My point is that the accuracy of the actual claims of terrorist support levied by the Bush admin are turning out to be very accurate. Either they were amazingly lucky in guessing how involved Saddam was, they were psychic, or they had information proving the situation that for some reason has not been made public. Which seems more likely to you? Of course that is based on only counting the actual stated claims made by the government, and not revising denials to be accusations.
The report doesn’t support the supposed claims of Saddam=9/11, however there are no direct statements made by the US government that made that connection. It is not proof of lies, misdirection, or error that the report doesn’t support claims not made. The report has proof that even after 9/11 Saddam was willing to work with Osama’s people. Those are the exact type of links there are actual accusations from the admin about.
As for the 53% problem, that is, paradoxically, caused by those in opposition to the war. The Bush admin constantly denied that Saddam was involved in 9/11. The need to make the case that he was involved with terrorists, but not those exact terrorists created speeches and comments that placed the words Saddam and 9/11 close together, as in “Saddam Hussein was not involved in the 9/11 attacks.” a statement your earlier website would have counted as an attempt to conflate the two. The constant lies of opponents that the admin was saying the two were connected are the quotes that caused the false impression being reported. The repeated statements that the government was saying he was involved lead those who were inclined to believe the government, but not bother to look things up to assume the government was making that claim, so it was probably true. Dding those to the usual conspiracy nuts causes the high numbers.
My point is that the accuracy of the actual claims of terrorist support levied by the Bush admin are turning out to be very accurate. Either they were amazingly lucky in guessing how involved Saddam was, they were psychic, or they had information proving the situation that for some reason has not been made public. Which seems more likely to you? Of course that is based on only counting the actual stated claims made by the government, and not revising denials to be accusations.
You left out another possibility. There was not evidence at the time that suggested that, they didn’t really believe it very likely, but wanted the American people scared enough to go along with a war that was probably wanted by the Bush administration prior to 9-11.
The report doesn’t support the supposed claims of Saddam=9/11, however there are no direct statements made by the US government that made that connection. It is not proof of lies, misdirection, or error that the report doesn’t support claims not made. The report has proof that even after 9/11 Saddam was willing to work with Osama’s people. Those are the exact type of links there are actual accusations from the admin about.
I think the claim that we were going to Iraq to prevent Saddam from giving a nuke to al qaeda is a lie. There was nearly nothing to support such a fear-mongering assertion, and nearly everything to suggest that it would never happen.
As for the 53% problem, that is, paradoxically, caused by those in opposition to the war. The Bush admin constantly denied that Saddam was involved in 9/11. The need to make the case that he was involved with terrorists, but not those exact terrorists created speeches and comments that placed the words Saddam and 9/11 close together, as in “Saddam Hussein was not involved in the 9/11 attacks.” a statement your earlier website would have counted as an attempt to conflate the two. The constant lies of opponents that the admin was saying the two were connected are the quotes that caused the false impression being reported. The repeated statements that the government was saying he was involved lead those who were inclined to believe the government, but not bother to look things up to assume the government was making that claim, so it was probably true. Dding those to the usual conspiracy nuts causes the high numbers.
Or it could be that they were intentionally conflating the two in an effort to scare people into supporting the war. When you tell Americans that “the smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud” and you give countless speeches saying that the lesson of 9-11 is that we need to topple Saddam, people will get confused as to the relationship between Saddam and al qaeda, and Iraq and al qaeda. I believe this was intentional.
....with a war that was probably wanted by the Bush administration prior to 9-11.
There is ample evidence produced by members of the Bush administration and their close friends that it was certainly a goal. Way beyond any ‘policy change’ from Clinton’s administration. The chief reasons for the grand new strategy of overhauling the Middle East were regional security (ie, Israel) and to protect America’s strategic resources(ie, oil.)
1992 Defense Planning Guidance papers (aka the Wolfowitz Doctrine), A Clean Break in 1996, the PNAC papers of 1998, and scores of other articles.....
....with a war that was probably wanted by the Bush administration prior to 9-11.
There is ample evidence produced by members of the Bush administration and their close friends that it was certainly a goal. Way beyond any ‘policy change’ from Clinton’s administration. The chief reasons for the grand new strategy of overhauling the Middle East were regional security (ie, Israel) and to protect America’s strategic resources(ie, oil.)
1992 Defense Planning Guidance papers (aka the Wolfowitz Doctrine), A Clean Break in 1996, the PNAC papers of 1998, and scores of other articles.....
....with a war that was probably wanted by the Bush administration prior to 9-11.
There is ample evidence produced by members of the Bush administration and their close friends that it was certainly a goal. Way beyond any ‘policy change’ from Clinton’s administration. The chief reasons for the grand new strategy of overhauling the Middle East were regional security (ie, Israel) and to protect America’s strategic resources(ie, oil.)
1992 Defense Planning Guidance papers (aka the Wolfowitz Doctrine), A Clean Break in 1996, the PNAC papers of 1998, and scores of other articles.....
Yeah because you know the only country Iraq ever invaded under Saddam was Israel. They were the only ones threatened by him. That’s the main country that would benefit from the removal of Saddam. As soon as he was removed everything just became perfect for the Israelis.
....with a war that was probably wanted by the Bush administration prior to 9-11.
There is ample evidence produced by members of the Bush administration and their close friends that it was certainly a goal. Way beyond any ‘policy change’ from Clinton’s administration. The chief reasons for the grand new strategy of overhauling the Middle East were regional security (ie, Israel) and to protect America’s strategic resources(ie, oil.)
1992 Defense Planning Guidance papers (aka the Wolfowitz Doctrine), A Clean Break in 1996, the PNAC papers of 1998, and scores of other articles.....
....with a war that was probably wanted by the Bush administration prior to 9-11.
There is ample evidence produced by members of the Bush administration and their close friends that it was certainly a goal. Way beyond any ‘policy change’ from Clinton’s administration. The chief reasons for the grand new strategy of overhauling the Middle East were regional security (ie, Israel) and to protect America’s strategic resources(ie, oil.)
1992 Defense Planning Guidance papers (aka the Wolfowitz Doctrine), A Clean Break in 1996, the PNAC papers of 1998, and scores of other articles.....
Show the evidence, with links.
...and it’ll all easily be debunked again.
Kinda why I didn’t bother linking. It’ll just go around in the usual circle.
My point is that the accuracy of the actual claims of terrorist support levied by the Bush admin are turning out to be very accurate. Either they were amazingly lucky in guessing how involved Saddam was, they were psychic, or they had information proving the situation that for some reason has not been made public. Which seems more likely to you? Of course that is based on only counting the actual stated claims made by the government, and not revising denials to be accusations.
You left out another possibility. There was not evidence at the time that suggested that, they didn’t really believe it very likely, but wanted the American people scared enough to go along with a war that was probably wanted by the Bush administration prior to 9-11.
That’s a matter of motive, it doesn’t explain why the claims actually made by the administration are turning out as accurate as they are. Either the guessing as to what claims to make was amazingly accurate, or they weren’t guessing about what claims to make. Why do you think they have been turning out to be so accurate?
bartink - 24 March 2008 09:07 PM
The report doesn’t support the supposed claims of Saddam=9/11, however there are no direct statements made by the US government that made that connection. It is not proof of lies, misdirection, or error that the report doesn’t support claims not made. The report has proof that even after 9/11 Saddam was willing to work with Osama’s people. Those are the exact type of links there are actual accusations from the admin about.
I think the claim that we were going to Iraq to prevent Saddam from giving a nuke to al qaeda is a lie. There was nearly nothing to support such a fear-mongering assertion, and nearly everything to suggest that it would never happen.
If thats true, and it isn’t proven, what about the ties to terrorists that this report document? Those were part of the reasons given at the time. And this report shows that the claims made were very accurate. Does one of the reasons given being wrong invalidate all the right reasons given?
bartink - 24 March 2008 09:07 PM
As for the 53% problem, that is, paradoxically, caused by those in opposition to the war. The Bush admin constantly denied that Saddam was involved in 9/11. The need to make the case that he was involved with terrorists, but not those exact terrorists created speeches and comments that placed the words Saddam and 9/11 close together, as in “Saddam Hussein was not involved in the 9/11 attacks.” a statement your earlier website would have counted as an attempt to conflate the two. The constant lies of opponents that the admin was saying the two were connected are the quotes that caused the false impression being reported. The repeated statements that the government was saying he was involved lead those who were inclined to believe the government, but not bother to look things up to assume the government was making that claim, so it was probably true. Dding those to the usual conspiracy nuts causes the high numbers.
Or it could be that they were intentionally conflating the two in an effort to scare people into supporting the war. When you tell Americans that “the smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud” and you give countless speeches saying that the lesson of 9-11 is that we need to topple Saddam, people will get confused as to the relationship between Saddam and al qaeda, and Iraq and al qaeda. I believe this was intentional.
Actually the countless speeches given by the administration said, over and over, that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact most if not all the speeches saying Saddam had to be toppled because after 9/11 made it unacceptable to allow supporters of terrorists who were willing to attack us to stay in power also stated that Saddam had no direct involvement in 9/11.
There are many cases of the words “Saddam was involved in 9/11” coming from the mouths of opponents to the war,admittedly to deny it’s truth. How often did someone in the administration say it? Why are the denials of it by opponents not counted as conflating when the denials of the administration are counted as such?
Should we blame people believing something on the people who said the phrase or those who never said it?
Actually the countless speeches given by the administration said, over and over, that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact most if not all the speeches saying Saddam had to be toppled because after 9/11 made it unacceptable to allow supporters of terrorists who were willing to attack us to stay in power also stated that Saddam had no direct involvement in 9/11.
There are many cases of the words “Saddam was involved in 9/11” coming from the mouths of opponents to the war,admittedly to deny it’s truth. How often did someone in the administration say it? Why are the denials of it by opponents not counted as conflating when the denials of the administration are counted as such?
Should we blame people believing something on the people who said the phrase or those who never said it?
Well let’s just ask our resident super genius who is just too above it all to ever actually take a position on anything at all. Who only sees the world as gray never ever as black or white. Afterall he’s only interested in debate and the only reason he constantly brings up liberal talking points is because there are so many conservatives here.
In order to clarify your claim that “the claims made were very accurate”, can you list some specific claims and then reference the parts where those specific claims have been shown to have been accurate. I think it would help.
And no, the countless speeches given by the administration did not say, over and over, that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. They avoided saying that for 2 years. Whenever the question was asked, a straight answer wasn’t given. They took it as an opporunity to conflate the two, as closely as possible. It was two years before a definitive answer was given.
The strategy was to mention one, then talk about terrorists more generally, and then talk about the other. And then talk about the two things together.
I could give them the benefit of the doubt a few times, but after a while the doubt simply becomes too great and they then lose the benefit entirely.
I’ve never claimed they uttered the words “Saddam was involved in 9/11”. They didn’t need to. They effectively said it without needing to. Which was borne out by the polls which showed that after more than a year of doing so, more people believed it than didn’t.
Actually the countless speeches given by the administration said, over and over, that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact most if not all the speeches saying Saddam had to be toppled because after 9/11 made it unacceptable to allow supporters of terrorists who were willing to attack us to stay in power also stated that Saddam had no direct involvement in 9/11.
There are many cases of the words “Saddam was involved in 9/11” coming from the mouths of opponents to the war,admittedly to deny it’s truth. How often did someone in the administration say it? Why are the denials of it by opponents not counted as conflating when the denials of the administration are counted as such?
Should we blame people believing something on the people who said the phrase or those who never said it?
Well let’s just ask our resident super genius who is just too above it all to ever actually take a position on anything at all. Who only sees the world as gray never ever as black or white. Afterall he’s only interested in debate and the only reason he constantly brings up liberal talking points is because there are so many conservatives here.
Ok I’ve given you enough rope. I’m not going to respond to your posts any longer. Take that as victory if you like.
....with a war that was probably wanted by the Bush administration prior to 9-11.
There is ample evidence produced by members of the Bush administration and their close friends that it was certainly a goal. Way beyond any ‘policy change’ from Clinton’s administration. The chief reasons for the grand new strategy of overhauling the Middle East were regional security (ie, Israel) and to protect America’s strategic resources(ie, oil.)
1992 Defense Planning Guidance papers (aka the Wolfowitz Doctrine), A Clean Break in 1996, the PNAC papers of 1998, and scores of other articles.....
Show the evidence, with links.
...and it’ll all easily be debunked again.
Kinda why I didn’t bother linking. It’ll just go around in the usual circle.
Easily leading the pack for “Moorewatch Weakest Retort 2008”.
....with a war that was probably wanted by the Bush administration prior to 9-11.
