• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
(CNN) -- A recently released CIA cable casts heavy doubt on a key claim used by the Bush administration to justify the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.It discounts intelligence that said Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 ringleaders, met with an Iraqi official in the Czech Republic a few months before the attacks.
The Bush administration -- which maintained that Atta had met with Iraqi agent Ahmad al-Anian in Prague in April 2001 -- had used the report to link the September 11 attacks to Iraq.
CIA Director John Brennan included a portion of the cable in a letter to Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan. Levin, the retiring chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, made the letter public on Thursday.
The cable reads that "there is not one USG (counterterrorism) or FBI expert that...has said they have evidence or 'know' that (Atta) was indeed (in Prague). In fact, the analysis has been quite the opposite."
In a 2001 interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," then-Vice President Dick Cheney said, "It's been pretty well confirmed that (Atta) did go to Prague, and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in (the Czech Republic) last April, several months before the attack."


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?
 
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'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.
 
So you cant criticize the past? You cant analyze the past?
Is this what we are getting at?

Actually a public official can be retroactively impeached. It takes away all their government benefits.
 
So you cant criticize the past? You cant analyze the past?
Is this what we are getting at?

Which is why conservatives have never criticized Clinton and Carter since they left office.


Wait.
 
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:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." - President Bill Clinton 1998

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Former Vice President Al Gore, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadlt arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Senator John Kerry, October 2003
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." - Barbara Boxer, November 2002

“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003


“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

There are plenty more. I did a simple one minute search. So...if Bush Jr. lied, so did a lot of others.

Oh, and the Democrats who voted to invade Iraq:
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ
)
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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...
 
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"
 
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? :)lamo) (more like continuing to poke them in the eye with a sharp stick)

There's something more afoot here, me thinks.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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? :)lamo) (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.
 
To avoid repeating the same old mistakes so we don't get dragged into more needless wars and their resulting quagmires.

:lamo

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom