Apparently a Pentagon-backed study will be out in a few days that says there was no operational link between Iraq and al-Qaeda and some of the cherry picked quotes were leaked to the MSM:
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida terrorist network.
The key word here is operational. We here at Flopping Aces have our own exhaustive work on the TIES between the two which can be found here if you have the time. Lots of stuff there.
The problem with all this is that they, meaning the MSM, are coming to the conclusion that because they were not operating together then there were no ties between the two. Which is complete and utter baloney. The many documents we highlighted here bear this out as being baloney.
At least the media does concede one point:
The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam’s regime provided some support toother terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East , U.S. officials told McClatchy .
Saddam supported terrorism.
Should I say it again? Saddam supported terrorism……period.
I like Rob’s take on this: (from Say Anything)
Trying to obfuscate that fact by saying he didn’t support al Qaeda “directly” is like saying that Charles Manson is an ok guy because child molestation didn’t happen to be among his crimes against society.
Hell, take a look of this footage that aired on Iraqi TV in August of 2005 of terrorist Ramzi Hashem Abed explaining his work with al-Zarqawi, the fact that Zarqawi was part of Osama’s organization, AND that AQ had been training in Fallujah prior to the invasion. (h/t Amy Proctor)
But this is where the media really goes over the deep end:
As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq . “The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims,” he said. . . .
Sen. John McCain , the presumptive GOP nominee, mocked Sen. Barack Obama , D-Ill, recently for saying that he’d keep some U.S. troops in Iraq if al Qaida established a base there.
“I have some news. Al Qaida is in Iraq ,” McCain told supporters.
Are they serious? Are they trying to say that al-Qaeda isn’t in Iraq now?
Coalition forces near Ad Dawr targeted the leader of a terror cell for the southern Karkh al Qaeda in Iraq network. Intelligence led coalition forces to a location where the wanted individual was believed to be operating. The ground force detained one suspect, who then provided information on the whereabouts of another alleged terrorist.
Northeast of Samarra, coalition forces targeted an alleged al Qaeda in Iraq leader for the Kanan village. In the raid, forces killed eight terrorists, including the wanted individual. Seven suspects were detained.
Also in Samarra, forces captured three suspected terrorists. One of the suspects allegedly is a leader for the al Qaeda in Iraq network in Samarra. Another is believed to be a direct associate of al Qaeda in Iraq senior leadership.
As security improves across Iraq, Iraqi security forces and coalition forces are continuing to put pressure on the al Qaeda in Iraq network, specifically its senior leaders, a Multinational Force Iraq spokesman said today.
In recent weeks, Iraqi and coalition forces have captured or killed 26 senior al Qaeda in Iraq network leaders, Army Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner told reporters in Baghdad. Of the 26, eight were emirs who exercised responsibility for a geographic or functional area, five were cell leaders, and 13 were terrorist facilitators.
The emirs captured included the emir of Sharqat, who was wanted for attacks against Iraqi and coalition security forces and civilians; the emir of Tikrit, who led efforts to import foreign terrorists and to make and move weapons for terror attacks; and the military emir of Karkh, who coordinated and carried out car-bomb attacks in the western and southern areas of Baghdad.
Coalition forces killed Abu Yasir al-Saudi, also known as Jar Allah, who was the al Qaeda emir for southeastern Mosul and directed the terror network there, Bergner said. The coalition also killed Abu Hassam, who was the deputy military emir for Diyala province.
Thats just in the last week. If they are seriously going to go this route with their reporting then they are opening themselves up for ridicule they have yet to see up to this point.
See author page
As usual, it’s the headline that is deceptive. And that’s what the willfully ignorant Dems latch onto. It’s as if they can’t read anything past a headline, or a bumper sticker.
They have what I call a “lapel pin mentality.” Any more information than that and they can’t process it.
Re: “Saddam supported terrorism.
Should I say it again? Saddam supported terrorism……period.”
Of course. NeoConservatrives know better. They always have. No amount of analysis and facts (at least facts not supplied by NewsMax) matter, ever.
