prisoners will still be suffering PTSD. The soldiers will be suffering the effects of DU exposure. The maimed and wounded will be missing parts STILL!

It's not theoretical to alot of innocent people who have been negatively and forever changed by this administration's aggression. It's a REAL LIFE nightmare that will never end. And it will continue to be exploited by this administration to keep us fearful, to keep us quiet and to keep us obedient.

But what goes around WILL come around.

I just don't have any more time to devote to this today. I have family coming from Maryland for the weekend.

Joyce in the mts.

Hi Jenne,

Thanks for your post.

I guess my question is: what's 'a link' ? The 9/11 commission said they did know of the meetings in the Sudan, but they went nowhere. Al Qaeda was attacking Hussein - Hussein was a secular leader and hated the religious fanatical groups, and they hated him. It makes no sense that they would be in cahoots.

There are al Qaeda operatives currently residing in the US - that doesn't mean we're plotting with them. Putting two people in the same country at the same time doesn't constitute a 'link.'

I'd be curious to know what the '50 contacts' were. Do you have a link to explore on this?

WMDs in 1998 do not equal WMDs in 2001, 2002, or 2003. First, Hussein did, under UN pressure, give up his WMDs. Second, the toxins he had deteriorate rapidly, so any WMDs created in 1998 (if he had held some over) would be useless in 2001. These facts were widely discussed in the media. There is no evidence he had any stockpiles when we went to war. Bush himself has said so.

And unfortunately for us, when the Clinton Administration did try to mount popular support for an attack against Iraq he was accused of 'wagging the dog,' creating an unneccessary war to distract from the impeachment, of subverting the Constitution, squandering the US's resources. Witness Joe Farrah in Between the Lines:

Quote:
http://www.conservativeusa.org/wagdog.htm

Funny how $5.5 billion seems so small an amount today...

Here's what Ann Coulter said about it:
"A President who uses his duties as Commander in Chief to bomb foreign countries every time he wants to change the subject ought to be removed with alacrity." (12/25/98)

Too bad the Republicans were allowed to destroy any potential support for a war with Iraq then.

As for al-Zarqawi, he may or may not have two legs, he may or may not be in Iraq (some think he's in Iran), he may or may not have beheaded Berg. We don't even know if he's alive. Witness Brigadier General David Rodriquez in early March '04: "There is no direct evidence of whether he's alive or dead at this point."

That he took shelter in Iraq after being wounded in Afghanistan - this has never been confirmed, and is especially suspect after the White House released the fact that Zarqawi suddenly had two legs in 2003 (which would make the stay in Iraq for prosthesis argument rather not true).

Juan Cole, a respected historian of the region who speaks the language, has been asked to testify to Congressional committees, reads tremendous volumes of stuff, and has followed events carefully, does not think there is any connection between Iraq and the WTC bombings.

"There is no credible evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11.
Nor is there any evidence that I can accept as a professional historian
linking Iraq to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Indeed, the
evidence that al-Gamaa al-Islamiyyah planned and executed 1993 is
overwhelming, and the amateurish way it was carried out is evidence in
itself that it was not a sophisticated state operation." (5/1/2002)

You argue re: Baer's decision that 'I suspect that the reason for the media's near-blackout on the case is because most Americans would consider his findings to be very persuasive.' That's vast-media-conspiracy mongering to me, which I frankly think is a poor argument for anything, and should always be challenged.

If you did a simple Google search (I did) you would find that the Washington Post, NY Times, NPR, USA Today, CBS News, Fox News, Salon.com, Al Jazeera, Washington Times, and lots of local newspapers all reported on this story at the time. So, the 'near-blackout' theory is just false.

Fine points ladies (still laughing over Caulter's screed).

And now we are learning that "the connection" al-Zarqawi may not be so cozy with al Qaeda:

"But U.S. military officials tell NBC News that despite earlier collaboration, Zarqawi is now working against al-Qaida in an effort to establish himself as the top Islamic terrorist in the region."

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5240718/

Which dovetails with views that German intelligence had on al Zarqawi reported in Newsweek last summer:

"But the German interrogations of Shadi Abdallah present a more complex and somewhat different picture of Zarqawi's role in international terrorism. According to Abdullah, Zarqawi's Al Tawhid group focuses on installing an Islamic regime in Jordan and killing Jews. And although Al Tawhid maintained its own training camp near Herat, Afghanistan, Zarqawi competed with bin Laden for trainees and members, Abdallah claimed."

More here: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...5distorted.htm

More Zarqawi info from Juan Cole's blog:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcol...i/zarqawi2.htm

In light of the the OP, it is worth checking out this link that analyzes Dubya Inc.'s Clintonian, weaselly "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is" verbiage on the al Queda-Saddam linkage since 9/11:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc..._13.php#003075

Finally, recall what Dubya himself stated during his infamous photo-op/speech last year: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror," Bush said. "We have removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding." Speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in551825.shtml

I'm telling ya, since the Cheney-Dubya tag-team began its death grip on this "connection", I've been getting visions of that Dead Parrot skit from Monty Python:

C: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

O: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

C: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

O: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

C: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

O: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!

T

C: All right then, if he's resting, I'll wake him up!

(shouting at the cage)

'Ello, Polly! Mister Polly Parrot! I've got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you wake up, Mr. Polly Parrot...

"[The 9/11 commission] supports the Bush administration's long-standing conclusion that there was no evidence of 'collaboration' between Iraq and al Qaeda on the 9-11 attacks against the United States. " Bush/Cheney email to Jewish leaders today.

"The administration has never suggested that Iraq 'collaborated' or 'cooperated' with al-Qaeda to carry out the 9-11 attacks." Bush/Cheney mailing to key constituents today.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5460742
------
Oh, really?

GW Bush, Sept 26, 2002, his cabinet room: "Saddam Hussein is a terrible guy who is teaming up with al Qaeda." (Plan of Attack, p. 188)

GW Bush, Dec. 18, 2002, private meeting with Spanish President Jose Maria Aznar: "Saddam Hussein is using his money to train and equip al Qaeda with chemicals, he's harboring terrorists." (Plan of Attack, p. 240)

Plan of Attack, p. 292: "Powell thought that Cheney had the fever. The vice president and Wolfowitz kept looking for the connection between Saddam and 9/11. It was a separate little government that was out there - Wolfowitz, Libby, Feith and Feith's "Gestapo office," as Powell privately called it. He saw in Cheney a sad transformation. The cool operator from the first Gulf War just would not let go. Cheney now had an unhealthy fixation...Powell thought that Cheney took intelligence and converted uncertainty and ambiguity into fact."

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
LINK

I guess I never thought that SH helped with 9/11, but he was a big supporter of terrorism. If I remember rightly, this is a war on terrorism. I certainly hope Bush doesn't stop till he has the job done even if we have to invade other countries that support and house terrorist.

What are you wearing, sleeping queen? ...you are making me hot.