Rumsfeld admits no Saddam/Bin Laden link

[Guest INXS]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm

 

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has cast doubt on whether there was ever a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

The alleged link was one of the justifications used by President Bush for the invasion of Iraq.

 

In front of an audience in New York, Mr Rumsfeld was asked about connections between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said.

 

No proof

 

 

Donald Rumsfeld's off-the-cuff comments are often very revealing.

 

If he really meant what he said, it suggests that the Bush administration is in the process of retreating from previously held positions.

 

When asked about the putative link during a session at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, defence secretary said: "I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way."

 

In the past, Mr Rumsfeld has spoken of credible information about a link and Vice President Dick Cheney regularly goes further and talks of Saddam Hussein having provided safe harbour and sanctuary for al-Qaeda.

 

The idea that Saddam Hussein was a supporter of terrorism has been one of the key justifications used by the administration for his removal.

 

Those with an open mind knew this already - as well as knowing that there was no WMD. I find it hard to believe that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush didn't blatantly lie in the run up to the war in order to justify it in some way.

 

So, to round things up:

 

No WMD - Saddam didn't have any weapons to attack us. Or to sell to terrorists.

 

No Ties with Al Qaeda - Nope, none. He didn't aid terrorists, he didn't fund them, he didn't sell them weapons. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are now in Iraq however.

 

What we DO have left however is that Saddam was a bad man who killed thousands of his own people. Let's just not mention that we turned a blind eye to this at the time because he was buying weapons from us and was fighting Iran.

 

What concerns me the most however is Rummy coming clean over this - especially the timing (in mid debate season) - could we be in for an October surprise of gigantic proportions to get the people back on Bush's side?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Let's just not mention that we turned a blind eye to this at the time because he was buying weapons from us and was fighting Iran.

 

This is a stupid criticism. Why couldn't we clean up our mess after a previous administration made the mistake?

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Hey I heard Saddam and Osama know who each other are! Isn't that link enough? Hippies! Learn to love the bomb! Otherwise we'll all be speaking german.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

This is a stupid criticism. Why couldn't we clean up our mess after a previous administration made the mistake?

 

The question isn't "Did this need to be done?", the question is, "Was this done under false premises." Which the answer is, of course, yes.

 

Now the next question we must ask ourselves is; was this an honest mistake, or did this administration mislead the Ameican people in order to garner support for their war?

[Guest INXS]

I'm going with the latter.

[Highland 0]

The latter.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

I don't find it hard to believe that Bush was fooled. I do however find it hard to believe that noone knew the truth.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I don't find it hard to believe that Bush was fooled. I do however find it hard to believe that noone knew the truth.

Fair enough. Too bad we'll probably never find out.

[Guest Cerebus]

You're about two years too late there buddy.

[Guest MikeSC]

Too bad Rumsfeld has already issued a correction:

IMMEDIATE RELEASE    October 4, 2004

A Statement From Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld

 

            A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.

 

            I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

 

            This assessment was based upon points provided to me by then CIA Director George Tenet to describe the CIA's understanding of the Al Qaeda-Iraq relationship.

 

            Today at the Council, I even noted that "when I'm in Washington, I pull out a piece of paper and say 'I don't know, because I'm not in that business, but I'll tell you what the CIA thinks,' and I read it."

 

            The CIA conclusions in that paper, which I discussed in a news conference as far back as September, 2002, note that:

 

            * We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

 

            * We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade, and of possible chemical and biological agent training.

 

            * We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq.

 

            * We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

 

            * We do have one report indicating that Iraq provided unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters for al Qaeda members.

 

            I should also note that the 9/11 Commission report described linkages between Al Qaeda and Iraq as well.

http://www.dod.mil/releases/2004/nr20041004-1352.html

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

I'm going with the latter.

Hilariously enough, the Senate Intelligence Committee thinks more the former.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm going with the latter.

Hilariously enough, the Senate Intelligence Committee thinks more the former.

Who are they to question the almighty INXS?

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

In front of an audience in New York, Mr Rumsfeld was asked about connections between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said.

 

 

"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

 

Isn't this the exact same thing that the Bush campaign keeps accusing Kerry of?

[Guest MikeSC]

Nope. Rumsfeld's comments were misinterpreted and he corrected the record immediately.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Nope. Rumsfeld's comments were misinterpreted and he corrected the record immediately.

 

Ahhh, I see the difference:

 

You're republican.

[NoCalMike 0]

Too bad Rumsfeld has already issued a correction:

IMMEDIATE RELEASE     October 4, 2004

A Statement From Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld

 

            A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.

 

            I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

 

            This assessment was based upon points provided to me by then CIA Director George Tenet to describe the CIA's understanding of the Al Qaeda-Iraq relationship.

 

            Today at the Council, I even noted that "when I'm in Washington, I pull out a piece of paper and say 'I don't know, because I'm not in that business, but I'll tell you what the CIA thinks,' and I read it."

 

            The CIA conclusions in that paper, which I discussed in a news conference as far back as September, 2002, note that:

 

            * We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

 

            * We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade, and of possible chemical and biological agent training.

 

            * We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq.

 

            * We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

 

            * We do have one report indicating that Iraq provided unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters for al Qaeda members.

 

            I should also note that the 9/11 Commission report described linkages between Al Qaeda and Iraq as well.

http://www.dod.mil/releases/2004/nr20041004-1352.html

-=Mike

*FLIP-FLOP*

[Guest INXS]

Haha, I was just about to post "flip flop" as well.

 

Rummy let the cat out of the bag last night didn't he! Probably got a whipping off Bushie for deviating from the script.

 

In front of an audience in New York, Mr Rumsfeld was asked about connections between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said.

 

It's an easy question to misunderstand - isn't it?!

[Justice 0]

*FLIP-FLOP*

Perhaps I see a difference between this and Kerry's 'Flip-flops' because Kerry doesn't bother to issue "corrections" or things like that to these things. I mean, Rumsfeld issued a quick press-release saying how they misunderstood him, while Kerry just continually contradicts himself without recognizing it as a change in position. Rumsfeld being misinterpreted and correcting it =/= Kerry continually changing his stance on things like Iraq.

[Guest MikeSC]

Nope. Rumsfeld's comments were misinterpreted and he corrected the record immediately.

 

Ahhh, I see the difference:

 

You're republican.

Nah. Just a thinking person.

-=Mike

...Hell, INXS supports you and NoCal. That alone should show how fucked up your position is...

[Guest INXS]

Nope. Rumsfeld's comments were misinterpreted and he corrected the record immediately.

 

Ahhh, I see the difference:

 

You're republican.

Nah. Just a thinking person.

-=Mike

...Hell, INXS supports you and NoCal. That alone should show how fucked up your position is...

I'm convinced that are paid to debunk any negative posts regarding the Bush adminsitration and the repulican party.

 

You would make one HELL of a spin doctor for them, which, by the way, is a compliment.

[Guest MikeSC]

Nope. Rumsfeld's comments were misinterpreted and he corrected the record immediately.

 

Ahhh, I see the difference:

 

You're republican.

Nah. Just a thinking person.

-=Mike

...Hell, INXS supports you and NoCal. That alone should show how fucked up your position is...

I'm convinced that are paid to debunk any negative posts regarding the Bush adminsitration and the repulican party.

 

You would make one HELL of a spin doctor for them, which, by the way, is a compliment.

I'm convinced that you're even dumber looking than your avatar. And, I have PLENTY of evidence to back that up.

 

BTW, where are the "OMG! RACISM!" clowns here who bitch whenever I call terrorists monkeys? I have this chimp calling Bush a monkey --- is it only offensive if it doesn't happen to Republicans?

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Bush LOOKS like a Monkey, you know, the actual animal. He also, as witnessed at the debate last week, has the same vacant, confused and far away look that a monkey posesses.

 

As witnessed many times in the past, Mike is frustrated and is resorting to a personal attack.

[Guest MikeSC]

Bush LOOKS like a Monkey, you know, the actual animal.

And you don't?

He also, as witnessed at the debate last week, has the same vacant, confused and far away look that a monkey posesses.

 

As witnessed many times in the past, Mike is frustrated and is resorting to a personal attack.

Nope. I just don't want to hear a soul bitch when I refer to a terrorist as a sub-human monkey in the future.

 

And, if I wanted to go into a personal attack, believe me, I have considerable more ammo than this to use on you.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said.

 

How can that be misinterpreted? It is possible to say he had a complete slip-up, and just said something that he didn't mean (which seems a little odd), but if these are his words, there isn't much other way to interpret it.

[Guest MikeSC]

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said.

 

How can that be misinterpreted? It is possible to say he had a complete slip-up, and just said something that he didn't mean (which seems a little odd), but if these are his words, there isn't much other way to interpret it.

Forgive me if I don't buy a quote taken out of context from the press.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

The problem with that Mike, is that you jump all over anything the press says about the Dems. You don't even wait to see if it is true.

 

Your blind partisanship makes arguing with you about as usefull as arguing with GreatOne.

 

The truth is a bitch. To have any credibility, you must sometimes accept that your side isn't perfect.

[Guest MikeSC]

The problem with that Mike, is that you jump all over anything the press says about the Dems. You don't even wait to see if it is true.

 

Your blind partisanship makes arguing with you about as usefull as arguing with GreatOne.

 

The truth is a bitch. To have any credibility, you must sometimes accept that your side isn't perfect.

I freely admit my side isn't perfect.

 

Just significantly better than the alternative.

 

And, just as with everybody else who bitches, nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to stay --- nor are they begging you to stay.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Well it would be nice if Rummy/Cheney/Dubya could get their own BS reasoning straight, considering it changes daily, with any new evidence that comes out to debunk a pre-existing "fact" I am still waiting for the final concession by the trio and the "ok guys, look he was an evil doer, what more do you need" speech.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well it would be nice if Rummy/Cheney/Dubya could get their own BS reasoning straight, considering it changes daily, with any new evidence that comes out to debunk a pre-existing "fact" I am still waiting for the final concession by the trio and the "ok guys, look he was an evil doer, what more do you need" speech.

They have their reasoning straight. They gave NUMEROUS reasons to remove Saddam. You should try to pay attention.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Well it would be nice if Rummy/Cheney/Dubya could get their own BS reasoning straight, considering it changes daily, with any new evidence that comes out to debunk a pre-existing "fact"  I am still waiting for the final concession by the trio and the "ok guys, look he was an evil doer, what more do you need" speech.

They have their reasoning straight. They gave NUMEROUS reasons to remove Saddam. You should try to pay attention.

-=Mike

No they don't actually.

 

Ties to Al Qaeda - No

 

WMDs - No

 

Threat to America - No

 

Trying to buy uranium from Africa - No

 

He was an evil dictator - Yes

 

1/5 is not too good.