Sept. 11 Commission Report Says Iraq Rebuffed Al Qaeda

[wondergirl9847]

Not THAT kind of party, you goober!!

Actually, I'm not a party type of gal. I do like get togethers, but small ones with friends and family.

[dissention]

I just HAD to post this. See a pattern of deceit?

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well...

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

And Jordan (ph), I wasn't sure what to think at first. You know, I grew up in a period of time where the idea of America being under attack never entered my mind -- just like your daddy and mother's mind probably. And I started thinking hard in that very brief period of time about what it meant to be under attack. I knew that when I got all the facts that we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Hell, the Bushes and the Bin Ladins have closer ties than the Husseins and Bin Ladins ever did...

So close, that come June 25th when Farenheit 9/11 premieres nationwide, a lot of people's minds are going to be blown.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

I just HAD to post this. See a pattern of deceit?

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well...

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

And Jordan (ph), I wasn't sure what to think at first. You know, I grew up in a period of time where the idea of America being under attack never entered my mind -- just like your daddy and mother's mind probably. And I started thinking hard in that very brief period of time about what it meant to be under attack. I knew that when I got all the facts that we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America.

You should post the "I hit the trifecta" quote. Do you have it?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

You should post the "I hit the trifecta" quote. Do you have it?

Somewhere! I'm home now (after I had more cheesecake ), so I should be able to find it on my computer. I record the damage, you know.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by wondergirl9847

I am in no way some sort of political person, but I think SH did in SOME way have something to do with 9/11. Sure, he didn't fly the planes into the buildings and Pentagon, but I believe there were some *wink wink* *nudge nudge* under the table goings on...er...going on. LOL

I think alot of people feel this way. AND - SH certainly was not upset that America was attacked. But, in the end, there is no direct evidence to support it - in fact the evidence supports the contrary

Here is a CNN article about it. Interestingly, SH and OBL had met a few times in the 90's but nothing significant seems to have come from that.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ion/index.html

9/11 panel: Al Qaeda planned to hijack 10 planes
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 Posted: 7:45 PM EDT (2345 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The commission investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks found that the plot originally called for hijacking 10 planes and attacking targets on the eastern and western coasts of the United States.

The bipartisan commission issued its findings as it began two days of hearings.

On Thursday, "a number of urban myths about 9/11" will be dispelled, commission member Richard Ben-Viniste said.

For example, he said, the widely held belief that the military was ready to carry out orders to shoot down civilian aircraft if necessary "is simply not true."

"They were not ready" for a number of reasons, he said.

What is not contested is that Vice President Dick Cheney communicated authorization for civilian planes to be shot down if they threatened strategic targets.

While Wednesday's hearing focused primarily on the terrorists' planning, Thursday will focus on what happened in the skies the day of the attack.

According to the commission:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the plot, planned to have nine of the planes crash into the FBI and CIA headquarters, the Pentagon and the White House, as well as nuclear plants and the tallest buildings in California and Washington state.

Mohammed was arrested in March 2003 in Pakistan and turned over to U.S. authorities.

The hijackers of the 10th plane, which Mohammed planned to pilot, would contact the media, kill all of the adult men onboard and then make a statement denouncing the United States before freeing the women and children.

The plot also called for hijacking and blowing up 12 airliners in Southeast Asia, but al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden scrapped that part of the plan because it was too difficult to coordinate operations on two continents.

Bin Laden scaled back the plot in the United States to the four planes that were eventually used in the attack.

They narrowed down the list of targets to the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and either the White House or the Capitol.

Bin Laden wanted to hit the White House, but Mohammed and Mohamed Atta, the leader of the 19 hijackers, favored the Capitol, because they felt it would be an easier target.

Mohammed initially proposed the attacks in 1996, but planning did not begin until 1999.

Bin Laden had wanted the attack to occur as early as mid-2000, after Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount tunnel, which preceded a Palestinian intifada. But the hijacker-pilots were not yet fully trained.

Bin Laden then pressed for a date earlier in 2001, such as May 12, the seven-month anniversary of the USS Cole attack, or in June or July, when Sharon was due to visit the White House. Again, the hijackers were not ready.

The September 11 date was not chosen until three weeks before. The hijackers bought their tickets only two weeks before.

The plot cost an estimated $400,000 to $500,000, not including the hijackers' training in Afghanistan. The hijackers spent about $270,000 in the United States, mainly on flight training, travel, housing, and vehicles.

No al Qaeda, Iraq cooperation
The panel 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 [Saddam] 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.

Al Qaeda seeking nuclear weapons
The commission said that al Qaeda was seeking to obtain nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Al Qaeda "remains interested in using a radiological dispersal device or 'dirty bomb,' a conventional explosive designed to spread radioactive material," the commission said.

The report said that al Qaeda may also seek to launch a chemical attack using widely available chemicals or by attacking a chemical plant or chemical shipments.

The commission also said that Tenet testified that a possible anthrax attack is "one of the most immediate threats the United States is likely to face."

Al Qaeda funding
Al Qaeda's funding came primarily from a fund-raising network, not business enterprises or bin Laden's personal fortune, the commission said.

Bin Laden owned some businesses and other assets in Sudan, but "most were small or not economically viable." The report says bin Laden "never received a $300 million inheritance," but from 1970 until approximately 1994 received about $1 million a year.

The commission found that Saudi Arabia was a rich fund-raising ground for al Qaeda, but that it had found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior officials within the Saudi government funded al Qaeda.

The group distributed the money as quickly as it was raised, with much of the money going to the Taliban for its operations in Afghanistan.

The CIA estimates that al Qaeda spent $30 million each year on expenses including terrorist operations, salaries and maintenance on terrorist training camps.

Its largest expense was payments to the Taliban, which were estimated at between $10 million and $20 million per year.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

Somewhere! I'm home now (after I had more cheesecake ), so I should be able to find it on my computer. I record the damage, you know.

Gawd, I looove the Cheesecake Factory.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Gawd, I looove the Cheesecake Factory.

One look at my ass and you'd know that I loved it, too.

And I found myself in the Boston DVD, looking like the biggest idiot in the world. During "So Afraid," he goes over to Stevie's side of the stage for the big solo. The spotlights light up three people in the front row, I'm one of them. There's a blonde woman, a guy wearing a white t-shirt, and then my dumb ass. I'm just standing there, in awe of that man. There are a few more shots of me, but I look bloody awful and won't disclose when.

[strandinthewind]

and so it starts . . . .

The Plain Truth

June 17, 2004

It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.

Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.

Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it's possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. And since the invasion, administration officials, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, have continued to declare such a connection. Last September, Mr. Bush had to grudgingly correct Mr. Cheney for going too far in spinning a Hussein-bin Laden conspiracy. But the claim has crept back into view as the president has made the war on terror a centerpiece of his re-election campaign.

On Monday, Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is "the best evidence" of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime.

The staff report issued by the 9/11 panel says that Sudan's government, which sheltered Osama bin Laden in the early 1990's, tried to hook him up with Mr. Hussein, but that nothing came of it.

This is not just a matter of the president's diminishing credibility, although that's disturbing enough. The war on terror has actually suffered as the conflict in Iraq has diverted military and intelligence resources from places like Afghanistan, where there could really be Qaeda forces, including Mr. bin Laden.

Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant
alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/op...880beeeb945d72

[strandinthewind]

Smack That Cheney-Bot!

June 17, 2004
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

The whole thing was extremely suspicious.

People here still haven't stopped buzzing about the
president's bizarre behavior at the White House unveiling ceremony for the Clintons' official portraits on Monday. Mr. Bush acted totally out of character: witty, engaged, amiable, bipartisan and magnanimous. Even to Bill and Hillary.

He gave a sly wink to his own black-sheep past and that of the wayward Rodham brothers, Hugh and Tony, when he greeted the Rodhams' mom, Dorothy: "Welcome, we're glad you're here. And those two boys you're still trying to raise."

W. gave lavish encomiums - and even a nickname - to the man he once accused of stripping the White House of dignity and honor. Saying his dad was 41 and he's 43, he grinned and said, "We're glad you're here, 42."

Even Bill Clinton was dumbfounded, not to mention confounded. Maybe that's why the usually articulate 42 declared he felt like "a pickle stepping into history." Shouldn't he have felt like the ham and cheese between two slices of Wonder bread?

Mr. Clinton told friends afterward that he was blown away, that W. had never been so nice to him before. There was no smirk, no begrudging. And Clinton pals at a Georgetown restaurant that night alternated between bellowing about getting rid of President Bush and marveling at how great he'd been at the unveiling.

"Maybe after a week of seeing the comparisons of himself and Reagan, in which he did not come out as well," one Clintonista speculated, "he's getting the knack of acting more like Reagan." Mr. Clinton used to study Reagan tapes to pick up pointers; why shouldn't Mr. Bush?

Perhaps we have a Potomac invasion of the body snatchers. Maybe, like the grumpy wives of Stepford, bristly W. has been replaced by soothing W. With the race with John Kerry so tight, the Republicans were reminded last week of the advantages of a leader with a light touch - not one who's at odds with the world, and rattled about the prison torture scandal creeping toward Rummy and the sulfurous reversals in Iraq. (Although it would be natural for Mr. Bush to feel churlish. After going to war to save Iraqis from a regime that "tortured children in front of their parents," now he can't even trust the Iraqis to bring Saddam to justice.)

Like the Stepford husbands, G.O.P. bigwigs could have met in a smoky men's club and decided they wanted a W. who was a little less pushy and a little more sunny. All world domination, all the time, can be wearing.

The Republicans messed up their first attempt at this, when they took Dick Cheney to an undisclosed location to switch him with a replicant. Instead of an affable, reassuring presence, as he was in Bush I, the Bush II vice president is a macabre automaton who keeps repeating, over and over, as contrary evidence piles up, that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked, and that Mohamed Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague.

Mr. Cheney did it again on Monday in Florida speaking at - where else? - a conservative think tank; he said Saddam "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." This claim, used by the White House to justify its gallop to war, was once more flatly contradicted by the 9/11 panel's report yesterday: "Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The report says Osama did seek help from Saddam in the 90's, "despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime." But aside from sending an official to meet with Osama in Sudan, Saddam stiffed his request for weapons and
training-camp space.

Mr. Cheney isn't programmed to process evidence that shows he was wrong; he simply keeps repeating the same nonsensical claims as if he has a microchip malfunction.

Unfortunately, there's no spouse to give him a knock on the head, as the Stepford husbands do when their Farrah fem-bots go haywire and keep repeating things like, "I'll just die if I don't get that recipe. . . . I'll just die if I-I-I [bop!] don't get that recipe. . . ."

Cheney-bot just keeps going and going: "He had long-established ties with Al Qaeda. . . . He had long-established ties with Al Aaeda-a-a. . . . He-he-e-e—— brzzzrrrp!"**

E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/op...135661b6bf40d4

[darklinensuit]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Smack That Cheney-Bot!

June 17, 2004
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

The whole thing was extremely suspicious.

People here still haven't stopped buzzing about the
president's bizarre behavior at the White House unveiling ceremony for the Clintons' official portraits on Monday. Mr. Bush acted totally out of character: witty, engaged, amiable, bipartisan and magnanimous.

Flowers For Algernon (sp.)?

- Jake

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

One look at my ass and you'd know that I loved it, too.

And I found myself in the Boston DVD, looking like the biggest idiot in the world. During "So Afraid," he goes over to Stevie's side of the stage for the big solo. The spotlights light up three people in the front row, I'm one of them. There's a blonde woman, a guy wearing a white t-shirt, and then my dumb ass. I'm just standing there, in awe of that man. There are a few more shots of me, but I look bloody awful and won't disclose when.

Is it one of the times I mentioned?

[strandinthewind]

Here is a new article (too long to post the whole thing)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...ntl/index.html

Blair: Al Qaeda worked in Iraq
9/11 panel finds no link between terror network, Saddam
Thursday, June 17, 2004 Posted: 10:27 AM EDT (1427 GMT)

LONDON, England -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair's office said al Qaeda agents operated in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a day after a U.S. panel said it had found no link between the terrorist network and the former Iraqi leader.
_______________________________________________________________

It seems to me the press and others are confusing two dintinct issues.

1. Did SH have any part of the events of 9/11? The ansewer is no.

2. Did SH aid and abett Al-Q and other terrorist groups? That answer is not as clear, but no direct significant link can or has been established. But, even if it is yes, that does not make SH complacent in the 9/11 events as espoused by Cheney

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Is it one of the times I mentioned?

Nope, I'm not on during Rhiannon. They certainly must've thought I was quite photogenic because I'm shown about five times. I look like an absolute fool during GYOW !!!!!!!!!!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Here is a new article (too long to post the whole thing)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...ntl/index.html

Blair: Al Qaeda worked in Iraq
9/11 panel finds no link between terror network, Saddam
Thursday, June 17, 2004 Posted: 10:27 AM EDT (1427 GMT)

LONDON, England -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair's office said al Qaeda agents operated in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a day after a U.S. panel said it had found no link between the terrorist network and the former Iraqi leader.

Blair knows he's toast and this is his final stab at drumming up just a little support by lying. I'm surprised the Brits haven't kidnapped him and tarred 'n feathered him.