Sept. 11 Commission Report Says Iraq Rebuffed Al Qaeda

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

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

BTW, doll, in case no one's told you today, you are perfect just as you are.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

BTW, doll, in case no one's told you today, you are perfect just as you are.

Awww... I'm feeling the love. And ditto (I feel like Patrick Swayze every time I say that ).

[strandinthewind]

``This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida,'' he said.

``We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida in the Sudan.''

He has a point
______________________________________________

Bush Disputes Panel's Conclusion on Al Qaeda-Iraq Ties

June 17, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 2:15 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Thursday disputed the Sept. 11 commission's finding that there was no ``collaborative relationship'' between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida terrorist network responsible for the attacks.


"There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida,'' Bush insisted following a meeting with his Cabinet at the White House.

"This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida,'' he said.

"We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida in the Sudan.''

The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday that no evidence exists that al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam Hussein -- a central justification the Bush administration had for toppling the former Iraqi regime. Bush also argued that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which have not been found, and that he ruled his country by with an iron fist and tortured political opponents.

Senior members of the commission seemed eager to minimize any disagreement.

"What we have found is, were there contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq, yes. Some of them were shadowy but they were there,'' said Tom Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey who is chairman.

Like Bush, he said there was no evidence that Iraq aided in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, the Democratic vice chairman of the panel, said media reports of a conflict between the administration and the commission were "not that apparent to me.''

Although bin Laden asked for help from Iraq in the mid-1990s, Saddam's government never responded, according to a report by the commission staff based on interviews with government intelligence and law enforcement officials. "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida 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 that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq.''

Bush said Saddam was a threat because he had not only ties to al-Qaida, but to other terrorist networks as well.

"He was a threat because he provided safe haven for a terrorist like al-Zarqawi who is still killing innocents inside Iraq,'' he said, referring to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is considered the most dangerous foreign fighter in Iraq and one of the world's top terrorists.

Attention on al-Zarqawi has increased in recent months as he became a more vocal terror figure, due in part to three recordings released on the Internet, including the video showing the beheading of American businessman Nicholas Berg. The State Department and other agencies that handle counterterrorism are considering raising the reward for al-Zarqawi from $10 million to $25 million, putting him on par with two al-Qaida leaders and Saddam, now jailed.

"The world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam Hussein in power,'' Bush told reporters in the Cabinet Room where he met with his advisers to discuss Iraq and the economy.

It was Bush's 25th meeting with the Cabinet since the start of his presidency in January 2001.

Bush said he told Cabinet members that he continues to have a "firm resolve'' in Iraq, the scene of escalating violence less than two weeks before the handoff of political power to the interim Iraqi government.

On Thursday, a sport utility vehicle packed with artillery shells blew up in a crowd of people waiting to volunteer for the Iraqi military, killing dozens and wounding over a hundred. Another car bomb north of the capital killed several members of the Iraqi security forces.

"We fully understand terrorists who try to shake our will, who try to shake our confidence to try to get us to withdraw from commitments we have made in places like Afghanistan and Iraq,'' Bush said. "They won't succeed. Iraq will be free. And a free Iraq is in our nation's interest.''

Asked whether he was disappointed that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had improperly held an Iraqi prisoner in secret for more than seven months in violation of the Geneva Conventions, Bush replied: "The secretary and I discussed that for the first time this morning. ... I'm never disappointed in my secretary of defense. He's doing a fabulous job and America's lucky to have him in the position he's in.''

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...e27dca3f27833e

[strandinthewind]

Yet another story and a VERY interesting sort of "late in the day ally," esp. considering they, for financial reasons, did not support the Iraqi war. But, Putin makes no sense in what he says I mean he says SH is planning to attack you, but don't go to war with him and if you do, we won't support it, even though over 3,00 of your people have been cruelly and without warning or provocation slain less by a terrorist attack from another vile organization than a year ago - I mean PLUUULLEEZZEEE Russia NEVER ceases to amaze me - they have no qualms about slaughterint heir own people at the drop of a hat - but are concerned about SH - that is just BS IMO.

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

Russia 'warned U.S. about Saddam'
Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 8:38 AM EDT (1238 GMT)

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday, according to the Interfax news agency.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.

However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks.

"After September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services ... received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Interfax quoted Putin as saying.

"Despite that information about terrorist attacks being prepared by Saddam's regime, Russia's position on Iraq remains unchanged," Putin said.

Putin made his comments in response to a question from reporters seeking clarification on similar statements leaked by an unnamed intelligence officer in a dispatch by Interfax.

U.S. President George W. Bush personally thanked the head of one of the Russian intelligence services for the information, which he called "very valuable," said CNN Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty.

Russia opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, but Putin said the issue of going to war was separate from a potential Iraqi threat. He said there were international norms that weren't observed in carrying out the war.

The United States never mentioned the Russian intelligence in its arguments for going to war.

Putin's comments come two days after members of a U.S. commission looking into the September 11 attacks found there was "no collaborative" relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The panel also found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers.

Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, have strongly disputed suggestions that the commission's conclusions contradict statements they made in the run-up to the Iraq war about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam's regime. He said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible." (Full story)

Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday.

The president said that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said. (Full story)

In the lead-up to the Iraq war, Bush made stronger statements alleging cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda.

In a October 2002 speech he said, "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

The 9/11 commission's report said bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime."

It says the contact was pushed by the Sudanese, "to protect their own ties with Iraq," but after bin Laden asked for space in Iraq for training camps, "Iraq apparently never responded."

The report also said, "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."

CNN Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty contributed to this report.

[strandinthewind]

and another:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123043,00.html

Kerry: Bush Misled World on Iraq

Friday, June 18, 2004



WASHINGTON — With casualties mounting in Iraq and the president's justification for invading the country under increasing question, Democratic challenger John Kerry (search) is sharpening his attacks against the war.

The candidate who struggled to explain his position on Iraq during the primary campaign now has a more defined message — President Bush misled America about the reasons for war.

As his case against the president's foreign policy is becoming more succinct, his criticism of Bush's fiscal policies has become less direct as the economy rebounds.

Kerry can no longer point to rising unemployment as the main evidence that Bush's economic leadership is failing. So far this year, 1.2 million jobs have been created, although there is still a net job loss of more than 1 million jobs since Bush took office.

Kerry, in the midst of a two-week campaign swing focusing on ways to improve the financial standing of American families, uses statistics like rising bankruptcy rates and dropping wages as a share of national income to make his point. During a campaign stop in suburban Washington on Friday, Kerry planned to call for an increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.00 by 2007 to bring Americans out of poverty.

Kerry said Thursday that more jobs will be created during the coming months, but "my candidacy is not based on the fact that we've lost a job here or there." He said the campaign will continue based on the need for better health care, education, environmental protections and foreign policy.

"What will not go away is the impact of the loss of moral authority of the United States in the world because of what's happened in the prisons in Iraq and because of the abuses that we've seen and the failure of this president to show that he can lead our country with the truth," Kerry said.

The Sept. 11 commission's found this week that Saddam Hussein (search) did not have ties to Al Qaeda (search), disputing a central justification Bush used for invading Iraq and toppling the former Iraqi regime.

Bush disputed the commission and continued to maintain the former Iraqi leader had numerous contacts with Al Qaeda. But Kerry said the report shows Bush "rushed to war for a purpose that it now turns out is not supported by the facts."

"This administration took its eye off of Al Qaeda, took its eye off of the real war on terror in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan and transferred it for reasons of its own to Iraq," Kerry said. "And the American people are paying billions of dollars now because of that decision. And most importantly, American families and American soldiers are paying the highest price of all."

Kerry was criticized during the last 18 months for failing to articulate a clear position on Iraq. He voted to give the president authority to go to war, but then criticized him for doing so without more diplomacy.

The nuance left some voters scratching their heads about whether Kerry was for or against the war. Democrats who were upset with Kerry's vote for the war said he had no standing to criticize it.

Republicans say Kerry tries to have it both ways. Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Kerry "has constantly displayed indecision and vacillation when it comes to the war on terror."

"His comments today is another example of John Kerry trying to exploit the war on terror for political gain and to contradict his previous statements," Schmidt said Thursday.

[strandinthewind]

and now the pundits:

Misleading Reporting

Friday, June 18, 2004

By Bill O'Reilly

Once again we are mislead by some in the press.

I know some of you complain about me, but it’s on days like this that you should appreciate the No Spin Zone.

The 9/11 Commission (search) has come to some conclusions and Thursday newspapers across the country blared headlines.

The New York Times wrote: "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq tie."

The Washington Post put forth: "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed."

The Los Angeles Times opined: "No Signs of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties Found."

And even the conservative Wall Street Journal trumpeted: "No Iraq-al Qaeda Link."

But if you read below the headlines you see the Commission said something a bit different: That there was no a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda regarding Sept. 11. That's true, but there were certainly links and ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that's provable.

The smoking gun is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search), an Al Qaeda leader who found his way to Baghdad after being severely wounded fighting against American forces in Afghanistan.

Zarqawi arrived in Iraq in May of 2002 and had surgery in an Iraqi hospital, run by -- are you ready -- Uday Hussein. I believe that might be a tie, but there's more.

Next, the Al Qaeda big shot -- who was wanted by the USA -- traveled to Lebanon to meet with leaders of Hezbollah.

A short time after that meeting, in October of 2002, Lawrence Foley, an American official, was assassinated in Jordan. The arrested killers said Zarqawi was involved in the plot.

Zarqawi wound up back in Iraq after the assassination of Foley and met up with the Ansar al-Islam group, which operated in Northern Iraq and is affiliated with Al Qaeda.

In January 2003, several Ansar terrorists were arrested in Britain and charged with planning to put Ricin in the military food supply. Some of those terrorists fingered Zarqawi in the plot.

Right now, Zarqawi is believed to be in Fallujah working with some of Saddam's former generals in planning terror attacks. Just last week he took credit for killing 13 people in a bombing.

I believe that's a lot of links and ties between Saddam, Iraq and Al Qaeda. But again, I believe the Commission when it says Saddam was not directly involved with Sept. 11. That’s true.

Faced with the misleading headlines ... President Bush said this Thursday:

“The reason that I keep insisting that there’s was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda.”

So, what we have hear is spin. Some in the press used the Commission's report -- which is accurate -- to suggest Bush mislead the public about Saddam and Al Qaeda.

I do not believe that is true.

And that's The Memo.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123067,00.html

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by dissention

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 !!!!!!!!!!

I saw you, I saw you, I saw youuuuu!!!!! Not during Go Your Own Way, though. I'll hafta look for that tonight!

[strandinthewind]

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.

Are you wearing what appears to be two shirts or a jacket and a shirt to the left of the blonde. OR - are you the one clapping and bowing in time!!!!

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

By the way, guys, you'll like this. It's very long, but believe me, it's worth the read. Also, I needn't mention that I disagree with the writer on Nader. Here goes:

WITH TREMBLING FINGERS By Hal Crowther

I finally got time to read this today. Thank you Carne.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Yet another story and a VERY interesting sort of "late in the day ally," esp. considering they, for financial reasons, did not support the Iraqi war. But, Putin makes no sense in what he says I mean he says SH is planning to attack you, but don't go to war with him and if you do, we won't support it, even though over 3,00 of your people have been cruelly and without warning or provocation slain less by a terrorist attack from another vile organization than a year ago - I mean PLUUULLEEZZEEE Russia NEVER ceases to amaze me - they have no qualms about slaughterint heir own people at the drop of a hat - but are concerned about SH - that is just BS IMO.