What do NeoCons know that the Pentagon doesn’t?
Sigh….from the MSM’s own biased reporting.
Reading comprehension problems again Steve?
Re: “Reading comprehension problems again Steve?”
“Some”?
Saudi Arabia provided (and provides) a lot more than “some”. How is it that you NeoConservatives are not agitating to invade them? After all, it should be another Cakewalk, shouldn’t it?
We have the same data and the libtards are going nuts over this.
Wow, now people who disagree with Steve are no longer just “conservatives” but “NEOconservatives.” How open-minded and liberal
Pretty sure no one quoted Fox or Newsmax as Steve alleges, and no one here got talking points from the RNC or the WH either.
The point about Saudi Arabia’s a good distraction, but as usual it’s a half truth-the other half of the truth is that Saudi has rounded up thousands of terrorists-so an invasion isn’t necessary. The rant about why people don’t advocate invading Saudi Arabia is in fact a counter-argument in and of itself to the NEOconservative legend that the US is out to invade countries like Iraq for their oil for if that were the case, then Steve would be right and US forces would be marching down Riyadh.
Ultimately, I want to see what this report says that’s new. Closed-minded-faux-liberals like Steve won’t care to read it, and such anti-American fools are likely to get their opinions spoon fed to them by their favorite defeat-advocates-websites instead. Me, I’ll read the report. I always do (LOVE reading the investigations).
We’ll see tomorrow.
The “Shadow Warriors” strike again. Steve, if you wish to be more informed, read up on people like Josef Bodansky, Con Coughlin, Ken Timmerman, Stephen Hayes, Thomas Joseclyn, Ion Pacepa, Ihor Smeshko, Laurie Mylroie, Yvgeny Primakov, Ray Robison and others. These are very smart people on this subject.
Truth repels the basic libtard…they latch onto another libtard’s rant(s) and claim them as their own. Simply amazing.
Philly Steve, spend a few bucks and purchase Lawrence Wright’s “The Looming Tower” it lays everything out pretty clear.
btw, Mr. Wright is a lefty
And what is new about this? Saddam had no operational control over Al Qaeda, that’s was known before the invasion. Saddam did had terror connections, that was also known and report by the 9/11 report. Terrorists and Saddam, who knows what was going on, or would in the future. We now know what is going on in Iran with their terror arms.
So this is a report for libtards, nothing more, so the libtards can rewrite history again for the ignorant.
So how about the fact that Bill Clinton let the terrorists hatch and become stronger after Jimmy Carter gave them Iran to nest in? If Clinton had killed UBL there would have been no 9/11, of course he was busy with doing hs “Spitzer gig”. with the interns. At least BJ had the cajones to get it free.
Elect a libtard, Iran will nuke Israel, then what?
Oh Bill, President Hillary Clinton won’t let that happen, and if she does then she’s the one person who can fix everything wrong in the world.
[/sarcasm off]
If the proof is so solid, both that Saddam was behind the September 11 attacks and that Saddam had nuclear and biological weapons at the time of theinvasion in 2003, then why hasn’t your heor, George w.Bush gone on national TV and presentned this ironclad proof to the world?
After staking his invasion on these two pillars, there are only one of three reasons President Bush has not presented this “solid” proof to the world:
> President Bush is a fool and wants the world to continue to believe there were no WMD’s or links to 9/11.
> President Bush is part of the “Liberal Conspiracy to make America look bad”.
> The “proof” is bogus.
Take your pick.
“> President Bush is a fool and wants the world to continue to believe there were no WMD’s or links to 9/11.
> President Bush is part of the “Liberal Conspiracy to make America look bad”.
> The “proof” is bogus.”
I wish you guys would make up your mind. Either GW is a bumbling fool or the most diabolical bastard EVER! Which is it?
So, the US should stop killing Al Qaeda? What? You think they’ll play nice if we come home? Full of criticism, short on solutions.
My choice:
> Stevie is an idiot.
Exhaustive review?
Considering about 2 years ago, roughly 45,000 pages were interpreted with more than 2-3 million pages remaining. The DIA and CIA had indicated the volume of documents, the amount of work remaining, it would take another 7-10 years to interpret the entire archive. And, this is before taking into account reading and analysis of those documents in their proper context to get a view of what was going on. But, of those 45,000 pages interpreted and placed into perspective in 2005, it did indicate Saddam (through his sons) was seeking to cultivate ties with AQ, not necessarily operational ties with them. The ties would be along the lines of training, transit, and logistical support, but not enough to tie them directly to AQ in terms of planning, coordinating, and execution of attacks. The ties to AQ would be along the lines of support given to Palestinian terrorists.
Like Scott said, the report will need to be read first to see if any new ground has been broken.
Only the libtards are under the delusion that Saddam had anything to do with 91101. Yet another libtard talking dull shot down in flames.
Simply amazing. The libtards are so sure that GWB is the dumbest and the worse that there ever was yet he beats the libtards on every issue and on every corner. Pretty goo for a Big Dummy, eh? What does that say for the ones saying he is so dumb?
ROFLMAO!!
Steve,
option 4…
He doesn’t need to present it/nothing to gain by doing so
option 5
I need a job, and they’re too incompetent to hire me
FYI
“I wish you guys would make up your mind. Either GW is a bumbling fool or the most diabolical bastard EVER! Which is it?”
I KNOW THIS ONE!!!! He’s BOTH an evil genius and a fool
I’ll take door number 19…
Re: “I wish you guys would make up your mind. Either GW is a bumbling fool or the most diabolical bastard EVER! Which is it? ”
I do not believe that George W. Bush is either stupid or a fool. That leaves one of the second two options. Which do you choose?
Re: “So, the US should stop killing Al Qaeda? What? You think they’ll play nice if we come home? Full of criticism, short on solutions.”
Did I say that? That comment has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with anything in my comment. It is just a random challenge from left field and, in the context of this conversation, makes no sense whatsoever.
Re: “My choice:
> Stevie is an idiot.”
Well. That certainly refutes everything I ever said. If this were a third grade schoolyard I wold be complete shown up by a statement like that.
Wait a minute. This is a Conservative Forum. That means I am conversing with those who believe name-calling and idiotic taunts are what makes for an intelligent rebuttal.
Re: “Considering about 2 years ago, roughly 45,000 pages were interpreted with more than 2-3 million pages remaining. The DIA and CIA had indicated the volume of documents, the amount of work remaining, it would take another 7-10 years to interpret the entire archive. ”
And, if that does not provide the answer NeoConservatives want to hear, then it will “take” another seven-to-ten years after that. And maybe another decade. “As long as it takes” so that neoConservatives never have to admit a mistake.
Re: “Only the libtards are under the delusion that Saddam had anything to do with 91101. Yet another libtard talking dull shot down in flames.”
Back to the schoolyard. I thought that the “links” that NeoConservatives consider so conclusive were the proof of Saddam being in league with the September 11 attacks? After all, the Saudi Royal family also had (and may still have) all kinds of links to al Qaeda. I still have not heard one single neoConservative tell us about doing something about them.
Re: “What does that say for the ones saying he is so dumb?”
I have never said, here or anywhere else, that George W. Bush is or was dumb. That was just one of the options I proffered to you, the NeoConservatives of the world. Since apparently “Option 1” is off the table, the answer must be options 2 or 3 then. Which do yo select?
Re: “Steve,
option 4…
He doesn’t need to present it/nothing to gain by doing so”
Why? Is he the emperorer who is supreme,with no need to explain himself to the world. Is “The Decider” above such things as communicating with those over whom he rules?
Well… Apparently George W. Bush agrees with you on that one:
“If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,”
George W. Bush
— CNN.com, December 18, 2000
So, perhaps that is the best option.
Re: “option 5
I need a job, and they’re too incompetent to hire me”
????
Re: “FYI
“I wish you guys would make up your mind. Either GW is a bumbling fool or the most diabolical bastard EVER! Which is it?”
See my comment above.
Well, Stevie…your first error was believing that you thought you could think. Who said Saddam was linked to 91101? And bring substantiation if you are capable.
Oh Yeah…run along now, Stevie…recess is over.
No evidence Saddam’s Iraq linked to terrorist attacks against the U.S.?
Re: “Well, Stevie…your first error was believing that you thought you could think. Who said Saddam was linked to 91101? And bring substantiation if you are capable.”
Why else would we invade? Conservatives, as explained by George W. Bush himself, do not believe in “Nation Building”.
Re: “One of the conspirators, Abdul Rahman Yasin fled to Baghdad, where ABC News reported he was staying at his father’s house, an official in the Iraqi government. Ramzi Yousef escaped to Pakistan hours after the attack. He used a temporary Pakastani passport based on suspicious documents from Kuwait, which could have easily been tampered with by Iraqi Intelligence during the occupation.”
THAT is why we invaded Iraq? One man fled to Baghdad, stayed with his father and MAYBE Iraqi intelligence helped him fake a Pakistani passport? That is why we are spending $12 billion a month and 4,000+ lives in Iraq?
“THAT is why we invaded Iraq?”
No, THAT is NOT why we invaded Iraq. I could explain geostrategy to you, but it’s clear from your comment that intellectual integrity is not your strong suit and trying to show you the light is a waste of time.
No Steve. My gawd….”THAT is why we invaded Iraq? ” We invaded Iraq for a number of reasons-a LONG list of reasons. Wars are not bar room brawls fought over a football game score or a waitress-well, 99% of the time 😉
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Terrorist ties, WMD, and the threat of the two coming together.
“[I]t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything…”
btw, the first quote is from Hillary Clinton, and the second from Iraq’s newspaper, Babil, which was controlled by Saddam’s son (where spelling errors got your wife raped by the IIS, your son imprisoned, and sometimes your hand cut off or worse.)
Really, don’t waste your time with the man. He knows thats not the only reason, we’ve had this discussion with him on multiple threads with hundreds of comments but he has a convenient memory. Hell, all he has to do is meander through the hundreds of posts done on the subject. One of the better threads was that discussion you had with James some time back. For anyone who wants to read the background on anything Iraq go here for Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
Somedays I really think Steve is just a parody character some guy came up with in his basement and is just out on the web all day trying to get people riled up.
libtards will be libtards
EAGLES UP this weekend! We will be live blogging via Blog Talk Radio on Friday night at WR and then the rally the next day.
http://www.anewtone.com/eagles.html
http://www.anewtone.com/2008/03/big-weekend-for-truth-warriors.html
Re: “I could explain geostrategy to you,”
The please do. With al Qaeda rebuilt in Afghanistan/pakistan, the Taliban taking over most of Afghanistan (outside the capital), and Iran now the most powerful country (after Israel and Egypt) in the Middle East, why does our army bogged down in Iraq, likely for the next decade, assist in “geostrategy”?
Re: “We invaded Iraq for a number of reasons-a LONG list of reasons”
And they are?
Back to my original question regarding the concept of this thread.
Since the “proof” that Saddam was the leading sponsor of terrorist worldwide and the “evidence” is ironclad that he had WMD’s (as posts on this site assert on an almost daily basis”
Why has Geroge W. Bush not gone on national television to show this for all the world to see.
We are now down to two reasons President Bush has not presented this “solid” proof to the world:
> President Bush is part of the “Liberal Conspiracy to make America look bad”.
> The “proof” is bogus.
Which one is it?
He has gone on national TV many times to explain the reasons for the war…hell, he did it just prior to the invasion. Here is just one example.
Read my earlier comment which directed you to some posts that explain it. Geez, are you really this dense?
Here is another one:
And another:
Hell, I’m finding pages of speeches Bush gave on this subject….its just that you lefties were not listening, that BDS chirping was in full force.
Exactly so, Curt on both counts!
Remember Steve, Saddam was a horrific monster, his atrocities alone were enough to remove him from power…why is it that left leaning people don’t see that removing him was a good thing? You pine away at torture, injustice, and genocide, but never a lift a finger to help those who are enduring such things…we liberate a terribly oppressed people (mass graves totaling 400,000 innocence) and dabble in non sequiturs. War is a good thing sometimes…ugly, but good. How in earth would you be able to remove Saddam? Sanctions didn’t work; Saddam enriched himself while the people suffered.
Saddam is gone, it’s a good thing, and no one can convince me otherwise. You should be happy about that — it’s maddening that you and other leftists would still try to pin the tail on the corporate donkey! It’s juvenile and naive…and that’s why the folks here have little time for you.
“…while you dabble in non sequiturs”
I like how Steve ignored my answer, then asked it again.
Steve:
My answer:
BUT, if we want the best list of reasons, here’s the one I put together six years ago:
*****
Philly Steve wrote:
Who said Saddam “was behind 9/11”?
The libtards said it about 4 years ago or so. They started that rumor.
Re: “Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. (Applause.) The passing of Saddam Hussein’s regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated. (Applause.)”
Posted by Burt.
So far it appears that President Bush has achieved exactly the opposite.
But I’m sure you loved, and still love, every word that comes from George W. Bush. Your loyalty to the man will never end, no matter what.
And, it appears that Conservatives are now 100% committed to Nation Building, as the core of their philosophy. No flip-flops there. (Answer, of course, is “9/11 changed everything”. Actually all that changed was a universal excuse for Conservatives for everything they do, no matter what).
Steve, despite what you have read, and what you try so hard to believe…there is no policy difference between the DNC and RNC-between those you call “conservatives” and their polar political opposites. Look no further than Senator Hillary Clinton.
Both parties promoted regime change before 911
Both parties promoted the invasion of Iraq
Both parties authorized the invasion of Iraq
Both parties supported the invasion of Iraq
Both parties funded the war in Iraq
Both parties called for more troops to Iraq
Both parties will continue the war in Iraq
Yes, Democrats have pretended to be against the war, but that’s just in words-not deeds, and you can try to ignore that, but it’s the reality you have to live with as well as the reality that next January-even if Senator Clinton or Senator Obama are elected-the war in Iraq will continue. It will be:
supported by both parties
promoted by both parties
and both parties will declare that they brought about success despite all previous rhetoric
Scott…we have the perfect post along these lines that you are writing about…you are absolutely correct.
http://www.anewtone.com/2008/03/regardless-of-what-happens-in-november.html
Re: “supported by both parties
promoted by both parties”
Once again, George W. Bush is off the hook. No one can hold him accountable for anything, ever. Another Conservative FREE PASS for the Bush Administration.
A leading Conservative thought-leader, and one of the Bush Administrations chief architects and “planners” of the Iraqi invasion, declaring that Saddam was behind the September 11 attacks: A believe that Conservatives, in surveys, still believe.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921398/posts
Seeing that President Bush has broken no laws; seeing that President Bush has done nothing wrong; why should he get a free pass? Should he not get a medal?
Poor libtards…no matter what happens in November, America has already won.
Get over it and run along.
The libtards are the ones that started that retarded rumor but if your kind want to continue to make fools out of yourselves, carry on. We could use the laughs.
From your “gotcha” link, Philly Steve, dated June 1, 2003 (timelines are important):
Once again, Philly Steve lives in the basement of his own head, stuck like a broken record, with the needle repeating the same groove, willfully ignoring whatever facts get in the way of his “conservatives believe” generalities and “free pass” “no accountabilities” fixations.
Steve,
This line:
Interesting that AQ/Taliban dieing by the hundreds, alienating the locals, finally forcing Pakistan to fight them in winter (which is not good for the Taliban/AQ) where Pakistan has the advantage, and facing worse this spring considered “rebuilt”. yes the Taliban are trying and trying very hard to make a “comeback”. We still have issues with some EU nation militaries not funded enough by their governments nor given proper ROE to fight along side us. It is not easy, but not doomed.
Also, I thought Iran was ‘peaceful’ and a victim of UN (and US/EU) “agressions”? Now they are the ‘most powerful’? How is this? If they are actually in Iraq attacking our troops and everything else we know they are doing, then do you support us responding to their overt and covert acts of war (which they declared years ago)?
