the saddam + al qaeda connection

When I opened up the internet this morning and read the headlines on BBC News, I noticed the article on the 9/11 committee's report. The headline said "Probe Rules out Iraq - 9/11 Links," and the article explained that this link was one reason given by the administration to go to war. I wondered if American media was saying anything about this, seeing that this is important news. CNN.com had a quick blurb about no link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq in their article about how Al-Qaeda originally planned to hijack 10 planes. Fox news hid it as best they could, saying only that some specific alleged meeting between Al-Qaeda and Iraqi officials never happened.

So if the case for war in Iraq is supported by this alleged link, why isn't it making headlines in America (it is abroad) that this link has been ruled out? Is it a fear of being unpatriotic, even though it's an American government committee that has found this?

Your thoughts on this are appreciated. Keep it intelligent...

B

[Paavo]

BBCnews link

CNN link

Fox news link

[bishop]

man.. this is DEEP.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/...aeda/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq was in league with al Qaeda under Saddam Hussein's rule, saying Tuesday that fugitive Islamic militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network. "Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters at the White House. "He's the person who's still killing."

best evidence eh?

Bush said Tuesday that Saddam also had ties to Palestinian militant groups and was making payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

and saudi arabia doesn't have ties to al qaeda and suicide bombers in israel?

*blinks*

people actually believe this nonsense?

Haha, sorry about that.

Thanks for posting those links Paavo.

[dotcoma]

Those of us with a brain have been saying it all along.

[bishop]

i didn't realize someone already posted this..

can i get a merge to here.. ?

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2048

[color=red][Paavo's edit:
Merged.][/color]

[bishop]

the case for was was both the allegation that saddam was in bed with al qaeda, as well as the allegation that he had wmd's with associated (and active) wmd programs. all of which seem to have been bogus claims.

i think the various media outlets aim to package their news to intended audiences. for the cnn fans, news of the fallacies of the saddam/al qaeda connection isn't news.. for the fox fans, my guess is that they're rather hear about anti-kerry/democrat news and the good work we're attempting to do in iraq (the old hear no evil, speak no evil routine)..

[dotcoma]

This thread should be renamed to "Media!!! Where are you on this 9/11 whitewash...uhhh, I mean 'report'"....

[Sonart]

Yep, was listening to this on NPR not ten minutes ago.

i think the various media outlets aim to package their news to intended audiences. for the cnn fans, news of the fallacies of the saddam/al qaeda connection isn't news.. for the fox fans, my guess is that they're rather hear about anti-kerry/democrat news and the good work we're attempting to do in iraq (the old hear no evil, speak no evil routine)..

Indeed, Although I will admit that I damn near fell out of my chair last week when Bill O'Reilly did his little read-along OpEd saying the Donald Rumsfeld had made a shambles of the entire Iraq occupation.

[bishop]

yeah.. o'reilly's been harping on the administration for several months now. my favorite was when he said they should apologize for hyped up allegations of wmd in iraq.

i'm occassionally a fan of o'reilly despite his bullying attitude. and, i definitely have to give him credit for at least questioning the administration's pre-war statements. as an aside, the second he started to criticize, i've sensed pro-bush people (cheerleaders as i like to call them) lose favor with him.

it's always the "you're either with us or against us" thing, i swear..


there was some administration guy on tv before giving a statement.. now they're trying to drop the atta charge and simply make a blanket statement that iraq had a long history of ties to al qaeda. bush's hair is quickly becoming momma's heavenly white.

[Compugasm]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

[JoshuaRGodinez]

Originally posted by bishop,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bishop,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>the case for war was both the allegation that saddam was in bed with al qaeda, as well as the allegation that he had wmd's with associated (and active) wmd programs. all of which seem to have been bogus claims.[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-President Bush: October 7th 2002

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
[/quote]

The President also stated that UN inspectors had determined that Hussein possessed WMD's based on information gathered from a defector and that Hussein admitted it.

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat

I keep hearing the allegation that the President said this or that, but I can never find it. I'm still trying to find the bomb-making training information, rather than simply the President saying it was so. The buzz seems to be that President Bush said "Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were working together, therefore Hussein is responsible for 9/11 therefore we're taking him out" but I can't find anything like it. I see other people attributing that sort of statement to him, but I can never find it. Help please.

The best I can find is the following article from the Washington Post which basically tries to debunk what the President said in his speech by saying the President omitted "qualifiers" or that the time frame didn't match what they thought he said. After reading the article I still didn't see any inconsistency in the President's assertions except for saying that Zarqawi was a senior al Qaeda leader when he really only associated with the same people and ran terrorist training camps in Afghanistan like al Qaeda did. That being said, the al Qaeda link was the least of what Bush was stating and certainly not a measure of retaliation for 9/11. He was just saying that Hussein might give WMD's to al Qaeda because they ran in the same circles.
Report Casts Doubt on Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection

[dotcoma]

Ahhh. Zarqawi. The limping ghost...

[Sonart]

i'm occassionally a fan of o'reilly despite his bullying attitude. and, i definitely have to give him credit for at least questioning the administration's pre-war statements. as an aside, the second he started to criticize, i've sensed pro-bush people (cheerleaders as i like to call them) lose favor with him.

When I read 3 consecutive George Will pieces suggesting that Bush's Iraq policy was a shambles, I started thinking some of the rats were beginning to jump ship. When I heard O'Reilly, I figured it was turning into a full on route. I visualize those 'Cheerleaders' frantically straightening out the deck chairs on the Titanic and pleading with us to see all the great things happening onboard. How about a nice Mai Tai? Anyone? :)

I'm sure there's more than a few posters here deperately trying to figure out how to rebut this latest nail in the coffin.

[bishop]

JRG - bush never directly said that saddam had a hand in 9/11. but, he and his deputees have tied saddam with 9/11 in their rhetoric. and his administration has desperately tried to "prove" that saddam was connected to 9/11.

here are some things that bush did say:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

if you don't think that he tried to tie saddam with 9/11, i have piece of land i'd like to sell you. it isn't hard to see through their double speak. they'll admit under their breath that saddam had no part in 9/11, while spewing all sorts of allegations that he trained terrorists, was an active supporter of terrorists, etc..

mix that in with a couple false claims or lies about wmd and you have one tasty sandwich.

I'm sure there's more than a few posters here deperately trying to figure out how to rebut this latest nail in the coffin.

like bugs in a jar, trying like crazy to find a hole so they can escape. imo, more and more bush supporters would simply prefer to ignore all of bush's lies than continue to protect him. coming from a former bush supporter, i know first-hand that the lack of vindicating proof is demoralizing the hell out of the bush camp. naturally, they won't admit it of course.

[JoshuaRGodinez]

Originally posted by bishop, here are some things that bush did say: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm if you don't think that he tried to tie saddam with 9/11, i have piece of land i'd like to sell you. it isn't hard to see through their double speak. they'll admit under their breath that saddam had no part in 9/11, while spewing all sorts of allegations that he trained terrorists, was an active supporter of terrorists, etc.. mix that in with a couple false claims or lies about wmd and you have one tasty sandwich.

But that's exactly what I mean. I've seen you refer astutely to original documents that refute the imposition of interpretation by others. Here you're doing exactly the oppposite. You're taking original words and stating that what they don't say is the real message.

I think they believed that Saddam might have had something to do with 9/11, but because they couldn't prove it they could only speak regarding terrorism in general (but realistically talking about the suicide bombers in Israel). We had no hard evidence linking Atta to the events of 9/11 before the fact, only general plans from al Qaeda possibly involving airplanes. It seems reasonable to keep an open mind regarding possible links between Iraq and al Qaeda given the rhetoric of both camps directly after 9/11. It's only as time has passed that we've been able to start closing some possibilities because we're convinced we've investigated them thoroughly.

I think the President wanted to go after Saddam for multiple reasons, but only stated the reasons that most influenced his decision. In light of further investigation, is it any wonder the President decided to keep an open mind regarding possible connections even if the CIA was playing CYA with their recommendations? Given all the clues that were missed I don't think the President should be excoriated for allowing the possibility that the enemy might have more up his sleeve than the CIA could find, especially with thousands of fresh graves on his mind.

[Sonart]

I think the President wanted to go after Saddam for multiple reasons, but only stated the reasons that most influenced his decision.

Or most misled the American people.

Given all the clues that were missed I don't think the President should be excoriated for allowing the possibility that the enemy might have more up his sleeve than the CIA could find, especially with thousands of fresh graves on his mind.

So you have no problem with invading a country that was no threat to anyone, killing 10,000 innocent civilians, and occupying that country at huge cost to us in lives, treasure, increased terrorism, the good faith of our allies, and quite possibly the complete collapse of Iraq into anarchy, all by MISTAKE?! 'Oops, my bad. Sorry about all the dead people'?

Nah, I don't think the President should be excoriated either. I think he should be charged with war crimes.

[Comrade]

Or mislead the European people and liberals.


Killing 10,000 innocent civilians? Huge cost in lives, treasure, increased terrorism? lol

http://www.iacenter.org/nowar_truth.htm
As it turns out, we're killing tens thousands on Afghans and we're going to lose the war there too.

I love the leftist stance that WMDs is the only justification for going into Iraq. See, I never realized there was a statute of limitations on mass murder, that Saddam isn't accountable because he didn't commit those crimes yesterday (oh, wait). Or that America has no interest in a democracy in the middle east with which to pressure other ME regimes, or to continue to import the oil that our country runs on. How many of you drive cars, use electricity, use products made with electricity, and have thus contributed to "Big Evil Oil Companies" with your money?

Here's an idea.
http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

Read this, then I'm sure you'll disagree because it doesn't justify your hate for Bush, the Nazi New World Order Crime Family Mafia Don who Caused 9/11 Because He Wasn't Culturally Sensitive Enough and Bombs Children and Women Because He Loves Dead Ragheads and Lied To The American People Because He Hates Us and Wants Us To Suffer Under A Socialist New World Order Regime Despite His Repeated Refusals to Admit European Treaties (Proposed Only Because Europe Is a Peace Loving Entity Only Concerned About Big Stupid Bush Destroying The World) that Would Conflict with Our Constitution like the Internation Criminal Court But Really I Think We All Know He Didn't Sign It Because He Doesn't Want Himself To Be Vulnerable To Prosecution.

War crimes, what a load of Bullshit.

[dotcoma]

what a load of Bullshit

Are you refering to Bush or your post?

[Comrade]

Yet another one line post from Roxdog! No commentary, no reasoning, just flame.
Not unexpected, you don't see very much besides useless unsupported one-sentence sarcastic posts from Roxdog.

Here is another idea why WMDs were such a big deal, since the sophisticated have not deigned to read any of my links.

Dealing with the UN required arguing the case on the basis of Iraqi failure to comply with previous UNSC resolutions, and to concentrate on the issue of inspections and WMD disarmament. This was not the real issue for anyone involved.

This article was written BEFORE it came out that WMDs were not in evidence in Iraq, in case of "its a conservative cover-up/dodge."
Beofre this part, he talks about WHY we had to deal with the UN, and this makes more sense to me than Bush Is A Liar.