9/11, Iraq, and Bush Admin Claims

Alright...another thread got me curious about this. For some time I have heard the claim that Bush and or his admin have said that Iraq had a hand in 9/11. However, I've never seen actual quoted accounts of this. I tried to do a little bit of research and found an interesting thing on FactCheck.org.

The closest things I can see that would give this idea are:

General statements by the Bush Administration that there has been a collaborative relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. The 9/11 report tends to be one of the big authorities used to both prove this right, and wrong. Some on the report state that there has been no proof that Iraq and Al-Qaeda collaborated on any attacks against American Interests. However, others...such as democratic vice-chair Lee Hamilton...state that their findings don't conflict with the administratiosn statements, because the administration never stated there was collaboration on attacks gainst American interests, but only that there was some connection or ties between them, which intelligence suggested there were.

Another one possibly the cause for it is Bush's state of the union shortly before the war in iraq:

Bush (Jan. 28, 2003): Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Click to expand...

(Emphasis FactCheck)

Here again though, Bush does not state that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. It states that Saddam has dealings with terrorists, including members of Al-Qaeda, but anything beyond that is reading into his comments. One could poitn to the "Before September the 11th" line, but in the entire context of his speech it simply is indicating that after Sept 11th we now know we ARE vunerable to attack. I speak of context not only because of the initial part that doesn't state he was involved in 9/11....but also the last part. In the end, he gives a "What If" scenario in which Saddam does help, using the words "This time armed by Saddam" in regards to this "What If". If he's using the words THIS TIME, that must mean clearly that Saddam didn't have a hand in it LAST TIME.

Finally, there was a statement made by Cheney that I HAD heard before, and seemed to be a good damning piece agianst him. However, FactCheck had it in its full context which COMPLETELY changed its tone. The statement, taken alone from most sources is:

"now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11"

This seems to be that Cheney is saying that Iraq was the heart of the base for terrorists, espicially those that hit us on 9/11. However, when we look at it in context:

Cheney (Sept. 14, 2003): If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11 . . .

Click to expand...

It seems VERY clear to me here, that he's laying out the (in my mind flawed) Bush plan for the MIDDLE EAST. To secure a democratic central location within it to be used to fight the war on terror and perhaps spread democracy from within.

Now, in context of his entire statement, the "geographic base" that Cheney is speaking of that is the home of terrorists, espicially those on 9/11, is not "Iraq" but the MIDDLE EAST...with Iraq being at the heart of that geographic area, and thus a place to start the strategy.

Taken fully in context, this once again does not appear that the Bush Administration is saying that Iraq had any hand in 9/11.

The ONLY thing I could find that was somewhat true of the administration giving any credance to the thought that Iraq and 9/11 were directly tied in some way, was statements that Mohamed Atta had possibly had a meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer month before the attacks. However, the most the Administration has said is that the meeting COULD'VE taken place; and that it hasn't been proven, nor refuted.

Bush has stated a number of times since the beginning that countries that sponsor or harbor terrorists will be viewed as no different than the terrorist themselves. He did not say only terrorists that target the united states, or terrorists that have hit the united states, or terrorists directly involved in 9/11. There here been signs for years of Saddam and his regime funding or supporting terrorist actions within and abroad, and at the time intelligence (acknowledged by the 9/11 commission) that showed that there was at least some connections and ties to Saddam's regime and members of Al-Qaeda; though how those have stood the test of time, or how knowledgable Saddam himself was of it is debatable. However, while I may strongly disagree with Bush's strategy in the War on Terror, his entrence into Iraq was not alterior to the things he stated in regards to the War on Terror as well as, thanks to U.N. resolutions, the only Middle Eastern country that could likely have a decent attempt at a legitimate reason to attack could be made.

In the end however, I have been able to find no statements by Bush, or those high up in his administration, stating that Iraq had a hand in 9/11, assisted in pulling off 9/11, funded 9/11, or anything of the sort. The closest I have found is insinuating that Iraq could supply terrorist with things that could cause something akin to it; or that Iraq supports terrorists akin to those that did 9/11....but never a direct connection.

I would be HAPPY to be proven wrong, by anyone that can provide links and quotes. I'd love to see that this constant drum beat of "George Bush said Iraq was involved in 9/11" actually has a factual foundation...and if it does please post it.

FactCheck

There are none. The left's playbook is "Accusations=guilt"....

As I've now had to state in another thread...

It does appear that the Bush Administration WAS trying to paint a connection between Al-Qaeda and terrorists that did 9/11 and Iraq and any other nation sponsoring/supporting/harboring terrorists.

The connection being that Iraq and those sponsoring/supporting/harboring terrorists would be viewed no differently than Al-Qaeda/those that did 9/11 in this "WAR ON TERROR", as while they did not have a hand in it they have the capability to, and shown in the past to help those that would, do similar attacks.

This connection was essential, and had been laid out prior to even the afghanistan invasion, when he repeatedly stated that those that harbor or support terrorist would be viewed no differently. This connection is a valid one in the scope and realm of the War on Terror laid out by the Bush Administration.

That connection however is STRIKINGLY different then putting down a connection that Iraq had a hand or assisted with 9/11.

"Its pretty well confirmed" - Cheney

Does it have to be Bush? Or will someone from the Administration suffice? Like Cheney for example:
[GOOGLE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RytxVNM0llQ[/GOOGLE]

Re: "Its pretty well confirmed" - Cheney

Lachean said:

Does it have to be Bush? Or will someone from the Administration suffice? Like Cheney for example:
[GOOGLE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RytxVNM0llQ[/GOOGLE]

Click to expand...

Quote exactly what we are listening for.

This topic is being addressed in this thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/28830-can-we-afford-another-year-right-wing-government-11.html

Lachean said:

Does it have to be Bush? Or will someone from the Administration suffice? Like Cheney for example:
[GOOGLE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RytxVNM0llQ[/GOOGLE]

Click to expand...

As a note, this was brought up above:

Zyphlin said:

The ONLY thing I could find that was somewhat true of the administration giving any credance to the thought that Iraq and 9/11 were directly tied in some way, was statements that Mohamed Atta had possibly had a meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer month before the attacks. However, the most the Administration has said is that the meeting COULD'VE taken place; and that it hasn't been proven, nor refuted.

Click to expand...

That being said...I have a few issues with the above video.

First, yay for video editing. This is why YouTube is really an iffy source for things at any point that the video is obvious edited. There's absolutely NO context as to the line Cheney is saying in 2001, what was said before, what was said after, etc. As you can see in my first post with the part that I quoted from Cheney...out of context something he said looked damning, in context it made complete sense.

Now, with that said...

Having a bit of experience with the intelligence field there is no reason to believe that its not possible that at the time the intelligence was thought to be confirmed, while later information came about that contradicted that and caused it to once again be unconfirmed and thus still up in the air. This isn't all that uncommon. Without the full context of Cheney's statement that day, it'll be hard to go back and find out exactly what possibly led to that belief or to find out when and if that information had changed.

It also doesn't even give us enough context to know if he's saying he met with an intelligence officer to get help, to get funding, to be harbored, to get intelligence...if it was given, if a deal was made, etc.

Though that is the closest thing to actual evidence thus far, and I will have to try and look at getting an actual transcript or a full viewing of that Meet the Press to actually see context and not just a cropped out video selection chosen by a YouTuber who was specifically making a video with a point.

Its a bit off topic there, thus why I made my full post here before it started heating up in that one. I will try to poin tthat one in this direction

In regards to the Cheney quote that seems to be routinely taken out of context.

"heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists"

Now, I may be crazy hear...however generally when I hear "The heart" of something in regards to a geographical or a directional sense it tends to mean the middle. The "heartland" of America is the middle of it, the "heart" of the city is generally its central location. As well, stating "geographic" gives an impression of a land mass and not a specific country, thus the middle east.

If you'll note from the image:



Iraq sits within the "Heart" of the Middle East, a central point within the geographical region.

Do I know for sure that that was the context Cheney was using? No, I am not in his mind. However, reading that quote as a whole, and viewing it in the scope of the Bush Strategy of spreading democracy within the middle east, it seems that that is the likely indication of intent and context for those words when taken within context of the entire statement.

Also...here's something else.

Saying that we're in Iraq due to the events of 9/11, is a true statement (in theory, not going into the long drawn out process of debating if Georgie was just finishing daddies business and would've done so no matter what). If 9/11 did not happen, we would not start the War on Terror, and thus not go after countries that sponsored or harbored terrorists, nor need a central base in this fight, so would not have invaded Iraq.

In that way, the attacks on 9/11 did percipitate the Iraq War and we are there due to 9/11.

We are not there however due to their participation in 9/11

The closest here is is where Cheney asserts a falsehood about the Atta/Prague conspiracy thing. {might be the video, idc to watch it}

Other than that it's all innuendo and double talk

This is reposted from a number of thread. The poll numbers concerning people that thought Iraq or Saddam was involved in 9/11 from 2003 and 2005 was brought up. However, what has been found in reality is that the number in 2005 is actually lower than 2003 despite the supposed "manipulation" by the Bush Administration. What is even more striking, is the number in 2003 is lower than the number in 2001.

Washington Post

A number of public-opinion experts agreed that the public automatically blamed Iraq, just as they would have blamed Libya if a similar attack had occurred in the 1980s. There is good evidence for this: On Sept. 13, 2001, a Time/CNN poll found that 78 percent suspected Hussein's involvement -- even though the administration had not made a connection. The belief remained consistent even as evidence to the contrary emerged.

"You can say Bush should be faulted for not correcting every single misapprehension, but that's something different than saying they set out deliberately to deceive," said Duke University political scientist Peter D. Feaver. "Since the facts are all over the place, Americans revert to a judgment: Hussein is a bad guy who would do stuff to us if he could."

Click to expand...

On Sept. 13, 2001. The question was a two parter. First was asking them how likely or unlikely it was Osama bin laden was involved, and the same question for Saddam.

Very Likely: 78% (OBL) - - - 34% (Saddam)
Somewhat Likely: 14% (OBL) - - - 44% (Saddam)
Not very Likely: 1% (OBL) - - - 9% (Saddam)
Not at all Likely: - (OBL) - - - 3% (Saddam)
Not Sure: 7% (OBL) - - - 10% (Saddam)

So we can see that in 2001, 2 days after the attacks, before Bush or anyone publically was making the case for Iraq, 78% of those polled felt Sadam was likely to be involved, with 12% thinking it unlikely, and 10% not being sure.

Note, NO POLL I have ever seen has asked if people think Saddam is singularly responsable...AKA OBL isn't...however, I included the OBL statistics incase people for some reason tried to spin it that way.

So 2 days after 9/11, at least according to the Time/CNN Poll, there was a great sentiment by the American Public already that Saddam had some hand in it

POLL

Likewise, a CNN/Gallop/USA Today poll from September 15th also supports this to a point.

When asked ""Overall, how much do you blame each of the following for the terrorist attacks this past Tuesday: a great deal, a moderate amount, only a little, or not at all? How about"

41% of people blamed Iraq a great deal.
32% of people blamed them a moderate deal.
9% of people blamed them only a little.
9% of people did not blame them at all.
9% also had no opinion on blame.

So, taking the top two "positive" categories there, we also see a number in the 70's, 73%, thinking that iraq at least held a moderate amount of blame for 9/11.

POLL

So, two seperate polls...actually presented...shortly after 9/11 that are higher than the current or 2005 or 2003 levels of people that believed that Iraq or Saddam had something to do with it.

Iriemon said:

I haven't been able to find 2001 polls that indicate as low a number as the 3% or anything in that ballpark, and the few that I did find indicated that as of 2002 a majority of Americans believe Hussein was involved in 2001. Even after the war and years later larger percentages of American believe this is the case.

washingtonpost.com: Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds

However, as the article points out, there are also grounds for the argument that the Bush Administration encouraged this belief. But I'd have to agree that what I've found does support the contention that it created it.

Click to expand...

The article is actually a decent one, as it doesn't really argue either side, but allows for people to argue both. The article ALSO, as I showed, argues that the Bush Administration didn't actually encourage it but stated numerous times that there wasn't a direct link.

There's also a number of polling evidence to show that in 2003 less people (high 50's) than in 2001 believed that Iraq had anything to do with it. Similarily, most polling data from 2005 show in the high to mid 40 range of people believing that.

70's...to 50's...to 40's is a decrease, not an increase. And its a decrease during the time in which its purported that Bush was willingly and knowingly misleading people.

Zyphlin said:

The article is actually a decent one, as it doesn't really argue either side, but allows for people to argue both. The article ALSO, as I showed, argues that the Bush Administration didn't actually encourage it but stated numerous times that there wasn't a direct link.

There's also a number of polling evidence to show that in 2003 less people (high 50's) than in 2001 believed that Iraq had anything to do with it. Similarily, most polling data from 2005 show in the high to mid 40 range of people believing that.

70's...to 50's...to 40's is a decrease, not an increase. And its a decrease during the time in which its purported that Bush was willingly and knowingly misleading people.

Click to expand...

From what I'm see, that is comparing apples and oranges a bit. The 70s was like "do you think it likely that Hussein was involved" while the later poll was do you believe ...

The polls I saw when I was researching it were all over the place from the 40s to the 70s with no consistent tread. For example, the WP poll pegged it at 70% in Sep 03, and you'd have to believe for some reason there was a big increase in the percentage of believers at that time, which doesn't make sense.

Iriemon said:

From what I'm see, that is comparing apples and oranges a bit. The 70s was like "do you think it likely that Hussein was involved" while the later poll was do you believe ...

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, comparing "Do you think its likely Hussein was involved" and "Do you believe Hussein was involved" is more like comparing Granny Smith and McIntosh Apples. Its arguing what the definition of "is" is. You're not going to get a drastic variation in the polling results from asking "Do you think" and "Do you believe".

The polls I saw when I was researching it were all over the place from the 40s to the 70s with no consistent tread. For example, the WP poll pegged it at 70% in Sep 03, and you'd have to believe for some reason there was a big increase in the percentage of believers at that time, which doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

The vast majority of polls I saw in my research were Higher in 2001 than 2003 which was higher in 2005. And once again, there's not a single poll I've been able to find that has put a 2001 view of Iraq or Saddam LOWER than it was in the polls i've seen for 2003 or 2005.

I'm done with work today and have to head to work out and then head home for dinner, but tonight or tomorrow I will try and find out if the TIME and the GALLOP Polls have the same question or type of question being asked in 2003 and 2005 so we can compare the results from one poll throughout the years.

Zyphlin said:

I'm sorry, comparing "Do you think its likely Hussein was involved" and "Do you believe Hussein was involved" is more like comparing Granny Smith and McIntosh Apples. Its arguing what the definition of "is" is. You're not going to get a drastic variation in the polling results from asking "Do you think" and "Do you believe".

Click to expand...

Well, I can see we like to argue semantics.

I disagree that an expression of belief is the same as an expression that something is likely or more specifically "somewhat likely." Belief represents an adoption of something as affirmative fact. "Somewhat likely" indicates a possibility.

I doubt you'd find most people would agree that a statement: "I believe there is a God" means the same thing as: "I think it somewhat likely there is a God"

Iriemon said:

Well, I can see we like to argue semantics.

I disagree that an expression of belief is the same as an expression that something is likely or more specifically "somewhat likely." Belief represents an adoption of something as affirmative fact. "Somewhat likely" indicates a possibility.

I doubt you'd find most people would agree that a statement: "I believe there is a God" means the same thing as: "I think it somewhat likely there is a God"

Click to expand...

Do you use the same arguement in every thread?

mpg said:

Do you use the same arguement in every thread?

Click to expand...

Not at all. Why would you say that?

Iriemon said:

Not at all. Why would you say that?

Click to expand...

You probably don't do it in every thread but you get into a lot of debates about irrelevant semantics and even then you're wrong about the semantics too. All it does is draw attention away from the topic at hand.

mpg said:

You probably don't do it in every thread but you get into a lot of debates about irrelevant semantics and even then you're wrong about the semantics too. All it does is draw attention away from the topic at hand.

Click to expand...

LOL now is that a fact or an opinion? Am I wrong when I agree with you, or just when I disagree with you? : )

Heh heh

As to the point I'm making here, any statistician will tell you the result of a poll can vary widely based on how it is worded.

If one poll asked: "Do you believe there is a God?" And another asked, "Do you think is somewhat likely there is a God?" which question do you think would get a higher percentage?

Yes, I fully admit that a poll can be skewed by a number of things, and polls are by no means god.

I will also say that "Think its Very Likely" and "Think its Somewhat Likely" is not likely to produce a 10-20-30 point difference than "Strongly Believe" and "Somewhat Believe" to the point where it would make a gigantic different.

Additionally, it still has shown that the 3% statistic you quoted from an article seems to be absolute bunk as absolutely no poll has been able to be produced with anywhere NEAR that amount of belief, using any kind of wording.

Tomorrow while at work I'll look deeper into the polls, and the questions, and see what it comes up with. You can argue semantics all you like...the fact of the matter is public opinion was at the very least high that Saddam likely had some part in or was involved with 9/11 shortly after it, and even if it was a 20% deviation due to "Believe" and "Think", that still would mean that its remained close to the same.

"Think" would have to produce nearly a 30 or 40 point difference in respondants to be able to say that there was less affirmative sentiment in regards to Saddam's/Iraq's involvement shortly after 9/11 than there was in 2003 or 2005. And you can argue semantics all you want, but everything I've learned in classes and such about polls tells me that even such a word difference, on a question like that, is not going to generate THAT huge of a swing.

Frankly it appears your arguing semantics because your original assertion of 3% seems to be having absolutely 0 factual backing, and you can't seem to find polls of any sort to actually give an example opposite of what I'm purporting here from the findings, so you have resorted to arguing semantics in hopes that you don't prove me wrong nor offer an alternative but to possibly throw doubt into it because you have no actual information to use against it.

Zyphlin said:

Additionally, it still has shown that the 3% statistic you quoted from an article seems to be absolute bunk as absolutely no poll has been able to be produced with anywhere NEAR that amount of belief, using any kind of wording.

Click to expand...

There were at least 3, and all of them used open-ended questions. In a CBS/NYT poll in late September 2001, only 8% of respondents answered Hussein when asked who they thought responsible for 9/11 attacks. Three days after the attacks, 3% of Wirthlin Poll respondents named Hussein. A Harris poll conducted two days after the 9/11 attacks asked “If Congress were to declare war, who do you think it should declare war against or aren’t you sure?” 61% said they were not sure, but only 6% named Hussein. In other polls providing multiple-choices, the percentage choosing Hussein was much higher, but not as high as bin Laden.

Here is something that I stumbled across that might be of interest. Kinda puts the theory that Sadan had any connection with al quida to rest.

<Washington

Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida
By Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Monday, March 10, 2008>


WASHINGTON — An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 03/10/2008 | Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida

Chanda said:

There were at least 3, and all of them used open-ended questions. In a CBS/NYT poll in late September 2001, only 8% of respondents answered Hussein when asked who they thought responsible for 9/11 attacks. Three days after the attacks, 3% of Wirthlin Poll respondents named Hussein. A Harris poll conducted two days after the 9/11 attacks asked “If Congress were to declare war, who do you think it should declare war against or aren’t you sure?” 61% said they were not sure, but only 6% named Hussein. In other polls providing multiple-choices, the percentage choosing Hussein was much higher, but not as high as bin Laden.

Click to expand...

THANKS! I shall try to go back and actually find those polls, and then link to them and the information. This'll hopefully be able to shed light on the issue a bit more. If I can find them, I'll also go forward in time and see what those specific polls said in 2003 and 2005 in regards to the Saddam question, and if there is a difference in how they ask it.

donc said:

Here is something that I stumbled across that might be of interest. Kinda puts the theory that Sadan had any connection with al quida to rest.

<Washington

Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida
By Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Monday, March 10, 2008>


WASHINGTON — An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 03/10/2008 | Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida

Click to expand...

Definitely interesting. A few things to note though...

This is coming out in 2008. Finding out now that there is no connection doesn't discount, nor prove, what was known and was the likely believed truth in 2002/2003. As more intelligence comes in, more information is presented, and more of the picture is shown...however sometimes you must act based on your best judgement of the information at hand.

Additionally, while I may not agree exactly with this caveat of the "War on Terror", it is a war on terror not on Al-Qaeda. Bush's statements were not "If you fund or harbor Al-Qaeda..." but "If you fund or harbor Terrorists..." and as your thing said, there is evidence even now that Saddam was doing it.

I still think that they wanted to get a "base" in the region, where they could try and build a democracy and have a "friendly" nation where as to build outwards in this war. Iraq presented them the option because:

1) It was in the middle of the ME, able to easily get to Syria/Iran/Etc
2) There was pending U.N. resolutions on Iraq, some of which had been violated. While not a concrete thing (as its still debated to this day), there was at least a slight bit more international justification for going into Iraq then there would've been for any other country
3) Technically, they did fall under the umbrella he provided for the War on Terror, thus being able to tie it to that.

I am going to stress again...I do not agree with Bush's tactics in the War on Terror at large, nor do I think we've done much of anything right in Iraq. My one issue was the constant drum beat of certain statements in regards to Bush and Co.'s words on Iraq, and whether they were true or not.

Zyphlin said:

This is coming out in 2008. Finding out now that there is no connection doesn't discount, nor prove, what was known and was the likely believed truth in 2002/2003. As more intelligence comes in, more information is presented, and more of the picture is shown...however sometimes you must act based on your best judgement of the information at hand.

Click to expand...

This is not a case of "Finding out now that there is no connection..."
This is old news.

It was not the case that Iraq was thought to be meaningfully tied to aQ before the run up to the war. The Admin decided to pursue that angle on their own for their own reasons, it was not presented to them by the IC.

It was presented to the Admin by the Iraqi Natl Congress (among others). The Iraqi Natl Congress was an already disreputable group who were not only unable to account for millions of US taxpayers' money, but were known to have an Iranian intelligence agent as their chief of security, Aras Karim Habib.
The CIA and the State Dept had cut off all contact w/ the INC. And described them as unreliable and no longer representative of the any major indigenous Iraqi following.
Civilians in the Bush Admin DoD decided that it would be a great idea to start giving these guys millions more of US taxpayers' money.
Ahmad Chalabi, the group's leader, sat next to Laura Bush at a SotU address.
It turns out that the INC ended up telling the Iranians that the US had broken one or more of their codes. It seems that information was only available to a handful of "senior officials" in the Admin.


In any case it not that we just now found out that there was not reliable evidence that Hussein and aQ were in cahoots.

reposted from this ancient thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...ional-collaborative-relationship-existed.html