|
 afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
 why did we invade iraq, again? 
#2798524 - 06/16/04 09:54 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
so if it wasn't the WMDs and it wasn't complicity
in 9/11, why did we do it?
==================================
9/11 panel: No al Qaeda cooperation with Iraq
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 Posted: 11:56 AM EDT (1556 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The panel investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States," according to a staff report issued on Wednesday.
The report contradicts statements from the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda.
In response, a senior administration official traveling with President Bush in Tampa, Florida, said, "We stand by what Powell and Tenet have said," referring to previous statements by Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet that described such links.
Bush and Vice President Cheney have made comments in recent days alleging such ties. (Full story)
The commission's report says Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.
"The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda."
A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.
Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.
"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.
"Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied" any relationship, the report said.
The report also found that there was no "convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11" other than the limited support provided by the Taliban when bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan.
The toppling of the Taliban regime "fundamentally changed" al Qaeda, leaving it decentralized and altering Osama bin Laden's role.
Prior to the attacks, bin Laden approved all al Qaeda operations and often chose targets and the operatives involved himself.
"After al Qaeda lost Afghanistan after 9/11, it fundamentally changed. The organization is far more decentralized. Bin Laden's seclusion forced operational commanders and cell leaders to assume greater authority; they are now making the command decisions previously made by him," the report said.
The commission is holding its last hearings Wednesday and Thursday.
Among those testifying at Wednesday's hearing were officials from the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, as well as a number of CIA officials, who will not be identified to protect their anonymity should they be sent on overseas assignments in the future.
Al Qaeda seeking nuclear weapons
The commission said that al Qaeda was still seeking to obtain a nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Al Qaeda "remains interested in using a radiological dispersal device or 'dirty bomb,' a conventional explosive designed to spread radioactive material," the commission said.
The report said that al Qaeda may also seek to launch a chemical attack using widely-available chemicals or by attacking a chemical plant or chemical shipments.
The commission also said stdhat Tenet testified that a possible anthrax attack is "one of the most immediate threats the United States is likely to face."
Al Qaeda funding
Al Qaeda's funding came primarily from a fund-raising network, not business enterprises or bin Laden's personal fortune. Bin Laden owned some businesses and other assets in Sudan, but "most were small or not economically viable." The report says bin Laden "never received a $300 million inheritance," but from 1970 until approximately 1994 received about $1 million a year.
The commission found that Saudi Arabia was a rich fund-raising ground for al Qaeda, but that it had found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior officials within the Saudi government funded al Qaeda.
The group distributed the money as quickly as it was raised, with much of the money going to the Taliban for its operations in Afghanistan.
The CIA estimates that al Qaeda spent $30 million each year on expenses including terrorist operations, salaries and maintenance on terrorist training camps.
Its largest expense was payments to the Taliban, which was an estimated $10 million to $20 million per year.
The commission estimated that the September 11 attacks cost between $400,000 and $500,000, plus the cost of training the 19 hijackers in Afghanistan.
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: afoaf]
#2798540 - 06/16/04 10:01 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
'no credible evidence'
makes me think of a man being shot dead and as long as we don't find a gun his rotting corpse is just a figment of our imagination
um to free the iraqis from a ruthless dictator who had a penchant for mincing machines maybe
|
 GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: afoaf]
#2798555 - 06/16/04 10:05 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
o-i-l
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Redo
CTA
Registered: 04/13/04
Posts: 1,296
Last seen: 18 years, 8 months
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: afoaf]
#2798568 - 06/16/04 10:10 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Or the 17 violations since the cease fire that the UN wouldnt do anything about.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: GazzBut]
#2798570 - 06/16/04 10:11 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Remember the famous words of the dishonest one tho...you can't prove the WMD arn't there.. 
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Redo
CTA
Registered: 04/13/04
Posts: 1,296
Last seen: 18 years, 8 months
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: Xlea321]
#2798581 - 06/16/04 10:13 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
WMD's arent the only reason, and you can prove they had them (at least to the world), but you cant prove where they went (to the same world).
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: Redo]
#2798824 - 06/16/04 11:32 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
and you can prove they had them (at least to the world)
Certainly we knew he had chemical weaponry 15-20 years ago because the US was supplying him with weapons grade anthrax etc.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: ]
#2798833 - 06/16/04 11:37 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
if we're in the business of waging costly and deadly wars
in the name of freeing people from brutal dictators or to
punish UN violations, then why are we employing evil
dictators in this war (turkey, uzbekistand, etc) all the
while flouting the UN's stance?
where's the logic in that?
(edit: typo)
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
Edited by afoaf (06/16/04 11:38 AM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: afoaf]
#2798901 - 06/16/04 11:56 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
yep i hear you,its a strange world ill never understand,i myself would rather they all ate each other without us there but i have to follow my people/race like they do and support our troops and i agree it's about oil too but it's oil we won from two world wars,so why should we give it up to dictators who feed their armies with oil money and expect the world to feed their citizens with charity?
australia just wiped off a $800 mil wheat debt in a goodwill gesture to iraqs people
will they bomb us for it?i'm sure some of the terrorists children survived on that aussie wheat
|
BleaK
paradox
Registered: 06/23/02
Posts: 1,583
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: ]
#2799137 - 06/16/04 01:00 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
ask the aliens
--------------------
"You cannot trust in law, unless you can trust in people. If you can trust in people, you don't need law." -J. Mumma
|
Anonymous
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: BleaK]
#2799144 - 06/16/04 01:03 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
nah i'd rather deport them and bill the country that sent em
|
Vvellum
Stranger
Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: ]
#2799336 - 06/16/04 01:48 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
um to free the iraqis from a ruthless dictator who had a penchant for mincing machines maybe
Where in the US Constitution does it say that the executive branch has the authority to be a global police force? Who asked for a US invasion?
If the US Federal government grew increasingly authoritarian, would you expect a foreign force whose cutoms and way of life were quite contrary to the American life to invade, destroy, and occupy our country for many years to come? Or would the burden be in the hands of the citizenry?
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: Xlea321]
#2799563 - 06/16/04 02:55 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I'll ask yet again for you to demonstrate dishonesty
But you lack three things to do so.
Balls. Brains. And any dishonesty to show. (Except your own.)
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: afoaf]
#2799642 - 06/16/04 03:13 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 1:13 p.m. EDT
Media Mislead on 9/11 Commission Finding on Iraq-al Qaida Link
Reports Wednesday morning that the 9/11 Commission has determined there was no cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida are completely false - and are undoubtedly driven by the media's determination to contradict the Bush administration's claims that such a link exists.
"9/11 Panel Says Iraq Rebuffed Bin Laden" reads the headline on the Associated Press report on today's Commission staff statement.
But that's not what the Commission staff report actually said.
The below passage, for instance, does more to confirm the Bush administration's claims of an Iraq-al Qaida link than it does to contradict them.
"The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin* to cease [support for anti-Saddam Islamists in Northern Iraq] and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda*.
"A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded." [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 5]
Apparently never responded? How, pray tell, does the AP derive from those words the conclusive claim that Iraq "rebuffed" bin Laden?
The Commission statement continues:
"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
What's the evidence for this less-than-conclusive surmise?
"Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq," says the Commission.
Such a statement begs the question: Why does the Commission, let alone the press, take the word of two senior bin Laden associates over, say, Iraq's new prime minister, Iyad Allawi.
Last December he told the London Telegraph, "We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda."
Reacting to the discovery of an Iraqi intelligence document placing 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in Baghdad two months before the attacks, he continued:
"This is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."
In fact, nowhere does the Commission make the claim that Iraq and al-Qaida never cooperated. What it does say is "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." [NewsMax italics]
Apparently Dr. Allawi's asssement counts for nothing.
Even so, it's worth noting that elsewhere in today's staff statement, the 9/11 Commission asserts:
"With al Qaeda at its foundation, Bin Ladin sought to build a broader Islamic Army that included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea. Not all [terrorist] groups from these states agreed to join, but at least one from each did." [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 3]
In other words, at least one terror group from Iraq did form an alliance with bin Laden.
Another problem: If the press is going to take today's staff statement as gospel, certain long-held media assumptions will need to be drastically revised, such as the widely accepted notion that al-Qaida was involved in the first World Trade Center bombing.
Not true, says the Commission.
"Whether Bin Ladin and his organization had roles in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center ... remains a matter of substantial uncertainty," the staff statement says, before insisting, "We have no conclusive evidence" of a bin Laden link. [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 6]
The same goes for "Operation Bojinka," the 1995 plot to hijack 12 airliners hatched by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that experts say was the blueprint for the 9/11 attacks.
"[Mohammed] was not, however, an al Qaeda member at the time of the Manilla [Bojinka] plot," Commission staffers say, even though they acknowledge that he went on to mastermind the 9/11 attacks.
The press is furiously spinning the 9/11 Commission staff statement in a bid to discredit the Bush administration. Americans should go to the Sept. 11 Commission Web site and read the conclusions for themselves: http://www.9-11commission.gov/
* Commission spellings
web page
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#2799700 - 06/16/04 03:29 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The below passage, for instance, does more to confirm the Bush administration's claims of an Iraq-al Qaida link than it does to contradict them.
"The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin* to cease [support for anti-Saddam Islamists in Northern Iraq] and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda*.
"A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded." [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 5]
there may have been communication, or an attempt at partnership, but
those quotes indicate that nothing materialized.
rebuffed clearly wasn't the right word, though.
"Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq," says the Commission.
Such a statement begs the question: Why does the Commission, let alone the press, take the word of two senior bin Laden associates over, say, Iraq's new prime minister, Iyad Allawi.
Last December he told the London Telegraph, "We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda."
all the parties involved seem to be 'well placed', but none seem to be
able to offer much in the way of firm evidence, so I don't necessarily
place weight with either source.
nevermind Allwahi's vested interest in puppeting the Whitehouse's
stance on the matter.
Reacting to the discovery of an Iraqi intelligence document placing 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in Baghdad two months before the attacks, he continued:
"This is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."
I don't see how Atta being in Baghdad definitively indicates that Saddam
and/or his regime were cooperating with the hijackers in any way shape
or form. He was also in Germany in the months prior, was Germany in
on the attacks also?
"With al Qaeda at its foundation, Bin Ladin sought to build a broader Islamic Army that included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea. Not all [terrorist] groups from these states agreed to join, but at least one from each did." [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 3]
In other words, at least one terror group from Iraq did form an alliance with bin Laden.
well, one terror group, who can't be proven to be connected directly to
Iraq's government doesn't justify the Whitehouse's assertion that Iraq
was in on the deal. If that is justifiable, then we've got a couple other
countries to invade, don't we?
another pile of hyperbolic garbage from newsmax...
they're no better than the 'evil liberal media' they try so hard to
discredit.
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: afoaf]
#2799729 - 06/16/04 03:35 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not claiming there is a connection but many would disagree with your interpretation. NewsMax is but one of those.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,212
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 7 hours, 51 minutes
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: Vvellum]
#2799791 - 06/16/04 04:01 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Bio, your avatar is fucking me up. I always think it's LDS when I read your post. I saw the nipple out of the corner of my eye and then read the post. I thought "That's an anti-Bush post by LDS. What's going on?"
--------------------
--------------------------------
Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
Redo
CTA
Registered: 04/13/04
Posts: 1,296
Last seen: 18 years, 8 months
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: afoaf]
#2799813 - 06/16/04 04:11 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
So its back to he lied, and no he didnt.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: Learyfan]
#2799861 - 06/16/04 04:30 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Just look for the ring.
It makes him happy and he's hurting no-one.
Besides, I've made posts where I point out the flaws Bush has. If you haven't seen them, it's only because you don't want to.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: why did we invade iraq, again? [Re: Redo]
#2799899 - 06/16/04 04:47 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
you don't read well, do you?
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop: Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
Zahid
1 2 all )
Rono
PGF
Swami
dblaney