There is ample evidence produced by members of the Bush administration and their close friends that it was certainly a goal. Way beyond any ‘policy change’ from Clinton’s administration. The chief reasons for the grand new strategy of overhauling the Middle East were regional security (ie, Israel) and to protect America’s strategic resources(ie, oil.)
1992 Defense Planning Guidance papers (aka the Wolfowitz Doctrine), A Clean Break in 1996, the PNAC papers of 1998, and scores of other articles.....
Show the evidence, with links.
...and it’ll all easily be debunked again.
Kinda why I didn’t bother linking. It’ll just go around in the usual circle.
Easily leading the pack for “Moorewatch Weakest Retort 2008”.
Oh I’m sure I must have the leading 10 already. But given the level of some other posts made recently on this forum, I’m afraid the judging is clearly a little biased.
What will be ‘debunked’ won’t be what is claimed. The goalposts will be moved. They always are in that discussion. We always end up talking about something else. It’s as predictable as night following day. Or the pirate graph being posted!
....with a war that was probably wanted by the Bush administration prior to 9-11.
There is ample evidence produced by members of the Bush administration and their close friends that it was certainly a goal. Way beyond any ‘policy change’ from Clinton’s administration. The chief reasons for the grand new strategy of overhauling the Middle East were regional security (ie, Israel) and to protect America’s strategic resources(ie, oil.)
1992 Defense Planning Guidance papers (aka the Wolfowitz Doctrine), A Clean Break in 1996, the PNAC papers of 1998, and scores of other articles.....
Show the evidence, with links.
...and it’ll all easily be debunked again.
Kinda why I didn’t bother linking. It’ll just go around in the usual circle.
Easily leading the pack for “Moorewatch Weakest Retort 2008”.
Oh I’m sure I must have the leading 10 already. But given the level of some other posts made recently on this forum, I’m afraid the judging is clearly a little biased.
What will be ‘debunked’ won’t be what is claimed. The goalposts will be moved. They always are in that discussion. We always end up talking about something else. It’s as predictable as night following day. Or the pirate graph being posted!
Gee who’s the latest perpetrator of shifting the topic. In fact latest perpetrator in the last two instances. One is moving from Obam to McCain. The other is moving from Clinton to McCain. Pretty easy to claim that things will go off topic when you’re the one doing it.
In order to clarify your claim that “the claims made were very accurate”, can you list some specific claims and then reference the parts where those specific claims have been shown to have been accurate. I think it would help.
And no, the countless speeches given by the administration did not say, over and over, that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. They avoided saying that for 2 years. Whenever the question was asked, a straight answer wasn’t given. They took it as an opporunity to conflate the two, as closely as possible. It was two years before a definitive answer was given.
The strategy was to mention one, then talk about terrorists more generally, and then talk about the other. And then talk about the two things together.
I could give them the benefit of the doubt a few times, but after a while the doubt simply becomes too great and they then lose the benefit entirely.
I’ve never claimed they uttered the words “Saddam was involved in 9/11”. They didn’t need to. They effectively said it without needing to. Which was borne out by the polls which showed that after more than a year of doing so, more people believed it than didn’t.
CM only gives the benefit of the doubt to nut jobs who want to kill jews afterall. The Bush administration didn’t want to do that so no excuse is given. Now had they been talking about wiping Israel off the map then they’d get all the excuses possible from him.
In reading this thread, I found this article interesting.
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
WASHINGTON –
In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was “personally involved” in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein’s regime.
“The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein],” says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
Here is the press conference that that article references (at least it’s the only one I can find that is specifically about Iraq the week before that article came out).
Here are the specific quotes that President Bush used in his speech in regard to September 11th.
This has been an important week on two fronts on our war against terror. First, thanks to the hard work of American and Pakistani officials, we captured the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks against our nation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed conceived and planned the hijackings and directed the actions of the hijackers. We believe his capture will further disrupt the terror network and their planning for additional attacks.
...
If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.
Those are the only two mentions of September 11th he made in the actual prepared statement. Not eight, two. He then mentioned it in the questions that were directed at him by the press (Included the questions, and portions of the answers specific to 9/11 below).
Q Mr. President, you have, and your top advisors—notably, Secretary of State Powell—have repeatedly said that we have shared with our allies all the current, up-to-date intelligence information that proves the imminence of the threat we face from Saddam Hussein, and that they have been sharing their intelligence with us, as well. If all these nations, all of them our normal allies, have access to the same intelligence information, why is it that they are reluctant to think that the threat is so real, so imminent that we need to move to the brink of war now?
And in relation to that, today, the British Foreign Minister, Jack Straw, suggested at the U.N. that it might be time to look at amending the resolution, perhaps with an eye towards a timetable like that proposed by the Canadians some two weeks ago, that would set a firm deadline to give Saddam Hussein a little bit of time to come clean. And also, obviously, that would give you a little bit of a chance to build more support within the members of the Security Council. Is that something that the governments should be pursuing at the U.N. right now?
THE PRESIDENT: Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. September the 11th changed the strategic thinking, at least, as far as I was concerned, for how to protect our country. My job is to protect the American people. It used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror. September the 11th should say to the American people that we’re now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home.
...
Q Thank you, Mr. President. How would—sir, how would you answer your critics who say that they think this is somehow personal? As Senator Kennedy put it tonight, he said your fixation with Saddam Hussein is making the world a more dangerous place. And as you prepare the American people for the possibility of military conflict, could you share with us any of the scenarios your advisors have shared with you about worse-case scenarios, in terms of the potential cost of American lives, the potential cost to the American economy, and the potential risks of retaliatory terrorist strikes here at home?
Q The potential price in terms of lives and the economy, terrorism.
THE PRESIDENT: The price of doing nothing exceeds the price of taking action, if we have to. We’ll do everything we can to minimize the loss of life. The price of the attacks on America, the cost of the attacks on America on September the 11th were enormous. They were significant. And I am not willing to take that chance again, John.
...
Q Mr. President, as the nation is at odds over war, with many organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued diplomacy through the U.N., how is your faith guiding you? And what should you tell America—well, what should America do, collectively, as you instructed before 9/11? Should it be “pray?” Because you’re saying, let’s continue the war on terror.
THE PRESIDENT: And we live in a dangerous world. We live in new circumstances in our country. And I hope people remember the—I know they remember the tragedy of September the 11th, but I hope they understand the lesson of September the 11th. The lesson is, is that we’re vulnerable to attack, wherever it may occur, and we must take threats which gather overseas very seriously. We don’t have to deal with them all militarily. But we must deal with them. And in the case of Iraq, it is now time for him to disarm. For the sake of peace, if we have to use our troops, we will.
...
Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you know, not everyone shares your optimistic vision of how this might play out. Do you ever worry, maybe in the wee, small hours, that you might be wrong and they might be right in thinking that this could lead to more terrorism, more anti-American sentiment, more instability in the Middle East?
THE PRESIDENT: Hutch, I think, first of all, it’s hard to envision more terror on America than September the 11th, 2001. We did nothing to provoke that terrorist attack. It came upon us because there’s an enemy which hates America. They hate what we stand for. We love freedom and we’re not changing. And, therefore, so long as there’s a terrorist network like al Qaeda, and others willing to fund them, finance them, equip them—we’re at war.
Nowhere did he come even close to blaming 9/11 on Saddam or Iraq (not to mention by my count that’s 7 mentions, not 8). It seems to me the previous article, and the reality in this press conference would appear to back up JohnReb’s previous point that it wasn’t the Administration blaming Saddam for 9/11, but the Media constantly trying to make it appear so.
CM - 25 March 2008 11:48 PM
And no, the countless speeches given by the administration did not say, over and over, that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. They avoided saying that for 2 years. Whenever the question was asked, a straight answer wasn’t given. They took it as an opporunity to conflate the two, as closely as possible. It was two years before a definitive answer was given.
If this were true, you would think the 2002 SOTU would be a primary spot to do this, but he only mentioned Iraq in one paragraph.
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens—leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections—then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
Yet no mention of 9/11 in that paragraph. More mentions of Iraq in the 2003 SOTU, but still I can’t discern any attempted ties between Iraq and those behind 9/11 in that speech either.
In order to clarify your claim that “the claims made were very accurate”, can you list some specific claims and then reference the parts where those specific claims have been shown to have been accurate. I think it would help.
1) There is no evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11.
But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating
radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no
“smoking gun” (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda.
2) Saddam provided support to terrorist organizations
.
Extract 10.
