Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    12-19-15 @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    1,234

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    I wish people would leave George Bush alone. He is an old man painting nice paintings of cats and stuff. Leave him in peace. Jesus.

  2. #12
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,190

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    So what? It wasn't a primary reason for the war in Iraq. And simply because the Atta claims weren't correct doesn't mean the claims that Saddam was supporting terrorist activities, including Al Qaeda, were false.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  3. #13
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    So what?
    So he did try to connect the two...

    It wasn't a primary reason for the war in Iraq.
    Their were 3 reasons given to go to war in Iraq. WMDS, Al-Qaeda Connection, and "promoting democracy"... So yes it was a primary reason.

    And simply because the Atta claims weren't correct doesn't mean the claims that Saddam was supporting terrorist activities, including Al Qaeda, were false.
    Apparently you missed this: 9/11 panel sees no Iraq-al-Qaida link - US news - Security | NBC News
    And this: Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com
    And this: BBC NEWS | Americas | Saddam 'had no link to al-Qaeda'
    And this: Allies find no links between Iraq, Al Qaeda
    And this: Powell Admits No Hard Proof in Linking Iraq to Al Qaeda - NYTimes.com


  4. #14
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,190

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    So he did try to connect the two...


    Their were 3 reasons given to go to war in Iraq. WMDS, Al-Qaeda Connection, and "promoting democracy"... So yes it was a primary reason.
    You can keep pumping that the Al Qaeda/ 9/11 connection was a rationale for the war but that fails to accept the facts on the ground at the time. The rationale, as presented to the UN and after the UN passed its final resolution related to Iraq was their development of weapons of mass destruction and the continued threat to their neighbours of doing so, the non-compliance with a host of UN resolutions, and Iraq's human rights atrocities involving Iraqi citizens.

    The Bush administration, after 9/11, made the determination that a country was either with the US in fighting terrorism world wide or a country was against the US in that fight. He identified four players as the Axis is Evil - Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea - Afghanistan was given the opportunity to give up Al-Qaeda - they failed to do so and were invaded. Iraq was next because they were already under UN sanctions - they had to demonstrate they were not developing weapons of mass destruction and following UN resolutions and they failed to do so - as it turns out, Saddam was exaggerating his WMD stockpiles and activities or was able to offload many of them to Syria before the invasion - but it was clear he had no intention of complying and so Iraq was invaded.

    You'll note that during this time Quadaffi in Libya decided to cooperate with Bush and give up his WMD programs and became a legitimate player on the world stage, until Bush left office. Saddam could have done the same.

    We can argue the merits of all of this, but to try to make this cable about Atta to be a smoking gun of some sort is laughable.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  5. #15
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    You can keep pumping that the Al Qaeda/ 9/11 connection was a rationale for the war but that fails to accept the facts on the ground at the time. The rationale, as presented to the UN
    You must of forget Colin Powells presentation to the UNSC then in Feb 2003... BRIEFING SECURITY COUNCIL, US SECRETARY OF STATE POWELL PRESENTS EVIDENCE OF IRAQ
    Yea WMDS were brought up, but so was Al-Qaeda...

    So, yes the false connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda was one of the main reasons to invade Iraq...


  6. #16
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Even if they had met, the proper response would be along the lines of sending Seal team 6 after his ass, not freaking 100k troops and spending years and years and $1 trillion there

    I recall the main justification was WMDs and those didn't exist either. Powell's presentation couldn't fool a clever 6 year old

    Either way, they should have GTFO after saddam was captured, but bush II was too busy landing on aircraft carriers far away claiming "victory"

  7. #17
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,895
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    This, along with the release of the Senate torture report (the most questionable timing ever), make one suspect that there's a larger game afoot here.

    Why is all this ancient history being dragged out now of all times?

    The mid-term election results?
    Control of the Senate being lost to the Republicans?
    Obama and the Democrats want to keep the Republicans on defense?
    Obama and the Democrats working hard to build 'collaborative relationships' with the Republicans to make the next congressional session the most productive ever? () (more like continuing to poke them in the eye with a sharp stick)

    There's something more afoot here, me thinks.
    the Fix-is-in Bureau of Investigation

  8. #18
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:48 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,336

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Read more @: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Do we really need any more proof that the Bush administration directly lied to us about numerous justification to begin the Iraq War? [/FONT][/COLOR]
    Nobody that was seriously interested, believed that Saddam had had anything to do with 9/11. And saying it was used as a reason just doesn't hold water. It had been looked at, that much is true. It had also been disgaurded.

  9. #19
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,465

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    I'm sorry, but having lived through the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, I don't remember at all that one of the Bush administration's "key claims" to rationalize the invasion was Iraq's direct involvement in 9/11. You can argue all you want about the justification for the invasion, however, the primary reasons for the invasion were that 1) after 9/11, any state sponsor of terrorism, and undoubtedly Iraq was one, was an enemy of the US; 2) Iraq was actively flaunting several UN resolutions following the end of hostilities during the invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm; 3) that Iraq was developing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction; and 4) that Iraqi leadership was involved in mass killings of its own citizens.

    The Atta information was at best tangential to the rationale for war.
    They just can't let it go, even with the evidence that bkows their obcession out of the water. The Democrats lost bad, after blowing their big chance at showing everyone just how wonderful the Liberal Agenda really is. Since they can't push the Liberal agenda anymore, they're left with no choice but to drag the old Bush derangement syndrome out of the closet, dust it off and give it some excercise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  10. #20
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,190

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    You must of forget Colin Powells presentation to the UNSC then in Feb 2003... BRIEFING SECURITY COUNCIL, US SECRETARY OF STATE POWELL PRESENTS EVIDENCE OF IRAQ
    Yea WMDS were brought up, but so was Al-Qaeda...

    So, yes the false connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda was one of the main reasons to invade Iraq...


    So now you're changing it to a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq as opposed to Iraq and 9/11 where you started. I'm glad you gave up on that. I will grant you that one of the dozen or so provisions of the Congressional authorization to invade Iraq was that Iraq was known to be harboring members of Al Qaeda. That's a lot different from claiming that Iraq was a party to 9/11. Similarly, the provisions for invading Afghanistan was that Afghanistan was harboring Al Qaeda, not that Afghanistan was a party to 9/11.

    It may, in your mind, not make a difference. It makes a difference to me and many others.

    I'd suggest you actually go and review the provisions of the Congressional authorization to invade Iraq. It may surprise you.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •