Inquiry confirms no Iraq/Al Qaeda link

[Guest INXS]

To add to this thread, I think that the Democrats should start impeachment proceedings against G W Bush now that it has been confirmed by an independent commission that he lied to the American people in order to justify invasion.

[Guest MikeSC]

To add to this thread, I think that the Democrats should start impeachment proceedings against G W Bush now that it has been confirmed by an independent commission that he lied to the American people in order to justify invasion.

Oh lord, I HOPE they do.

 

Nothing will go further to guarantee his re-election than that.

 

BTW, you know talks about coordination between bin Laden and Iraq happened as far back as 2/3/88?

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Yes, tentative talks but nothing came from them.

 

You realize that the US government worked with Bin Laden in the 80's right?

 

You realize the US sold arms to Saddam in the 80's, heck there's even photographic proof Saddam met Rumsfeld...

[Guest Riots bloodlust]

You realize that the US government worked with Bin Laden in the 80's right?

 

You realize the US sold arms to Saddam in the 80's, heck there's even photographic proof Saddam met Rumsfeld... 

 

I have to say, this is another point I hate, at least presented in this way. Though, I've yet to see it presented in any other way. You can point out these things, but I find it so significant a distortion when they are presented without any context, as though everything was exactly the same 20 years ago, that the point is nullified. You can argue that we shouldn't have done these things then, but Saddam was viewed as the lesser of 2 evils against Iran, and Bin Laden was being used as a pawn against the Soviet Union. Were those bad ideas? Quite possibly. Were the implications then the exact same as if they were done today? Absolutely not.

 

Argue the points all you want, either way, but please do so in a veracious manner.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

You realize that the US government worked with Bin Laden in the 80's right?

And we worked with Stalin in WWII -- yawn...

[Firestarter 0]

You realize that the US government worked with Bin Laden in the 80's right?

And anyway, no, we did not.

[tommytomlin 0]

The U.S funnelled aid to the Afghanistan mujaheddin through Pakistan's ISI, but it was the ISI who directed which groups received the aid. Sadly, the most fundamental mujaheddin groups received the bulk of the aid (even though they were a minority in the country) which, combined with the ISI's call for radical Muslims to fight in the civil war, facilitated the rise of the Taliban and gave UBL a nice little place to set up shop.

 

So no, the U.S government had nothing to do with UBL directly, but they indirectly and unintentionally set up the conditions for him to gain his power in the country. It was a short-sighted, poorly executed policy, but so were a lot of U.S decisions during the Cold War. If you want to critique U.S foreign policy, there's a few dozen better candidates than Afghanistan.

[Firestarter 0]

Bin Laden himself has repeatedly denied that he received any American support. "Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help," bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk in 1993. In 1996, Mr. Fisk interviewed bin Laden again. The arch-terrorist was equally adamant: "We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies."

 

In the course of researching my book on Bill Clinton and bin Laden, I interviewed Bill Peikney, who was CIA station chief in Islamabad from 1984 to 1986, and Milt Bearden, who was CIA station chief from 1986 to 1989. These two men oversaw the disbursement for all American funds to the anti-Soviet resistance. Both flatly denied that any CIA funds ever went to bin Laden. They felt so strongly about this point that they agreed to go on the record, an unusual move by normally reticent intelligence officers. Mr. Peikney added in an e-mail to me: "I don't even recall UBL [bin Laden] coming across my screen when I was there."

 

There are many reasons to believe them. They knew where the money went. Both men have retired from the CIA; they have no motive to mouth an agency line. And no compelling evidence has emerged that the CIA ever paid bin Laden: no cancelled checks, no invoices, no government reports.

 

Those who contend that bin Laden received U.S. funds usually make the following argument: America financed the Afghan rebels, bin Laden was among the rebels, therefore, in one way or another, America gave money to bin Laden.

 

This ignores a key fact: There were two entirely separate rebellions against the Soviets, united only by a common communist enemy. One was financed by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and was composed of Islamic extremists who migrated from across the Muslim world. They called themselves "Arab Afghans." Bin Laden was among them. When the Saudis agreed to match U.S. contributions dollar-for-dollar, the sheikhs insisted that their funds go exclusively to the "Arab Afghans," possibly including bin Laden. Meanwhile, U.S. funds went exclusively to the other rebellion, which was composed of native Afghans. Mr. Bearden told me: "I challenge anyone to give any proof that we gave one dollar to any Arab Afghans, let alone bin Laden."

- Richard Miniter 09/23/03

[Guest INXS]

You realize that the US government worked with Bin Laden in the 80's right?

 

You realize the US sold arms to Saddam in the 80's, heck there's even photographic proof Saddam met Rumsfeld... 

 

I have to say, this is another point I hate, at least presented in this way. Though, I've yet to see it presented in any other way. You can point out these things, but I find it so significant a distortion when they are presented without any context, as though everything was exactly the same 20 years ago, that the point is nullified. You can argue that we shouldn't have done these things then, but Saddam was viewed as the lesser of 2 evils against Iran, and Bin Laden was being used as a pawn against the Soviet Union. Were those bad ideas? Quite possibly. Were the implications then the exact same as if they were done today? Absolutely not.

 

Argue the points all you want, either way, but please do so in a veracious manner.

I entirely understand your view and accept it. I was bringing those points up as soem here were suggesting that because Bin Laden and Saddam had some kind of vague contact in 1988 then they must have been in cahoots.

[Guest thebigjig]

Uh, this isn't an accusation...it's the results of an OFFICIAL INQUIRY!

An official inquiry done by a horribly flawed, partisan, joke of a Commission.

-=Mike

Strange... the top guy in the commission is a Republican, and it's split bi-partisanly...

 

oh wait, I have this sneaking suspicion that you would pass off ANY commission that seeks to investigate anything having to do with Bush.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Bin Laden himself has repeatedly denied that he received any American support.

 

But he also says we're evil and must die? Is that true? I'm so conflicted. He seems like such an honest guy.

[Firestarter 0]

You can't see the difference between an objective statement and a subjective one? Do you also disbelieve him when he says he wants to kill us all, or do you think he's just telling the "truth" when he says we're evil as well? Obviously, he's fairly honest (for a mass-murdering terrorist fuckhead) as far as objective truth is concerned; he's always been upfront about his desires, motives, and methods, even if he does justify them subjectively. When he says we're evil, he's wrong. When he says he wants to kill us, he's telling the truth. When he says we didn't help him, presumably he knows what he's talking about, and he has no reason to lie. Where's the contradiction?

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Well if he hates American culture so much would he really want to admit to needing their help in the past?

[Firestarter 0]

I'd say a jihadist's mentality would run in the opposite direction, and be rather inclined to brag about turning his enemies' own freely-given weapons, munitions, and funding against them, perhaps even characterising it as evidence of divine favour - "Though they think to use us, Allah guides our hands and instead we use them, and their treachery returns upon them, they shall reap sevenfold what they sow blah blah blah" or some such. I admit I'm just speculating here; it's not really my area of expertise, but that sounds more likely to me than your postulation of embarrassment.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Well, Bush himself is saying he never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Come to think of it, I don't recall anyone outside of Cheney or maybe Rumsfeld once connecting the two. The supposed governmental connection of Iraq to Al-Queda was really a product of hearing Iraq called one of the Axis of Evil nations and various talking heads say something or another about Operation Iraqi Freedom being part of the general War on Terror. The public is really at fault the most for making such a connection up, since a lot of people can't differentiate different issues that would seem to be so logically connected. Unfortunately, the average American sees the entire Middle East as one big mass of towel-headed people who hate us, instead of different nations and groups that hate us for, say, different reasons (or, in the case of Israel, don't hate us, but Israel is hardly capable of being lumped in with the rest of those nations).

[Firestarter 0]

The public is really at fault the most for making such a connection up, since a lot of people can't differentiate different issues that would seem to be so logically connected

Here's the public's uninformed and unsubstantiated opinion on the Iraq/Al Qaeda connexion. Note that the article contains no facts, no dates, and no evidence - just opinion and hearsay.

 

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes, tentative talks but nothing came from them.

 

You realize that the US government worked with Bin Laden in the 80's right?

ir·rel·e·vant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-rl-vnt)

adj.

1) Unrelated to the matter being considered.

2) This point

You realize the US sold arms to Saddam in the 80's, heck there's even photographic proof Saddam met Rumsfeld...

Actually, France supplied him with most of his arms. Hate to burst your bubble.

Strange... the top guy in the commission is a Republican, and it's split bi-partisanly...

 

oh wait, I have this sneaking suspicion that you would pass off ANY commission that seeks to investigate anything having to do with Bush.

Nah, I use their conduct and the fact that one of the commissioners SHOULD have been a WITNESS instead as evidence of their uselessness.

Unfortunately, the average American sees the entire Middle East as one big mass of towel-headed people who hate us, instead of different nations and groups that hate us for, say, different reasons (or, in the case of Israel, don't hate us, but Israel is hardly capable of being lumped in with the rest of those nations).

Sadly, your description of the region is stunningly accurate.

 

Most of the countries there do hate us.

 

And most hate us for the same reason.

-=Mike

[Art Sandusky 0]

When I say the public, I mean the average person on the street, not people who do loads of research for websites.

 

After reading all that, I don't know what to think anymore. Evidence is certainly there, so now why are the administration and the 9/11 commission saying there's no link?

[Guest MikeSC]

When I say the public, I mean the average person on the street, not people who do loads of research for websites.

 

After reading all that, I don't know what to think anymore. Evidence is certainly there, so now why are the administration and the 9/11 commission saying there's no link?

The press already made up their mind. They're simply proving it for historical usage.

-=Mike

[Guest thebigjig]

Sadly, your description of the region is stunningly accurate.

 

Most of the countries there do hate us.

 

And most hate us for the same reason.

-=Mike

Let me guess... because they all hate freedom, right mike?

[Guest MikeSC]

Sadly, your description of the region is stunningly accurate.

 

Most of the countries there do hate us.

 

And most hate us for the same reason.

        -=Mike

Let me guess... because they all hate freedom, right mike?

That is, sadly, a part of it. It's largely because we're not Muslim --- and even if we WERE Muslim, they'd hate us because we wouldn't be MUSLIM ENOUGH for us.

 

People who choose to side with extremists need to realize that. The moment their "big" enemies go down --- they'll be next.

-=Mike

[dubq 0]

You realize the US sold arms to Saddam in the 80's, heck there's even photographic proof Saddam met Rumsfeld...

Funny how people always bring that one up without knowing the facts.

 

That 1% the US provided between 1973 & 2002 must really overshadow the 57% that Russia provided, or the 13% that France did....

 

EDIT: Quoted the wrong part of his original post.. ;p

[Art Sandusky 0]

That's arms to Iraq, not to Bin Laden. I doubt Russia would be giving aid to someone fighting against their occupation.

[dubq 0]

That's arms to Iraq, not to Bin Laden. I doubt Russia would be giving aid to someone fighting against their occupation.

Yah, I deleted the wrong quoted section. Fixed now, though.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Okay, spiffy. Just lookin' out for ya before someone pounces on you. It's a wonder you've survived as long as you have with that HHH banner.

[Guest BDC]

I must say I'm glad that INXS has set us straight now, aren't all of you?

[Guest MikeSC]

Even MORE ironic that the Commission only stated that no evidence of links exists between Iraq and Al Qaeda in regards to 9/11. Both chairs have publicly stated that links between the two DO exist.

-=Mike