[18 March 1993]
We list herein the organizations that our agency [IIS] cooperates with and
have relations with various elements in many parts of the Arab world and
who also have the expertise to carry out assignments indicated in the above
directive [the cited directive has not been discovered yet].
Fatah - Revolutionary Council (Abu-Nidal’s Organization)
Established in 1973 after a split with the Fatah organization. [LJed by Sabri
al-Bana who used to be head of the Fatah office in Baghdad. The organization’s
political beliefs are based on violence and assassinations. We
have been in contact with the organization since 1973 and have provided
financial and logistical support, such as vehicles. They have members in
many Arab countries, but we did not assign them any operations in the war
[1991] despite their willingness to assist.
Palestine Liberation Front
Established in 1983 by Abu aI-Abbas. Currently has an office in Baghdad.
They were assigned and carried out commando operations for us against
American interests in the [1991] war.
Islamic Ulama Group - Islamic Scholars Group
It was established in 1948 and is very influential in large areas of Pakistan,
especially in the northern districts. They rely on financial support from
Iraq and Libya. The party is led by Ahmad Nu’mani. He has strong relations
with our agency since 1981 and is ready to carry out any assignment
we task him with.
The Afghani Islamic Party
It was founded in 1974 when its leader [Gulbuddin Hekmatyar] escaped
from Afghanistan to Pakistan. It is considered one of the extreme political
religious movements against the West, and one of the strongest Sunni parties
in Afghanistan. The organization relies on financial support from Iraq
and we have had good relations with Hikmatyar since 1989
Jam’iyat Ulama Pakistan - Pakistan Scholars Group
Established in 1970, its goals are religious and political reform. It is well
known in Pakistan and well into India. The organization maintains offices
in England and Holland.
Our agency has had relations with them since 1987. They were not tasked
with commando operations during the war, but were tasked to undertake
protest demonstrations against American aggression in several countries.
They did undertake activities for this purpose.
3) Some of the groups supported by Saddam are linked to AlQaeda.
The agent reports (Extract 25) that The Army of Muhammad is
working with Osama bin Laden.
Extract 25.
[9 July 200 1]
Information available to us is that the group is under the wings of bin
Laden. They receive their directions from Yemen. Their objectives are the
. 83 same as bIll Laden…
A later note84 lists the group’s objectives, among them:
• Jihad in the name of God.
• Striking the embassies and other Jewish and American interests anywhere
in the world.
• Attacking the American and British military bases in the Arab land.
• Striking American embassies and interests unless the Americans pull
out their forces from the Arab lands and discontinue their support for
Israel.
• Disrupting oil exports [to] the Americans from Arab countries and
threatening tankers carrying oil to them.
A later memorandum from the same collection85 to the Director
of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance
[from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has
been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established.
The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that “this organization is an offshoot
of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can
be a way of camouflaging the organization.”
There are three claims repeatedly made by the administration and direct quotes from the report documenting evidence of their accuracy.
CM - 25 March 2008 11:48 PM
And no, the countless speeches given by the administration did not say, over and over, that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. They avoided saying that for 2 years. Whenever the question was asked, a straight answer wasn’t given. They took it as an opporunity to conflate the two, as closely as possible. It was two years before a definitive answer was given.
The strategy was to mention one, then talk about terrorists more generally, and then talk about the other. And then talk about the two things together.
I could give them the benefit of the doubt a few times, but after a while the doubt simply becomes too great and they then lose the benefit entirely.
I’ve never claimed they uttered the words “Saddam was involved in 9/11”. They didn’t need to. They effectively said it without needing to. Which was borne out by the polls which showed that after more than a year of doing so, more people believed it than didn’t.
Unfortunatly for your argument, it did not take 2 years for the US governmnet to say Saddam was not involved in 9/11. Unless, that is, you are counting from 9/11 and not from the start of the war with Iraq. On Sept 18, 2003, the BBC reported here:
US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.
The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.
You can quote all the various tidbits of intelligence you want, and it doesn’t do much convincing to me. Here is why.
Little bits of intelligence are taken with lots of other little bits of intelligence. The folks at the CIA look at it in total and decide what they think about it.
I have yet to see any analyst claim that the primary reasons for going to war were the view of the CIA or other intelligence organizations. The Bush administration wanted us to believe that if we didn’t act soon, as in less than a year, the threat was Saddam was going to give a nuke to terrorists that would create a
