Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

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

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Monte View Post
    Perpetuating this lie reminds me of the protesters yelling: "hands up, don't shoot".
    Here are some quotes from some Dems that should be noted if "analyzing the past" is the true motive:................

    There were also many Democrats that opposed the attack.

    It is true and shameful that most centrist Democrats (most Democrats holding federal office are centrists) supported the attack on Iraq. I suspect many, possibly most, knew better but were afraid to be accused of being "soft on terrorism." Others may have believed the administrations disinformation. They are not as guilty as the members of the Bush II administration who had access to much more information than the legislators.

    If you closely read the Bush II admin's statements on WMDs and the connections to 9/11 you can see that very few, if any statements were outright lies. Most of the statements were carefully parsed to give the impression of certainty about the WMDs and 9/11 connections, without actually stating so as a fact. A famous example is Rice's "smoking gun is a mushroom cloud" statement. That careful parsing tells me that they knew they were lying and/or could be wrong.

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    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.
    I agree completely--could not have said it better.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

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

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    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.
    To avoid repeating the same old mistakes so we don't get dragged into more needless wars and their resulting quagmires.

  4. #24
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    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]
    I just had deja vu...This is 2014 right?
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #25
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,930
    Blog Entries
    11

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    To avoid repeating the same old mistakes so we don't get dragged into more needless wars and their resulting quagmires.


    Sorry. Not buying that.

    I didn't realize this until another friend on mine posted it to another forum, so I can't take full credit.

    If you review the history of the 20th century, you'll find more instances where the US left after the military conflict, only to have something of greater evil raise up form the ashes.

    Post WW I bailed on Europe, the world got Hitler, Bolsheviks and other fascists came to rise and got WW II.
    We stood by as Japan raped Nanking and we got Perl Harbor.
    Post WW II we stayed in Europe, it flourished and is Democratic.
    We stayed in Japan, it flourished and is Democratic.
    We've stayed in Korea and Taiwan, there are prosperous and free people, and trusted allies.
    The Persian Civil War wasn't our problem, now we have radical Islamist all over.
    No Russians in Afghanistan, so not problem, the Taliban moved in, and attacked US soil from there.
    Now we are pretending that the Syrian Civil War and the unrest in the Pakistan frontier are not our problem.
    What do you think is going to happen next?

    That in itself does also substantiate that the US is a noble force of good on the planet, more so than anything that the left can say and uses to denigrate the nation. It also dispels the idea of "needless wars and their resulting quagmires".

    Would you rather deal with it early, before it grows into a larger problem? Or would you rather deal with it later when it's a larger problem? Because dealing with it you will.
    the Fix-is-in Bureau of Investigation

  6. #26
    Student Monte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    216

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    There were also many Democrats that opposed the attack.

    It is true and shameful that most centrist Democrats (most Democrats holding federal office are centrists) supported the attack on Iraq. I suspect many, possibly most, knew better but were afraid to be accused of being "soft on terrorism." Others may have believed the administrations disinformation. They are not as guilty as the members of the Bush II administration who had access to much more information than the legislators. If you closely read the Bush II admin's statements on WMDs and the connections to 9/11 you can see that very few, if any statements were outright lies. Most of the statements were carefully parsed to give the impression of certainty about the WMDs and 9/11 connections, without actually stating so as a fact. A famous example is Rice's "smoking gun is a mushroom cloud" statement. That careful parsing tells me that they knew they were lying and/or could be wrong.

    Hi Hard Truth!

    From what I have read they had the same intelligence that Bush II had. Perhaps you could give me an example of what Bush knew that they did not?

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Monte View Post
    Hi Hard Truth!

    From what I have read they had the same intelligence that Bush II had. Perhaps you could give me an example of what Bush knew that they did not?
    Hello

    I don't have any specific examples because much of the info is still secret. Theoretically the President gets regular intelligence briefs that are comprehensive and he can access any information he seeks. Congress and the Senate as a whole do get as comprehensive briefs and can not access all intelligence info. The intelligence committee gets more information that other legislators but not as much as the President. There are at least a few documented cases of intelligence directors or staff lying to legislators. A recent example is the lies told about about the scope of meta-data collection by the NSA that were later revealed by Snowden. Sen. Feinstein, who has been on the intelligence committee for a long time, says that she did not get accurate and complete information on torture during the Bush II administration which is why she now has issues about the practice. There is also recently revealed evidence that some of the top Bush II administration officials did not get the full information, although I suspect that they didn't want that info so they could have plausible deniability.

    "...Intelligence Committee staffers, however, said they had found CIA records that specifically indicated that Bush was not briefed on the interrogations until 2006, and that when he was, he had expressed discomfort at descriptions of prisoners chained naked and forced to urinate and defecate on themselves.

    Bush wasn’t briefed

    Staffers said a document from 2002 indicated that the agency had been preparing a briefing for Bush, but that CIA records showed that unnamed White House officials told the agency that the president “would not be getting the briefing” — implying that some administration officials were also hiding information from the president.

    Feinstein quoted then-CIA counsel John Rizzo as saying in a 2003 memo that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell “would blow his stack” if he were briefed about the program. The California senator quoted CIA records as saying the agency had also withheld information about the interrogations from then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld...."
    Feinstein report: CIA misled Bush, public about torture - San Francisco Chronicle

  8. #28
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    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.


    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
    there were 24 reasons as to why we went to war... not 3....24 reasons were provided in the AuMF Iraq (h.j.res.114-107th congress)

    only 1 dealt with Al queada...
    "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
    attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
    the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
    Iraq;"


    of the 24.... which were lies?

    I'll give you a link so you can be very specific in choosing which ones were lies.
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-...ution/114/text

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

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

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post


    Sorry. Not buying that.

    I didn't realize this until another friend on mine posted it to another forum, so I can't take full credit.

    If you review the history of the 20th century, you'll find more instances where the US left after the military conflict, only to have something of greater evil raise up form the ashes.

    Post WW I bailed on Europe, the world got Hitler, Bolsheviks and other fascists came to rise and got WW II.
    We stood by as Japan raped Nanking and we got Perl Harbor.
    Post WW II we stayed in Europe, it flourished and is Democratic.
    We stayed in Japan, it flourished and is Democratic.
    We've stayed in Korea and Taiwan, there are prosperous and free people, and trusted allies.
    The Persian Civil War wasn't our problem, now we have radical Islamist all over.
    No Russians in Afghanistan, so not problem, the Taliban moved in, and attacked US soil from there.
    Now we are pretending that the Syrian Civil War and the unrest in the Pakistan frontier are not our problem.
    What do you think is going to happen next?

    That in itself does also substantiate that the US is a noble force of good on the planet, more so than anything that the left can say and uses to denigrate the nation. It also dispels the idea of "needless wars and their resulting quagmires".

    Would you rather deal with it early, before it grows into a larger problem? Or would you rather deal with it later when it's a larger problem? Because dealing with it you will.
    Its not that simple at all.

    The winners unjustly punished the losers in WWI, creating the resentment and severe poverty in Germany that Hitler and the Nazis successfully exploited.

    The winners unjustly punished the losers in WWI, breaking up the Ottoman empire and creating new, and often arbitrary, national borders which destabilized the middle east. The middle east remains unstable.

    The USA prepared for war with Japan, with a military base and warships stationed in Hawaii and we got Pearl Harbor.

    We bombed Germany into complete submission. This time we did not collectively punish and impoverish the losers of the war, instead we helped them rebuild. We did not allow Germany to rebuild their military, which helped them flourish economically.

    We bombed Japan into complete submission, did not allow them to rebuild their military which helped them flourish economically, and we helped them rebuild.

    To insure a supply of oil and in the name of anti-communism, we destabilized several middle eastern countries by assassinating and/or overthrowing their leaders and supporting oppressive dictators, now we have radical Islamists and dictators all over the region.

    We destabilized several Asian, South and Central nations by assassinating their leaders and supporting oppressive dictators, leading to several ongoing long-term guerrilla wars and allowing criminal organizations to exploit the instability and gain political power.

    We refused to support any of the many anti-colonialist independence efforts in the third world and instead sided with the imperialists, their puppet governments and brutal dictators in the guise of fighting communism, leading to several ongoing long-term guerrilla wars and instability.

    The Russians destroyed much of Afghanistan, we supported and funded the Taliban because they fought Russia. After the Russians leave, the Taliban terrorizes Afghanistan with their extreme theocracy.

    We allied ourselves with a fragile coalition fighting the Syrian government that included radical Islamists, dropped bombs, contributed to a huge refugee crisis and the spread of militant radical Islamists in the region.


    In summary, we have had some successes with our foreign interventions but many more disasters which lead to much of the world's current violence and strife. We can do things to other countries, but we have been proven unable to predict the ultimate results. We were most successful in Japan and Germany because they were so defeated they could not resist our intervention. That required genocidal levels of violence and destruction, which may have been justified in those countries due to their extreme aggression, but that level of violence is rarely justifiable morally or strategically. We also refrained from imposing or allowing commercial (corporate, big business) exploitation of Germany and Japan and the rest of Europe, as we did in third world countries, the areas that remain unstable today.

    Recommended reading:
    Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA Paperback – May 20, 2008
    by Tim Weiner (Author)
    Last edited by Hard Truth; 12-12-14 at 09:05 PM.

  10. #30
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    So you cant criticize the past? You cant analyze the past?
    Is this what we are getting at?
    I was just answering your quesiton. but yes,its a waste of effort, certainly not breaking news. Its history. Meanwhile, we have actual lies being told to us TODAY, by the people in office.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •