No al Qaeda, Iraq cooperation

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
No al Qaeda, Iraq cooperation
72
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 4:34am
"The panel (9/11) said it found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The report contradicts statements from the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda.

In response, a senior administration official traveling with President Bush in Tampa, Florida, said, "We stand by what Powell and Tenet have said," referring to previous statements by Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet that described such links.

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that Iraq was harboring Zarqawi, a "collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants," and he said Iraq's denials of ties to al Qaeda "are simply not credible."

In September, Cheney said Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Bush, responding to criticism of Cheney's comment, said there was no evidence Saddam's government was linked to the September 11 attacks.

Just this week Bush and Cheney have made comments alleging ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. ( Full story )

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry said, "the administration misled America."

"The administration reached too far," he told Detroit radio station WDET. "They did not tell the truth to Americans about what was happening or their own intentions."

The commission's report says bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time 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, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.

"Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied" any relationship, the report said.

The panel also dismissed reports that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in the Czech Republic on April 9, 2000. "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred."

The report said that Atta was in Virginia on April 4 -- evidenced by video that shows him withdrawing $8,000 from an ATM -- and he was in Florida by April 11 if not before.

The report also found that there was no "convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11" other than the limited support provided by the Taliban when bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan.

The toppling of the Taliban regime "fundamentally changed" al Qaeda, leaving it decentralized and altering bin Laden's role.

Prior to the attacks, bin Laden approved all al Qaeda operations and often chose targets and the operatives himself, the report said.

"After al Qaeda lost Afghanistan after 9/11, it fundamentally changed. The organization is far more decentralized. Bin Laden's seclusion forced operational commanders and cell leaders to assume greater authority; they are now making the command decisions previously made by him," the report said.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/index.html

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 06-22-2004 - 11:46am

<<"There are several ways that a country can cooperate with a terrorist organization without taking direct part in any one specific attack.">>....ITA


Same goes for a country that insists it is opposing a war, yet feed it through the backdoor. Germany did that by selling/shipping weapons w/o personel, via Rotterdam (NL providing personel). Oh well...

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2004
Tue, 06-22-2004 - 1:41pm
>>>Well, after watching some of the 9/11 commission hearings, I dont know where you get your facts from.<<

From experts and from the 9/11 commission.

>>>The facts came out that it was found that some of the intelligence that the decisions to go to war on were found to be wrong AFTER the fact, not before.<<

this is not true, plenty of experts, intelligence experts, diplomats etc felt the reasoning and cherry picked information to justify war was dubious. The niger claim was discredited almost immediately, the weapons labs discredited almost immediately, the 9/11/hussein/al qu discredited before the war. Scott ritter and hans blix were either called traitors or incompetant, wilson's wife was outed, and many other experts ignored.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 06-22-2004 - 2:09pm
The only one that I can confirm was done BEFORE the war was the Niger claim, to which the MI-6 still say was credible, even though the CIA could not verify the claim.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2004
Tue, 06-22-2004 - 3:56pm
>>>The only one that I can confirm was done BEFORE the war was the Niger claim<<

david kelly, a weapons expert said that blair exaggerated intelligence to justify war, and yes I know he is british, but this government used british intelligence to back up their own. The dossier blair used and colin powell quoted from was plagarized from a 12-year-old doctoral thesis and was quickly discredited. scott ritter (registered republican) an intelligence expert and weapons expert who stood up to husseins bullies in 98 challenged the veracity of Bush's intelligence claims about wmd. Ritter was labelled a traiotor and villified in the press. The chief UN weapons inspector Blix suspected Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction in advance of the war on Iraq. some of the intelligence that powell used at the un security council came from british intelligence dossier, (the dodgy one that was plagarized from a american students 12 year old phd thesis) and was discredited.

"Former CIA director Stansfield Turner accused the Bush administration Tuesday of "overstretching the facts" about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in making its case for invading that country.

Turner's broadside adds the retired admiral's name to a list of former intelligence professionals concerned that the CIA and its intelligence reports were manipulated to justify the war."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-17-turner-usat_x.htm

colin powell knew the claims about weapons labs were weak and still tried to present it as solid evidence, even though Hans Blix said there was no evidence of mobile biological weapons laboratories. In fact those so called mobile labs had been sold to hussein by britain and in fact were use to test food and the cia admitted that there was no trace evidence of any chemicals being used in them.

then there is:

"Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.

a terrorist expert who said that there was a concerted effort immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.”

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/062103A.shtml

and then there is richard clarke (a registered republican), expert on homeland security, counterterrorism and cyber security, who critisized bush for being obsessed with Iraq and Hussein. He provided witnesses that supported his claim that in conversations with Bush he was asked to find evidence that hussein was connected to sept 11th despite being told there wasn't.



then there is paul oneill former Bush treasury secretary who said the iraq invasion was planned within days of Bush becoming president and that they used questionable intelligence.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-11-oneill-iraq_x.htm





iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 06-22-2004 - 4:50pm
With regards to both Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil, they were both severely discredited not only by those within the administration, but also, by other investigative journalists and books, such as Richard Miniters book.

Clarke so severely contradicted himself that he lost credibility and most people saw his testimony as a publicity push for his book, and the same went for Paul O'Neil.

I know about the faulty dossier that the British intelligence was basing their theory on, but those in MI-6 are still standing by their story, even though the CIA has since found less and less to back up the original assertion.

With regards to Stansfield Turner, how would he know, considering that he has been out of the intelligence loop since 1981.

Also, it was widely known and reported that Wesley Clark actually wanted to become part of the operation dealing with Iraq and the terrorism after 9/11 and became a "Democrat" after he was turned down by the administration.

With regards to the weapons inspections, what do you say about the reports that the French were letting Hussein know about what sites were going to be visited by the inspectors and when, so if there was anything at these sites, it could be removed. I dont have a link to the articles on this now, but this all came out right as the war commenced.)

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 06-22-2004 - 4:53pm
With the way the media tends to "report" or "cover" certain events, it is no wonder.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2004
Tue, 06-22-2004 - 5:27pm
You provide nothing to support your claims other than you said so. clarke and oneil were respected members of several administrations, including this one in which Bush himself stated high regard for them. But then that seems to have been the modus operandi of this administation, speak out and you are suddenly not credible, a traitor,a disgruntled republican, unamerican, unpatriotic, or just seeking publicity, or a wife in the cia is exposed.

>>know about the faulty dossier that the British intelligence was basing their theory on, but those in MI-6 are still standing by their story,<<

Just because some stand by their *story* doesn't make it valid, even jack straw admitted it was an embarrassment. The fact is that many of the assertions made prior to the war were discredited by experts and seriously distrusted by many in the military, within the intelligence community and within the administration. Even one of the most respected memebers of the military, zinni had harsh words for this administration in regards to the iraq war. Will you also claim that zinni has no credibility either! a man so highly regarded by Bush that he appointed him special envoy to the middle east.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Tue, 06-22-2004 - 6:00pm
How was he attacking anyone?


Edited 6/22/2004 6:03 pm ET ET by britogal2
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Tue, 06-22-2004 - 7:02pm

Please note:


iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Sun, 07-04-2004 - 4:15pm
The US gave weapons to Saddam (including those very ingredients to make the gas that killed the Kurds). This is a matter of record, which the US administration has acknowledged. So the connection betwene the US and the Kurds and that between Iraq and Al Queda is of the same nature....

Pages