View Full Version : Probe rules out Iraq-9/11 links

Oyvind Snibsoer
06-16-2004, 04:47 PM
The US national commission examining the 11 September 2001 attacks has found no "credible evidence" that Iraq helped al-Qaeda militants carry them out.
The statement appears in a report on al-Qaeda published before the final public session of the commission.

It contradicts remarks by the US vice-president about Saddam Hussein's "long-established ties" with al-Qaeda.

Iraq's alleged links with al-Qaeda were part of the justification the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq.

The 11 September attacks killed nearly 3,000 people after members of Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network flew three hijacked planes into New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with a fourth crashing in Pennsylvania.

We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States
Report on al-Qaeda
The commission, drawn from both Republicans and Democrats, published two separate preliminary reports: an overview of al-Qaeda and an outline of the 11 September plot.

It concludes that senior al-Qaeda suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed initially proposed a hijacking attack involving 10 planes to hit an expanded list of targets that would include the CIA and FBI headquarters, unidentified nuclear plants and tall buildings in California and Washington state.

The more ambitious plan was reportedly rejected by Bin Laden.

A final report on the commission's findings is due on 28 July.

But preliminary statements published by the commission on a range of issues are building up into a complex picture of missed opportunities and some of it does not make pleasant reading for the Bush administration, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus.

Bin Laden spurned

The report on al-Qaeda, entitled Overview of the Enemy, describes the roots of the militant network and its activities.

It says Osama Bin Laden had explored the possibility of co-operation with Iraq, despite his opposition to Saddam Hussein's secular regime.

They had determined that the best time to storm the cockpit would be about 10-15 minutes after takeoff
Report on 9/11 plot A senior Iraqi intelligence officer had met Bin Laden in 1994 to hear his requests for space to establish training camps and assistance in procuring weapons - but Iraq had not 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 statement says.

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

The report on al-Qaeda also finds:

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.

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".

Al-Qaeda is "far more decentralised", now that Bin Laden has lost his Afghan base.

More attacks likely

The commission's second report, entitled Outline of the 9/11 Plot, paints a picture of al-Qaeda members integrating themselves into Western societies before coming together to strike at America, and shows Bin Laden dominating the organisation's decision-making.

The commission finds that al-Qaeda is still "extremely interested in conducting chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attacks".

The point was reinforced by a CIA expert testifying on Wednesday.

"Al-Qaeda... has by no means been defeated and though weakened, it continues to patiently plan its next attacks," said the expert, identified as Dr K.

"They may strike next week, next month or next year but they will strike," he warned.

The expert is one of several law enforcement and intelligence experts on al-Qaeda testifying before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

On Thursday, top military and civilian aviation officials - including General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - will testify about their agencies' responses to the attacks.

Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 2004/06/16 20:34:17 GMT

Lessee, no WoMDs, no Al Qaeda. Are there any reasons left standing, "that we could agree on," for invading Iraq?

Oh, and some of you are still worrying about an ex-president who cheated on his wife :confused:

martin schulz
06-17-2004, 06:03 AM
Somehow not of interest to our friends overseas Ovind :(

Perhaps the old head-in-sand tactic ;)

Del Lansing
06-17-2004, 06:50 AM
The report must be taken in context. I just heard Mr.Lehman of the commission state yes, no ties with Sept. 11, but other definate links with training camps, specifically training on the use of VX gas. So to take the "no ties between Iraq and 9-11," and turn that into "no ties with Al Qeada" is a lie.

06-17-2004, 06:53 AM
... And Cheney was still spouting off about the Saddam-Al Qaida connection even after the report was released. Do ya think if he says it often enough, it'll become true? :rolleyes:

06-17-2004, 07:06 AM
Neil Boortz has something to say about this today.


