Bush disputes Sept 11 commission finding

[BoredShirtless]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/ ... click=true

Bush disputes Sept 11 commission finding
June 18, 2004


Washington: President George W Bush today disputed the September 11 commission's finding that there was no "collaborative relationship" between deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorist network responsible for the attacks.

"There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda," 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-Qaeda," he said.

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

The independent commission investigating the September 11 attacks said today that no evidence exists that al-Qaeda had strong ties to Saddam - 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.

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-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 that any ties existed between al-Qaeda and Iraq."

Bush said Saddam was a threat because he had not only ties to al-Qaeda, 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 $US10 million ($A14.6 million) to $US25 million ($A36.4 million), putting him on par with two al-Qaeda 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.

[Stuart Mackey]

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

So wheres the evidence? this hase been claimed for years now and there has still been no convincing evidence supplied.

"The world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam Hussein in power,"

Oh, certainly the world is better off without Saddam, no one doubts that..but no one can reasonably claim that Iraq was ever a threat to the US, to say it is laughable at best, an outright lie at best. Iraq a threat? sure, and Western Samoa is a theat to Australia

[Vohu Manah]

Until he provides proof to back his statements, I don't care what he says. I'm just waiting for November.

[Chardok]

Fuck you, you lying sack of Horseshit. You played semantics, and you got your war. Blood is on your hands, asswipe, and I look forward to marking my ballot with extreme prejudice. How dare he prey upon the gullability of the american public at large! He knew 75% of us are morons who believe anything elected officials say!

I'm 25%.

[Durandal]

Bush is starting to sound a lot like Baghdad Bob. "There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda." Sure George, sure. Maybe we should start calling him "Washington W" or "Air Bag One" from now on.

[Galvatron]

I think he's just trying to preserve the support of the "if the President says so, that's good enough for me" crowd. Those fucking rubes will follow him through the gates of hell if he told them to.

[Stuart Mackey]

I think he's just trying to preserve the support of the "if the President says so, that's good enough for me" crowd. Those fucking rubes will follow him through the gates of hell if he told them to.

Thats one thing I have found to be exceedingly strange about the USofA, little or no sence of the concept of 'Loyal Opposition', ie one can oppose the government of the day and still be loyal to ones nation. In the US it seems that, in some instances, if you oppose certain things you are hounded for being 'un-American'.

[Chardok]

I think he's just trying to preserve the support of the "if the President says so, that's good enough for me" crowd. Those fucking rubes will follow him through the gates of hell if he told them to.

Thats one thing I have found to be exceedingly strange about the USofA, little or no sence of the concept of 'Loyal Opposition', ie one can oppose the government of the day and still be loyal to ones nation. In the US it seems that, in some instances, if you oppose certain things you are hounded for being 'un-American'.

You are exactly right, but only in the case of this administration. it seems that nearly any oppositino to the president or his policy is "Unpatriotic", God I can't wait until november. I mean christ, If a Kiwi can see this from 10,000Km away, why can't we Americans? WAKE UP!

[Galvatron]

It's the mindset. Republicans tend to be religious, so they're already willing to abandon reason and blindly follow their divinely appointed leader.

I tell you, I see a hell of a lot more cars with "Bush/Cheney" and "God Bless America" bumpstickers than anything else. They're a fanatical a lot.

[BoredShirtless]

It's the mindset. Republicans tend to be religious, so they're already willing to abandon reason and blindly follow their divinely appointed leader.

I tell you, I see a hell of a lot more cars with "Bush/Cheney" and "God Bless America" bumpstickers than anything else. They're a fanatical a lot.

Some dude from CNN said that the United States is the most religous first world country.

[Crown]

Okay I have to ask; what's up with Jerry Springer shows lately? They have been ending every show with 'I have trust in President George W. Bush and I know he will lead this great country in the right direction.', followed by a rousing corus of; 'USA! USA! USA!'.

Seriously, what's going on? Is Jerry trying to promote Bush? Satirically assassinate him by showing up Bush's support base being his guests? What?