Now for the geostrategy part on Iran. US Forces, not bogged down in either Afghanistan (where NATO is there) or Iraq (with the Coalition and Iraqi forces being better equipped every day), now surround Iran on three sides with a less than sympathetic (to Iran) Azerbajan in the north. Russia may be a wild card, but they are also getting fed up with Iran’s antics. China also cut quite a few economic ties with the latest round of UN sanctions. Iran’s population is generally not supportive of their ‘leaders’ and Iran faces much opposition to their aggressivness at home. How much that will matter with a disarmed population is a question. Iran also has a crushed economy even with oil where it is because of their leader’s refusal to spend funds on anything but their corrupt military and corrupt government only programs. Diplomacy is still in play, but Iran knows its “elite” Al Quds force in Iraq was decimated and their regular troops are no match for the Iraqis or the US. Also, other ME nations see Iran for the threat it is and are aligning behind the US/EU/UN efforts to contain Iran.
Even IF the US pulls forces from Iraq and does nothing militarily to Iran, if Iran chooses to reveal that they have a nuclear device and launch (probably at Isreal), then they will be destroyed utterly in the “Samson” counterstrike. So even if/when Iran does develope nuclear arms (along with their chem and bio arms), the question becomes “what now” for both Iran and the world. Iran has a big gun, but now has every nuclear armed nation suddenly very “interested” in their geography/wind patterns and a justly terrified Isreal looking for ways to sabotage/destory Iran’s nuclear arms. The rest of the world gets another “see I told you” from the US though by that time it is too late.
Re: “From your “gotcha” link, Philly Steve, dated June 1, 2003 (timelines are important):”
Yes, they are. This is what was said AFTER the invasion of Iraq.
Here is the Bush Administration BEFORE the invasion, when they were making their case:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/default.htm
VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.
March 16, 2001
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it.
Thank you for making my case for me.
Re: “Interesting that AQ/Taliban dieing by the hundreds”
Doesn’t appear to have done much good.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-11-us-terror-threat_N.htm?csp=34
WASHINGTON (AP) — A new threat assessment from U.S. counterterrorism analysts says that al-Qaeda has used its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001.
I’m sure these “geostrategy” scenarios you describe might sound nice when you are at your NeoConservative coctail parties.
However the real world is something different. But then NeoConservatives “make ttheir own reality”, don’t they? Here’s an analysis that is not from the American Enterprise Institute or a White Hose press briefing. (Meaning that NeoConservatives are not allowed to even read it, let along think about it).
http://web0.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/index.html
The last time I looked at the calendar March 16, 2001 came before September 11, 2001.
Also, what part of that paragraph makes your case for you?
And Stevie wonders how he earned the idiot label.
Re: “Also, what part of that paragraph makes your case for you?”
That the Bush Administration was trying to make theAmerican public believe that Saddam was an active part of the al Qaeda terrorist network, which it was not.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DF1239F933A15755C0A9629C8B63
[Vice President Dick Cheney] Remarks at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, Dec. 2, 2002
”If we’re successful in Iraq we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842
But the June 15 edition of NBC’s Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn’t generate. 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.
Here is a transcript of the exchange:
CLARK: “There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.”
RUSSERT: “By who? Who did that?”
CLARK: “Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, ‘You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.’ I said, ‘But–I’m willing to say it, but what’s your evidence?’ And I never got any evidence.”
Clark’s assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: “Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.” According to CBS, a Pentagon aide’s notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the “best info fast” to “judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL.” (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration’s response “go massive…sweep it all up, things related and not.”
So what did the Review Panel expect to find amongst the 600,000 files? A memo from Saddam to Osama (or vice-versa) coordinating the 9-11 attack? Or even an accounts payable invoice for suicide bomber vests? Puhleez!
I guess the Panel was too afraid take a look at your facts on the Iraqi/AQ connection, as that would be inconvenient to the DNC. And we all know what happens when you do something inconvenient for the DNC, don’t we…