National 9/11 Commision declares....

[SuzQ]

Since when does Al Qaeda have a monopoly on terrorism? Last time I checked, any old group of thugs could plan terror attacks. Iraq tried to assassinate Bush Sr. Was that Al Qaedas doing, or just Iraqs doing?

The IRA commits terrorist attacks. Are they committing those attacks with Al Qaedas help? Terror can occur independently of a terrorist group.

Your post has no relevance to this discussion, in that Iraq can totally plan and carry out terror attacks completely independent of Al Qaeda. In fact, Al Qaeda could be wiped off the face of the Earth from top to bottom and Iraq could STILL plan and carry out terror attacks.

Likewise I can say your posts also have no relevance, but that would not be very nice, would it?

Since I'm a Christian , the only thing I WILL say is that my posts have every relevance in that just because the commission came to that conclusion about Iraq's non-involvement in September 11th specifically, that it doesn't mean Al Quaeda and Iraq have no ties whatsoever. Get it now???

Sheesh.

 

[reverend B]

hillary's statement is irrelevant, as in 2002 alot of debunked things were believed, such as the first part of her quote which has been unravelled.
as for putin, i was the one wondering why bush had not used that to make his case as he was failing to make it with the majority of americans, based on the polls. why is that a ridiculous question? why is this suddenly being revealed? did putin not read a paper in the last 6 months? why would he think this information unimportant? it is not credible to me. can you at least understand why? do you remember putin inking a deal with iraq for 40 billion dollars just before the war? does he not have interests in that country to protect? these questions seem very much in keeping with "meaningful debate".
if these questions seem off topic, jameseb, perhaps you would be wise to take a break. how much of the liberal-speak do you take at face value? taking your football and going home, however, does not make your case.

 

[2001MustangGT]

Likewise I can say your posts also have no relevance, but that would not be very nice, would it?

Since I'm a Christian , the only thing I WILL say is that my posts have every relevance in that just because the commission came to that conclusion about Iraq's non-involvement in September 11th specifically, that it doesn't mean Al Quaeda and Iraq have no ties whatsoever. Get it now???

Sheesh.

Apologize if my “no relevance” comment came off harsh. However, I still maintain that just because Iraq or Saddam planned terror attacks does not support the assertion that Al Qaeda and Iraq had ties.

And as jameseb and reverend B have stated, the Putin claim that recently came out is a bit shaky. Does anyone want to try to answer some of the questions reverend B asked in the last post?

 

[Grizzly]

 

[burrow_owl]

However, I still maintain that just because Iraq or Saddam planned terror attacks does not support the assertion that Al Qaeda and Iraq had ties.

True, but it does put into question just how significant these alleged contacts were. After all, this is the middle east: I'd be surprised if there were a country that didn't have contacts with Al-Qaeda.

 

[2001MustangGT]

After all, this is the middle east: I'd be surprised if there were a country that didn't have contacts with Al-Qaeda.

I hope there are no middle easterners reading this thread for your sake, as I can imagine they would be quite offended at such an uninformed remark. If a person makes such a blanket statement like this, it is telling of their eduation and understanding of the subject (or lack thereof).

And I hope you understand the difference between having a few citizens that are sympathetic to Al Qaeda, and having a government that communicates and works with Al Qaeda.

In case you didnt know, Al Qaeda has called for the overthrow of many Middle Eastern governments along with the assassination of their leaders. Saudi Arabia, for example, is Al Qaeda's sworn enemy.

If you say "but so many hijackers came from Saudi Arabia" then I will reply "but John Walker Lindh came from America"

 

[JPPT1974]

But that should wake up the Administration and come out of hiding.

 

[SuzQ]

do you remember putin inking a deal with iraq for 40 billion dollars just before the war? does he not have interests in that country to protect?

I think you just answered your own questions right there. It would be obvious to surmise that one would suddenly try to show a good gesture by coming forward with that information at a time when the U.S. is temporarily in control of how the new government in that country is going to be formed.

You also act as if Bush never insinuated that Iraq had plans for terror? Where have you been? That's ALL he's said as his MAIN reason for this war. Just because he did not reveal the Russian intelligence as one of the sources for his information doesn't mean he never had a case until NOW????? That's ridiculous to assume.

First he's criticized because of supposedly poor relations with the other powerful countries. And when it comes out that Bush did not reveal Russia as the source of important Iraq intelligence, some of you scream "foul" and continue to have doubt. He can't win for losing, can he? LOL!

Hmmm.....all it looks to me is that perhaps our President was asked NOT to reveal the information as originating with Russia, and he wanted to protect our relations with them, despite what the stupid media wanted everyone to believe. Maybe W isn't as "dumb" as some of you think.

 

[SuzQ]

I hope there are no middle easterners reading this thread for your sake, as I can imagine they would be quite offended at such an uninformed remark. If a person makes such a blanket statement like this, it is telling of their eduation and understanding of the subject (or lack thereof).

And I hope you understand the difference between having a few citizens that are sympathetic to Al Qaeda, and having a government that communicates and works with Al Qaeda.

In case you didnt know, Al Qaeda has called for the overthrow of many Middle Eastern governments along with the assassination of their leaders. Saudi Arabia, for example, is Al Qaeda's sworn enemy.

If you say "but so many hijackers came from Saudi Arabia" then I will reply "but John Walker Lindh came from America"

Omigosh! Mustang, don't fall over and faint - but I have to agree with this post. They were very vocal in that they did this act of violence today as an attack against Saudi Arabia. They also would love to invade Jordan, not for their "U.S. support", but because of their neutrality & not taking either side. In their minds, if you're Muslim and not participating in acts against Israel & the U.S., then you are also a target, unfortunately.

Sorry, Burrow, but he's right about this. There's just as many Al Quaeda operatives forming plans in safehouses in CANADA as there are in Middle Eastern countries. Doesn't mean the Canadian government supports them......or does it? Hmmmmm. LOL!

 

[burrow_owl]

There's just as many Al Quaeda operatives forming plans in safehouses in CANADA as there are in Middle Eastern countries. Doesn't mean the Canadian government supports them......or does it? Hmmmmm. LOL!

You seriously don't think that anyone from al-Qaeda has ever contacted any official from Jordan or Qatar? I'm not saying these nations harbored terrorists, were sympathetic to them, nothing like that.

I'm talking about the Cheney line: mere contact.

No more than what I initially said: a contact. Remember, this is what Bush/Cheney have put so much emphasis on. With the 9/11 commission's report, B/C are now saying that they never really suggested that al-Qaeda and Iraq had a collaborative relationship, just that al-Qaeda contacted Iraq a few times and asked for help from Iraq (another of their sworn enemies, mind you).

Mustang: lay off the caffeine, my good man, and try to be a more generous reader of others. When we aren't sure of what another is getting at, a key principle of civilized discussion and debate is to read the other in the best light possible. In this case, hewing to such a stance would've saved you from misreading me.

 

[2001MustangGT]

You seriously don't think that anyone from al-Qaeda has ever contacted any official from Jordan or Qatar? I'm not saying these nations harbored terrorists, were sympathetic to them, nothing like that.

I'm talking about the Cheney line: mere contact.

No more than what I initially said: a contact. Remember, this is what Bush/Cheney have put so much emphasis on. With the 9/11 commission's report, B/C are now saying that they never really suggested that al-Qaeda and Iraq had a collaborative relationship, just that al-Qaeda contacted Iraq a few times and asked for help from Iraq (another of their sworn enemies, mind you).

Well if you are talking about a contact with this definition, then America has a contact with Al Qaeda.

During the Cuban missle crisis, America had "a contact" with Russia and Cuba. America also has current "contacts" with North Korea. Do either of these imply collaboration or alliances?

True, but it does put into question just how significant these alleged contacts were. After all, this is the middle east: I'd be surprised if there were a country that didn't have contacts with Al-Qaeda.

Your statement clearly implied that those "contacts" were positive, constructive ones that fostered actual "relationships". But now you are redefining it to mean "any attempt at communication in any form, regardless of positive or negative intent". That definition is abit too broad for the points we are all trying to make here, and it also dilutes the word to the point that "contact" wouldnt even mean that anything constructive transpired between the two parties.

When Al Qaeda attempted to contact Iraq for space to start a training ground, Iraq did not respond. Is that a contact by your definition then?

Mustang: lay off the caffeine, my good man, and try to be a more generous reader of others. When we aren't sure of what another is getting at, a key principle of civilized discussion and debate is to read the other in the best light possible. In this case, hewing to such a stance would've saved you from misreading me

FYI, I am not big on caffeine. I talked about my ADHD in the ritalin post awhile ago, and I also have the little "hyper" icon so you know what you are dealing with. I am naturally verbose and high-energy so dont take it the wrong way.

Also, I think that if I misread you, so did everyone else. Even SuzQ agreed with me, which is unheard of. Perhaps my misreading your post was equal in proportion to your lack of clarity in the perceived blanket statement. Im not used to seeing those kinds of posts from you, and Ive just heard too many people ignorantly dismiss the middle east as "full of terrorists" to be calm about it anymore.

 

[PatrickM]

We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States

Hopefully that will put that myth to bed for good.

This is toooo funny! Did anyone bother to research this OPs statement?

Per MSNBC transcripts of Hardball, www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5228545/

THOMAS KEAN, 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Well, that's what our staff has found. Now, it doesn't mean there weren't al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years. They're somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there. But with 9/11, no, our staff has found no evidence of that.

This story grew legs with the NY/LA Times articles which attempted to do exactly what is happening here. To split hairs, i.e. between "UBL" and al Qaeda, etc., and thereby attack the Bush admin.

Read carefully the 9/11 Commission Chairman's words.

 

[PatrickM]

After all, this is the middle east: I'd be surprised if there were a country that didn't have contacts with Al-Qaeda.

Uh, perhaps Israel ?

 

[burrow_owl]

Uh, perhaps Israel ?

Yeah, you know what I meant. Israel is an honorary non-middle eastern state.

 

[renegade pariah]

....gee even enemies have "contact" with one another, it does not mean they are cooperating or working together. Saddam certainly was more secular than religious, thats why America cultivated a relationship with him. Bin Ladin, being a religious zealot is/was an advisary of Saddam's. Certainly this administration looked for a connection, but the real tie in with Saddam is to the Palestinian terrorists and the Palestinian cause. And the Palestinian cause is paramount to most of the Islamic world. According to the "you're either for us or against us" declaration of Bush...Saddam was the enemy period regardless of weither he supported Bin Ladin.

 

[crystalpc]

What surprise's me is that is all you can say about what the Commision found?? Myself I found that we are not any better prepared as we were then. That is frightening after the report I have a desire to find some place out in the middle of nowhere. Where there is nobody around for miles. Maybe Alaska..
The report said we were not ready to shoot down our own planes?? No one expected hijackers (terrorist) do what they did, always before they took hostages demanded money. Pilots and crew were told to be co-operative. How was anybody to know what these maniacs were going to do?
If you look at the scenario, that we had shot these planes down, and none hit any targets, then suddenly some fat senators would get the idea we have to prosecute the military for over reacting...it was a no win situation.
What scares me is that if it happened again, would our pilots be reluctant to shoot a civilian aircraft down?? The whole report brings back the nightmares that took me months to get over...

 

[burrow_owl]

Your statement clearly implied that those "contacts" were positive, constructive ones that fostered actual "relationships". But now you are redefining it to mean "any attempt at communication in any form, regardless of positive or negative intent".

What I wrote:

True, but it does put into question just how significant these alleged contacts were. After all, this is the middle east: I'd be surprised if there were a country that didn't have contacts with Al-Qaeda.

The first sentence suggests that the contacts themselves were de minimis. Since the significance of the contacts is strongly in question, the only thing left that we're sure of is that there were minimal contacts - as in "attempts at communication," which the next sentence then attributes to the whole regions - less Israel, of course (hat tip to PatrickM).

Perhaps my misreading your post was equal in proportion to your lack of clarity in the perceived blanket statement.

Fair enough - it was a statement that relied on the reader picking up on my negaitive inference, and those are bound to be less clear than positive assertions (and this one wasn't such a masterful negative inference, seeing as that both you and SuzyQ, both astute hermeneuts, read it differently than me). While it's still important to always read texts in the best possible light, the contentiousness of the subject can make this awfully difficult, and I probably should've taken account of that.

 

[Grizzly]

Hey Republican Spin Doctors. It's time to change your talking points. The 9/11 comission said they found no evidence of the Iraq Al-Qaeda collaboration even outside of the 9/11 attacks! From the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54702-2004Jun19.html

Similarly, Cheney, on CNBC, said the media had been irresponsible in reporting the commission's findings. "What they [the commission] were addressing was whether or not they [Iraq] were involved in 9/11," he said. "They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in other areas, in other ways."
In fact, commission spokesman Al Felzenberg on Friday confirmed that the commission was addressing the broader relationship. "We found no evidence of joint operations or joint work or common operations between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government, and that's beyond 9/11," he said.

So, undoubtedly we will see the attack dogs change their arguments and begin attacking the panel. Even though it is bi-partisan and headed by a republican picked by GW, I would imagine that the smear campaign will begin. This adminstration is so predictable.

 

[Starscream]

So, undoubtedly we will see the attack dogs change their arguments and begin attacking the panel.

Undoubtedly. But how will that help them out in the election? At that point it's just hard-wired Bush supporters preaching to hard-wired Bush supporters.

The rest of America, swing voters included (if there are any left), will see through such a facade. That is, if they even care in the first place.

*sigh* If only this population were more aware/involved in her politics...

 

[Grizzly]

Undoubtedly. But how will that help them out in the election? At that point it's just hard-wired Bush supporters preaching to hard-wired Bush supporters.

I don't know. It appears that for most Bush supporters, there is NOTHING that he can do to shake their support. All of the reasons for going to war with Iraq were incorrect. He wasn't an immediate threat to the US, he has no weapons of mass destruction (and even if he did, he had no means of launching them at us), he had no collaborative ties with Al-Qaeda. And now Afgahnistan is slipping back into Taliban control. Al-Qaeda has even re-opened some camps there.

Sigh. Yet many of these hard core bush supporters will simply ignore all this. What would it take for Bush to lose this base of support ?