[BoredShirtless]

Okay I have to ask; what's up with Jerry Springer shows lately? They have been ending every show with 'I have trust in President George W. Bush and I know he will lead this great country in the right direction.', followed by a rousing corus of; 'USA! USA! USA!'.

Are you shitting me?

Seriously, what's going on? Is Jerry trying to promote Bush? Satirically assassinate him by showing up Bush's support base being his guests? What?

The joke would lose its shine and become unfunny if it was repeated, so if this is really true and you didn't dream it then it's fucking promotion.....shit!!

[Stuart Mackey]

I think he's just trying to preserve the support of the "if the President says so, that's good enough for me" crowd. Those fucking rubes will follow him through the gates of hell if he told them to.

Thats one thing I have found to be exceedingly strange about the USofA, little or no sence of the concept of 'Loyal Opposition', ie one can oppose the government of the day and still be loyal to ones nation. In the US it seems that, in some instances, if you oppose certain things you are hounded for being 'un-American'.

You are exactly right, but only in the case of this administration. it seems that nearly any oppositino to the president or his policy is "Unpatriotic", God I can't wait until november. I mean christ, If a Kiwi can see this from 10,000Km away, why can't we Americans? WAKE UP!

I think its your electoral system combined with America's idolation of the old frontier spirit/founding fathers thing thrown in with self delution. There also seems to be a attitude of 'The President can do no wrong'.

[Galvatron]

I think its your electoral system combined with America's idolation of the old frontier spirit/founding fathers thing thrown in with self delution. There also seems to be a attitude of 'The President can do no wrong'.

No, only a Republican President can do no wrong. Otherwise these guys wouldn't be countering all the criticism of Bush with red herrings about blowjobs.

[Stuart Mackey]

I think its your electoral system combined with America's idolation of the old frontier spirit/founding fathers thing thrown in with self delution. There also seems to be a attitude of 'The President can do no wrong'.

No, only a Republican President can do no wrong. Otherwise these guys wouldn't be countering all the criticism of Bush with red herrings about blowjobs.

My mistake, I stand corrected

[CaptainChewbacca]

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

So wheres the evidence? this hase been claimed for years now and there has still been no convincing evidence supplied.

ahem:

New York Times, Nov. 6, 1998

New York -- A U.S. Federal Grand Jury in New York on Nov. 5 issued an
indictment against Usama Bin Laden alleging that he and others engaged
in a long-term conspiracy to attack U.S. facilities overseas and to
kill American citizens.

The indictment noted that Al Qaeda, Bin Laden's international
terrorist group, forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in
Sudan and with the government of Iran and with its associated group
Hezballah to "work together against their perceived common enemies in
the West, particularly the United States."

Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

According to the indictment, Bin Laden's group also tried to recruit
Americans to travel through the United States and the West to deliver
messages and to conduct financial transactions to aid their terrorist
activities. The indictment also states that Al Qaeda used humanitarian
work as a conduit for transmitting funds to affiliate terrorist
groups.

The indictment also claims that Bin Laden's supporters purchased land
for terrorist training camps; bought warehouses where explosives were
stored; transferred bank accounts using various aliases; purchased
sophisticated telecommunications equipment; and transferred money and
weapons to Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations.

The indictment also states that beginning in 1993, Al Qaeda began
training Somali tribes to oppose the United Nation's humanitarian
effort in Somalia. In October, members of Al Qaeda participated in an
attack on U.S. military personnel where 18 soldiers were killed and 73
others wounded in Mogadishu. In another reference, the indictment
noted that an unnamed "co-conspirator" transported weapons and
explosives from Khartoum to Port Sudan for transshipment to the Saudi
Arabian peninsula.

The Grand Jury document, which usually does not provide a great amount
of details in advance of a prosecution, also stated that Bin Laden and
"others" tried to develop chemical weapons and attempted to obtain
nuclear weapons components in 1993.

The indictment noted that Bin Laden issued his Declaration of Jihad
with the aim of recruiting others to "kill Americans and encouraged
other persons to join the jihad against the American enemy."

Following is the text of the indictment:
...
(salient point relating to Iraq)
4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in
the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist
group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their
perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.
In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of
Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on
particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
...

From the Clinton administration, no less.

People seem to get hung up on what the 9/11 commission said. It determined there was no link between Iraq and 9/11, but that there WAS A LINK between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

So, either the State Department let Clinton indict someone without proof, or there's proof.

[HemlockGrey]

Well, ok, but what proof is there backing the indictment?

[Andrew J.]

That's not even close to being a strong enough link to justify an invasion.

[Howedar]

From the Clinton administration, no less.

People seem to get hung up on what the 9/11 commission said. It determined there was no link between Iraq and 9/11, but that there WAS A LINK between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

So, either the State Department let Clinton indict someone without proof, or there's proof.

I don't care if it was God Himself who indicted AlQ.

Untell they show me the fucking evidence I call bullshit and will call bullshit until the end of time.

[Stuart Mackey]

So, either the State Department let Clinton indict someone without proof, or there's proof.

Well if we use this line of reasoning half the Reagan Administration should be indicted for aiding Iraq in the aquisition of WMD's.
Quite honestly..what you posted was nothing but a claim that the US Government thinks that there was a link that may stand up in court, and that still has to be supported by evidence, evidence which you did not post.

[Fire Fly]

I can't take anymore of the bs coming from this guy. I used to be very moderate but because of the likes of Bush & Co., I've been pushed so far away. I tried having a rational debate with a Bush supporter and all I got from this guy was political rhetoric: You're either with us or against us; They tried to kill us!; Well I believe what the President says no matter what (yeah...seriouslly, he said that). I don't understand how people cannot be angry with how the goverment is treating everything we Americans hold so dear.

[Vympel]

Bush Team Tries to Brazen It Out

by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON ? "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda," U.S. President George W. Bush told reporters Thursday, is "because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

This is what logicians call a tautology, or a "useless repetition," as the dictionary defines it, but it is also an indication of how the Bush administration is defending itself against a growing number of scandals and deceptions in which it finds itself enmeshed.

Repetition and blaming the media, an old standby, of which Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld are particularly fond dating back to their service under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford 30 years ago, are back in vogue.

Thus it was that Cheney, the most aggressive administration proponent of the theory that Saddam Hussein had not only been working hand in glove with Osama bin Laden for years, but that he was also behind the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York back in 1993, complained that New York Times' coverage of the 9/11 Commission's finding that there was no such link was "outrageous" and probably "malicious."

And thus it was that Rumsfeld charged that media coverage of the abuses of detainees held by the U.S. in Iraq Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere was not only wrong, but dangerous.

"The implication that's out there is the United States government is engaging in torture as a matter of policy, and that's not true," he declared, despite the cascading leaks of Pentagon, Justice Department, and White House memoranda suggesting ways in which domestic and international bans on torture can be circumvented or ignored in the "war on terror."

And, in a distinct echo of the charges leveled by diehard hawks over the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam under the Nixon/Ford watch, he suggested that reporters and editors, "sitting in an air-conditioned room some place," not the military (and certainly not the policymakers) would be to blame if Washington lost in Iraq.

"This much is certain," he said Thursday. "Coalition forces cannot be defeated on the battlefield. The only way this effort could fail is if people were to be persuaded that the cause is lost, or that it's not worth the pain ? or if those who seem to measure progress in Iraq against a more perfect world convince others to throw in the towel."

The tactic on which the administration appears to have settled in dealing with what is clearly an unraveling of whatever shred of credibility it retains is simply to insist ? as it has for so long anyway ? that it never made any mistakes or exaggerated or misrepresented or lied about anything in any way, and to hope that, if it repeats itself sufficiently loudly and often, people will come to believe it.

"At this point, the White House position is just frankly bizarre," Daniel Benjamin, a senior counter-terrorism official in the Clinton White House, told the Los Angeles Times in response to Bush's declaration about Al Qaeda and Hussein. "They're just repeating themselves, rather than admit they were wrong."

Bush, of course, was responding to the finding by the bipartisan 9/11 commission that, while bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" when he was based in Sudan through 1994, "Iraq apparently never responded," and no "collaborative relationship" was ever established.

Proceeding from his tautology, Bush insisted that "this administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda."

That rendition, of course, raises a host of questions, among them definitional ? does the existence of "numerous contacts" amount to a "relationship," particularly when one side fails to respond to the other?

"When I was 15 and kept asking Mary Beth for a date, and she would always politely refuse, I think I would have been hard put to describe that as a 'relationship' as much as I wanted to brag about one," noted one Congressional aide this week.

But, more important, the Bush's statement simply flies in the face of the record. Just before invading Iraq, for example, Bush himself asserted that Iraq had sent bomb-making and document-forgery experts to "work with al-Qaeda" and also "provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training" ? a relationship that goes far beyond mere "contacts."

And, although he denied that his administration had ever suggested Hussein connivance in the 9/11 attacks themselves, his March 19, 2003, letter to Congress officially informing it that hostilities had begun asserted that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Cheney, always the most aggressive in asserting a link between Hussein and both al-Qaeda and 9/11, repeatedly made similar charges and last fall endorsed the contents of an article in the neo-conservative Weekly Standard ? consisting largely excerpts of a classified document prepared by the Pentagon's shady Office of Special Plans (OSP) as "the best source of information" ? that concluded that "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003." Under pressure from the Central Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon later issued a release describing the article's conclusions as "inaccurate."

Cheney, along with neo-conservative members of the Defense Policy Board, the Wall Street Journal editorial writers, and The Weekly Standard, also has been the administration's biggest champion of the single-sourced Czech intelligence report of a meeting in Prague between a senior Iraqi intelligence official and the ringleader of the 9/11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta, five months before the attacks.

The meeting, according to the commission, which had access to contemporaneous video shots of Atta, his cell phone records, and the testimony of the Iraqi official who has been in U.S. custody since last July, never took place.

Yet Cheney said Thursday that he was still not convinced, suggesting cryptically that he may have access to intelligence the commission was not able to see. "That's never been proven," he said. "It's never been refuted."

Of course, Cheney's treatment of this issue gets us right into the epistemological puzzles in which Rumsfeld specializes ? that "there are known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns," which are those "we don't know we don't know" ? speculations that seemed increasingly appropriate in light of the latest revelations by Human Rights First that the U.S. is holding an unknown number of detainees in as many as a dozen facilities in the Middle East, South Asia, aboard naval vessels in the Indian Ocean and elsewhere whose existence has not been disclosed to either the International Committee of the Red Cross or to Congress.

Indeed, Rumsfeld's angry admonitions against the dangers of media coverage of torture and abuses in U.S.-run prisons came at a press conference in which he admitted that one Iraqi prisoner ? one of 13 so-called "ghost detainees" tracked by Human Rights Watch ? had been kept off prison rosters for some seven months, apparently to keep the Red Cross in the dark about whereabouts. If true, that would constitute a clear violation of Article 75 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, according to Deborah Pearlstein of Human Rights First. Rumsfeld assured reporters that the detainee in question had been treated "humanely" at all times.

Pressed by the White House, the Republican leadership in Congress, meanwhile, prevented Democratic lawmakers from issuing subpoenas for some of the administration's memoranda on its interrogation and detention policies and its contention, in at least two leaked memos, that the president can overrule international conventions, U.S. laws, and even the Constitution in his war-making powers as commander-in-chief.

Such unconstrained power is, of course, entirely consistent with the notion that a relationship between al-Qaeda and Hussein existed because the president says so.

[Galvatron]

Vympel, do you have a link to that article? I want to circulate it.

[Vympel]

Link