Oh, but maybe it does make sense:

http://www.independent-media.tv/item...arlyle%20Group

Bush Sr. Pays Visit to Putin in Sochi
September 15, 2003


SOCHI, Russia Former President George Bush met Sunday with President Vladimir Putin, less than two weeks before a summit meeting between the Russian leader and the former U.S. leader's son. . Bush and his wife, Barbara, traveled to the Black Sea resort of Sochi, on a plane provided by the airline that serves Putin and other Russian government figures. Putin greeted them on the tarmac, speaking English, shaking their hands and giving Barbara a bouquet of roses. . Putin rarely meets visitors to Russia at the airport, and Bush thanked him for his "extraordinary courtesy." The warm greeting set a cordial tone for the talks, which come as Russia and the United States seek to patch up relations after deep disagreement over the war in Iraq and international debate about the postwar situation. . The summit meeting is scheduled for Sept. 26 at Camp David.

Then this:
http://newsfromrussia.com/main/2003/10/27/50790.html
2003-10-27

Khodorkovsky arrested, Yukos keeps afloat

Mikhail Khodorkovsky's (head of Russian oil company, Yukos) arrest will not have a significant impact on Yukos' operations, according to a statement from Yukos, circulated Monday.

The statement also indicates that Yukos-affiliated companies are continuing to extract and process oil.

The company will strictly honor its liabilities to investors and creditors. Yukos remains responsible to its partners, shareholders, consumers and the personnel as well as society.

Further,
http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cn...shtml?nd=41933
Khodorkovsky to remain in prison till after presidential election
December 23, 2003 Posted: 19:31 Moscow time (15:31 GMT)



MOSCOW - Moscow Basmanny court has ordered former Yukos CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky to remain in custody till March 25, 2004, just 11 days after the presidential election slated for March 14.

The order followed a request from the General Prosecutor’s Office, which had petitioned the court to extend the detention period because Khodorkovsky could run from prosecution or exact pressure on potential witnesses if released on bail.

Khodorkovsky was arrested on Oct. 25, when he was promptly indicted on a series of charges, including fraud, violation of a court order, corporate tax evasion, falsification of documents and embezzlement. Other charges include non-payment personal income tax and compulsory contributions to the Pension Fund, totaling $1.7million between 1998 and 1999.

In a similar development, Menatep Group CEO Platon Lebedev, a co-principal Yukos shareholder with Khodorkovsky, was denied bail by Moscow City Court. According to the court order, Lebedev is to remain in custody till Dec. 30 for reasons similar to those of Khodorkovsky.

Then:
http://www.eng.yabloko.ru/Publ/2003/..._la_times.html
Los Angeles Times, November 7, 2003

Financier's Institute in Moscow Is Raided

By Kim Murphy, Times Staff Writer


MOSCOW - In the wake of U.S. financier George Soros' public defense of jailed Russian tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Moscow offices of the Soros Foundation were raided early today by dozens of men equipped with camouflage gear and stun guns, who hauled away 15 years worth of documents and computer data.
The operation, which began shortly after midnight, was carried out by private security forces ostensibly hired by a businessman with whom the foundation had been engaged in a legal dispute. But Soros Foundation officials said they could not rule out a connection to the Yukos Oil Co. case, in which offices throughout Moscow have been raided in recent months by authorities seeking evidence against the billionaire oil tycoon.

"I cannot rule out that it is some kind of revenge on the part of some agencies who resort to the use of bandits and thugs for Mr. Soros' position and his attitude toward Mr. Khodorkovsky," said Yekaterina Geniyeva, director of the Open Society Institute-Soros Foundation in Russia.

Khodorkovsky, Russia's richest oligarch, was arrested Oct. 25 on tax evasion, forgery and fraud charges in a case that has erupted into the most serious crisis of President Vladimir V. Putin's administration.

Khodorkovsky's supporters claim that the arrest was the punitive action of an anti-democratic faction within the Kremlin seeking to clamp down on the businessman's political influence.

The New York-based Soros Foundation has spent more than $1 billion on charitable projects in Russia during the last 15 years. Khodorkovsky had based his own charitable organization, the Open Russia Foundation, on Soros' Open Society Institute and had close links to the Soros Foundation's work in supporting libraries, Internet education, community development and the promotion of civil society.

This week, Soros spoke out against Khodorkovsky's arrest, saying "the crackdown by Mr. Putin sends an unmistakable message that independence of action will not be tolerated." Soros said that pressure from the West against a trend toward "state capitalism" could result in "Russia being forced out" of the Group of 8 industrialized nations.

Geniyeva, who was in Florence, Italy, when the raid began, said she was convinced that it was related to the foundation's dispute with the building's landlord - until Soros officials found themselves unable to persuade Russian authorities to intervene.

"What's happening now is the Soros Foundation has physically ceased to exist in Russia," she said. "It's been plundered down to the last thread. And with this in mind, I would very much like to rule out any connection to Khodorkovsky, but unfortunately, I can't. There are just way too many coincidences here."

[CKFive]

First off a vote for John Kerry is not a vote for George Bush. Senator Kerry may not have been my first choice for the candidate from my party, but he’s not a bad one.
George Bush conveniently has made himself an iconic figure in the worlds growing hatred of the US. Where hating anyone is frowned upon it seems okay to hate Bush. John Kerry would relieve some of the world’s hatred for America simply by not being George Bush. Moreover he would be more beholden to the will of the people than Bush, who feels that he is anointed by god to lead us into dangerous and personally profitable (for Bush and Cheney, and their cronies) foreign adventures.
What gets me is that the 911 commission released it’s findings, and just hours later the administration contradicts it. Cheney says in a public interview that he knows more about it than the commission. He testified without taking the oath, it seems obvious that that was designed to create a situation where he could undermine the commission’s work.
As far as Dick Cheney being removed from the ticket I would love that, he has a consistently higher approval rating than Bush.

[strandinthewind]

Thanks for posting those. I agree the Putin thing smacks of some kind of foul play and Putin and W have been friendly, etc. But, why wouldn't Putin just favor the war in Iraq if they were such buddies. Russia will lose and has lost money by not favoring it. Then, this after the fact statement with no support. That is just too unbelievable to me. But, it does sort of smack of Rove and his methods, e.g. "British intelligence . . . yellow cake from Niger" - then when called on it, the US says, well we were telling the truth because although our sources were wrond and we knew that, we were quoting British cources, so go ask them and quit bothering me - JERKS

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Thanks for posting those. I agree the Putin thing smacks of some kind of foul play and Putin and W have been friendly, etc. But, why wouldn't Putin just favor the war in Iraq if they were such buddies. Russia will lose and has lost money by not favoring it. Then, this after the fact statement with no support. That is just too unbelievable to me. But, it does sort of smack of Rove and his methods, e.g. "British intelligence . . . yellow cake from Niger" - then when called on it, the US says, well we were telling the truth because although our sources were wrond and we knew that, we were quoting British cources, so go ask them and quit bothering me - JERKS

Here is another interesting tidbit:

The Moscow Times : "You name it and market players were buzzing Thursday about the real reasons behind the former American leader's visit -- an $18 billion play by U.S. oil giant ChevronTexaco for a blocking stake in the new Yukos-Sibneft combo? The launch of a $500 million private tie-up between Alfa Group and Pentagon-connected Carlyle Group? Divvying up the hydrocarbon resources of postwar Iraq?"

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Here is another interesting tidbit:

The Moscow Times : "You name it and market players were buzzing Thursday about the real reasons behind the former American leader's visit -- an $18 billion play by U.S. oil giant ChevronTexaco for a blocking stake in the new Yukos-Sibneft combo? The launch of a $500 million private tie-up between Alfa Group and Pentagon-connected Carlyle Group? Divvying up the hydrocarbon resources of postwar Iraq?"

Minute Rice must be involved, too.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Thanks for posting those. I agree the Putin thing smacks of some kind of foul play and Putin and W have been friendly, etc. :

You do know that I'm talking about 41 and not 43, right? Also, he took Henry Kissinger along with him on the trip. Then, he went to Saudi to meet with Crown Prince Abdullah right around the time that Abdullah was meeting with the Russinas to make a $60 billion investment and planning an "energy accord between the two countries. Tinfoil hat, anyone?