We're starting to get some leaks about the contents of the 911 Commission report. Yesterday the Associated Press said that the report "bluntly contradicts" the Bush Administration's claims that Saddam Hussein was linked to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Now it is true that the 911 Commission report did actually say that there was no evidence of a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. So ... what is my problem here? The problem is that the Bush administration never ... and I mean never made a claim that such a connection existed in the first place. In fact, George Bush has repeatedly said that there is no evidence that such a connection exists. This creates a bit of a question, then, about the AP story. How can the 911 Commission report "bluntly contradict" that claim that has never been made? There can be no "blunt contradiction" of a claim that has never been made. So, what did George Bush say? He said that there is no question that Saddam had Al Qaeda connections. The 911 Commission report, by the way, agrees.

CNN is no better than AP. This morning on CNN Bill Hemmer started the news story this way: "One of the original justifications for war in Iraq has been discredited by the 911 Commission." He then went on to relate the commission's findings of no Hussein connection with the 9/11 attacks. This is the same tact used by AP. Basing a story on a wholly false premise .. and doing so intentionally.

This is getting ridiculous. The writers and the editors know that Bush never claimed that Hussein had any connection with the actual terrorist attack. Someone at AP made a conscious decision to include that bogus "bluntly contradicts" line into the story because they knew that the end result would be unfavorable to President Bush. Simply put, the purpose of that line was to portray Bush as either a liar or ignorant. The person or persons responsible for the "bluntly contradicts" line knows that people -- voters -- will read the story and believe that Bush asserted that such a claim exists, and was wrong. This, my friends, is a prime example of pure unadulterated media bias at work.

stan v
06-17-2004, 07:16 AM
alteran, good to have you back. Hope that posting doesn't get you booted.

I expect our overseas 'friends' to contribute to this nonsense that Damsad wasn't a terrorist, or didn't have terrorist ties. (anyone that pays a homicide bombers family a REWARD can be nothing but a terrorist :eek: ). It's OUR citizens that continue turning away from terrorism and looking at America that so makes me want to p*ss on 'em.

06-17-2004, 07:56 AM
Neil, Alteran, just so I understand you....the networks are misrepresenting the commission and the presidents position. The president never said Al Queda and Saddam were in cahoots? or the progression of the statement from no ties to 9/11 to no ties with Al Qeda is a mistake of logic(a lie).


Do you fellows have ANY comment on the use of Wurmser/Maloof to find ANY link between Saddam and Al Queda and then take that product behind Tenet and up to Cheney. DO you have ANY comment why C. Rice prevented the White House Counterterrorism expert from having any meetings with the cabinet until 9/06?

Martin,,is there a general opinion you can give on US reduction of forces in Germany,,how is that received there?

Not to leave you out Stan, who would you like to piss on?

martin schulz
06-17-2004, 08:02 AM
The report also said that in fact Osama BinLaden contacted Saddam Hussein trying to establish closer contacts and to ask for training camp ground. Saddam Hussein rudely dismissed that request.

I am not aware that Hussein had terrorist training camps. What for? To train terrorists against Iran? Of course he had training facilities to train handling chemical weapons - those were the weapons he used against Iran and his own people.

stan v
06-17-2004, 08:07 AM
Salman Pak :rolleyes:

It's really amazing the ignorance/blindness of the left. They've become down right dangerous.

Hey! PC, should I be more thoughtful and polite with this?

High C
06-17-2004, 08:09 AM
Like all else of late, the media is frantically spinning this in an attempt to paint President Bush in a negative light. The headlines are not consistent with the commission's report. There is no "blunt contradiction". Nothing has been "ruled out".

This commission was a disaster from day one, and of little practical use.

And now we see all these wild headlines that don't jive with the report, the press campaigining against a Republican, wow, that's a first. :rolleyes:

If any of this nonsense were actually true, that there were no banned weapons, and no link between Iraq and terrorism, there would be a cry for justice. Well, how 'bout it fellers, anyone ready to demand justice?


Who'll be the first?

Who's going to be the first to demand that Hussein be returned to power and his palaces be rebuilt?

Come on, if we were so wrong about all this, wouldn't that be the just course?

Step right up, who'll be the first? Or doesn't anyone really believe the spin?

stan v
06-17-2004, 08:13 AM
High C, they're leftists....minority leftists. Hence, all of a sudden the current WBF is nasty and without honor due to conservatives pointing out how ridiculous they are. Totally clueless they are....perfect position to remain in the minority.

martin schulz
06-17-2004, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by LeeG:
Martin,,is there a general opinion you can give on US reduction of forces in Germany,,how is that received there? Actually we are crying our hearts out, Esspecially because now we are left in this hart, brutal world among those that hate the US because they are free and we are not.

...no just joking. The reduction of the US Forces is more or less observed under the light of what economical impact it will have. To be honest american soldiers, other than the english and french forces still in Germany, didn't really get in contact with the german population. They pretty much stayed at their bases.
Those soldiers I met (the Army in Gießen and the Air Force in Spangdahlem/Bitburg) while playing football regretted that they usually didn't go out, but mostly stayed at their bases. Perhaps that was due to cultural desinterest or just plain lazyness. I mean, an american military base is a small American world in its own, with shopping centers, gyms, gas-stations... so why should one go out to get in contact with the locals?

High C
06-17-2004, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by martin schulz:
Saddam Hussein rudely dismissed that request.
A superb example of the spin I just talked about.

The report says that Iraq "apparently never responded" to Bin Laden's request. But here we have a member who has apparently read in some media outlet that this request was "rudely dismissed".

And guess who the source was for the claim that Iraq didn't respond to the request? Anybody know? Is CNN or NBC or BBC admitting this little tidbit?

It was two senior Bin Laden associates. We believe them, right?

That's spin. Big time.

[ 06-17-2004, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: High C ]

06-17-2004, 08:29 AM
Stan, just for once could you make a post that didn't have an insulting cast to it?

High,,justice is waiting for November. The President was the one who got this commission going!! Families of the bombing of the WTC towers DEMANDED there was a commission. THIS IS THE UNITED STATES,, we are ENTITLED TO THE TRUTH.

Where would you get the idea that one must be for Saddam if the the commission has findings that criticize the president? Good lord the Starr hearings got us the details of a stained dress for 25million dollars. We're talking about something much bigger than a presidents screw-ups with his dick or covering up like watergate,,hell it's even bigger than propping up dictators and overthrowing govt's in central America. This is a concerted plan to deceive the American public using a president who's not exactly an expert on foreign policy. At least 250Billion dollars and loss of good will for what? Democracy?

9/11 was a gift from the devil, it was evil,,and Cheney/Wolfowitz took it to the bank.

We could have put ALL our energies into Afghanistan,,think about how much could be done removing opium and working on the basis for militant islam by cultivating a moderate replacement for it through Pakistan while increasing pro-western dictatorships in the other Stan countries.

Just look at the delusion of bringing democracy at the end of a gun,,someone please tell me how that works in the middle east. And if that reason for occupation falls like the other ones,,what are we left with,,,securing sources of oil.

Look at the bombings of the oil pipelines in iraq,,,if Al Qeda hits Saudi oil facilities then you might get a clue that someone else thinks we're there for oil.

It's been 30yrs since the "energy crisis",,maybe this will generate a new energy plan,,that can be developed in public.

06-17-2004, 08:32 AM
High,would you like it if they were "graciously rejected"?

High, somethings can't be changed by spin. If I say I caught a HUGE 12" catfish and the next day caught a TINY 12" catfish there's one thing you can say,,,it was a 12" catfish.

[ 06-17-2004, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

martin schulz
06-17-2004, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by High C:
The report says that Iraq "apparently never responded" to Bin Laden's request. But here we have a member who has apparently read in some media outlet that this request was "rudely dismissed".ok - guilty!
It seems like I am doing the same mistakes others have been doing. Creating speculations, not reading files correctly, negating facts which don't back my position, trying to create a certain hyteria...fortunately I am not trying to have big political impact.

Here is the report text:

report text pdf (http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/staff_statement_15.pdf)

stan v
06-17-2004, 08:42 AM
I miss the wall: so why should one go out to get in contact with the locals?

If the women shaved maybe you'd see more American service men out and about.

High C
06-17-2004, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by LeeG:
High,would you like it if they were "graciously rejected"?

High, somethings can't be changed by spin. If I say I caught a HUGE 12" catfish and the next day caught a TINY 12" catfish there's one thing you can say,,,it was a 12" catfish."Rudely Rejected" or "Apparently Ignored". Are you really suggesting the former is an honest representation of the latter? Do you not see that the former is a wild extrapolation intended to decieve?

This is pure spin, to use as polite a term as possible. It's the kind of spin that has made our media so untrustworthy. To be less polite, it's a damn lie.

Edited to add: After I posted this, Martin chimed in and admitted that the words in question were his own, and not from the media. My apologies to the media. ;) And thank you Martin.

Words matter. Different ones have been shown to have different meanings.

[ 06-17-2004, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: High C ]

stan v
06-17-2004, 08:45 AM
High C...a reminder. If our socialists peaceniks from overseas wish to engage for their pleasure one of our full time trolls, so be it. We mustn't. Let this one sink and bottom feed with the other small catfish.

martin schulz
06-17-2004, 08:55 AM
On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator "had long established ties with al-Qaida." "had long established ties with al-Qaida." What is that supposed to mean? Sounds to me like the usuall: "Well, they were never friends, but lets try to formulate it in a way so people will think they were working together for years".

06-17-2004, 09:56 AM
Bless you High for sticking this out,,,yes words matter. Whether it's looking for "wood","plywood" or Philipine mahogany. It even matters when looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction and calling scrap the same.

In this case the catfish is still 12" long. And Saddam rendered no aid to OsamaBin Laden who attacked the US. Calling OBL terrorists, and calling Saddams late aid to Palestinian bombers families aid to terrorists doesn't therefor say that Saddam was aiding OBL because OBL is a terrorist.

THAT is the kind of marketing that enables Crest to sell toothpaste for sexier smiles,,well because they have sexy smiles on TV. That is the kind of marketing that enables auto companies to target their respective markets,,youth/Ford,,,age/general motors,,,simply by putting the picture and the car together.
But guess what? people bought Honda,Toyotas and Datsuns because they were a good value compared to GM trash in the 70's and early 80's.

People eventually got pissed over gov't deception in the Vietnam war. And that's how we got Carter.

Deception is less tolerated when there are Billions of dollars and 1000's of lives involved.

[ 06-17-2004, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

High C
06-17-2004, 10:36 AM

06-17-2004, 10:51 AM
HighC, speaking of using words correctly you'll notice that Stan rarely uses the words that identify the major players in iraq or any detail that goes beyond one level of identification.
Iraq=Saddam,,OBL=Al Qeda. Disagreement = support for the enemy.

Imagine learning the insides of a car and the only words that could be used were "engine" and "gas".

I've brought up the names of people in our administration that are responsible for misrepresentations and undermining Tenet but no one is picking up on it. That's like someone saying "my car doesn't work,,I put gas in it"
I've brought up the identies of political and armed forces in iraq but few have picked up on it.
It's like the words will contaminate the purity of Texan thought.

So you're right it does matter what the words mean. What's that phrase?,,say what you mean and do what you say.

Mixing up the "terrorists" (insurgents) in a failed state without it's dictator or regime in power with the "terrorists" of a non-national fundamentalist Sunni/Wahabbi group that has no national loyalty is intentionally misleading or understandably confusing. But we're at the game where the distinction has to be made. Just as a year ago the administration made the shift from "liberation" to "occupation" in it's rhetoric.
It's like the distinction that followers of football teams would be able to say how team A is different from Team b, but to someone outside the game ,,they all look the same.
Folks over there make a distinction between a shia militia in Najaf and a militia under Moqtada Sadr from Badr City.. so if one shoots the other do we care? are they still terrorists?
When around a thousand die in Faluja and a large number are women/children do we care or are they terrorists too? Here's a link to a BBC article about Sunni/Shia conflicts,it doesn't make our news,,the burnt bodies aren't american.

[ 06-17-2004, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

06-17-2004, 10:54 AM

well actually folks do get upset when it's just billions of dollars,,ENRON and Californias energy problems for example. That's why SDI is upsetting to me,,,it's Billions of dollars wasted,,but it's ok because it's for "defense",,,and it aint defending much for that much money.