Bush informed in 2001 of lack of Iraq-Qaeda ties

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush was informed 10 days after the September 11, 2001 attacks that US intelligence had no proof of links between Iraq and that act of terror, The National Journal reported.

 

Citing government documents as well as past and present Bush administration officials, the magazine said the president was briefed on September 21, 2001 that evidence of cooperation between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda terror network was insufficient.

 

Bush was also informed that there was some credible information about contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda that showed that the Iraqi dictator had tried to establish surveillance over the group, according to the report.

 

Saddam Hussein believed the radical Islamic network represented a threat for his secular regime.

 

Little additional evidence has emerged over the past four years that could contradict the CIA conclusion about a lack of a collaborative relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, the Journal quotes a high-level government official as saying.

 

The magazine believes the evidence raises yet more questions about the administration's use of intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

 

 

11/23/2005 02:57

 

I'm not too familiar with all these sources and such, but is National Journal ridiculously biased? It seems they've gotten some credible evidence here.

 

There's a difference between finding out ten days and three years after that Saddam and Al Queda were not linked together, but no need for me to state the obvious.

[NoCalMike 0]

Is there really anybody left that thinks we invaded Iraq because of terrorism, or that invading Iraq wasn't already in the plans before 9-11?

Seriously.....?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Not many...

 

In [a] Newsweek poll, 52 percent thought that Cheney “deliberately misused or manipulated pre-war intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities,” compared to just 33 percent who thought he did not. And in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the number believing Bush “deliberately misled people to make the case for war with Iraq” has reached 57 percent, with only 35 percent dissenting.

[2GOLD 0]

Shouldn't have left Iraq with Hussein in control in the first place. Just fixing a wrong that needed to be righted to me. *shrugs*

I never really gave a shit about the terrorism or the 9/11 connection or any of that. He's a guy who should have been wiped out a long time ago.

 

I still agree with the war, just not the execution of it. The execution made me think our military is really being controlled by idiots and if we ever get into a real war, we are going to get hammered pretty badly. Nevermind we'll announce about three months in advance on the world news wire what we are doing and a competent enemy would have used that time to, you know, prepare.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I still agree with the war, just not the execution of it. The execution made me think our military is really being controlled by idiots and if we ever get into a real war, we are going to get hammered pretty badly. Nevermind we'll announce about three months in advance on the world news wire what we are doing and a competent enemy would have used that time to, you know, prepare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think that the military guys are idiots, just the Bush admin civilians at the Pentagon who wouldn't listen to them (read: Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz). And the fools in the VP's office who put all of their faith in Chalabi (we'll be greeted as liberators!).

[snuffbox 0]

Shouldn't have left Iraq with Hussein in control in the first place. Just fixing a wrong that needed to be righted to me. *shrugs*

I never really gave a shit about the terrorism or the 9/11 connection or any of that. He's a guy who should have been wiped out a long time ago.

 

I still agree with the war, just not the execution of it. The execution made me think our military is really being controlled by idiots and if we ever get into a real war, we are going to get hammered pretty badly. Nevermind we'll announce about three months in advance on the world news wire what we are doing and a competent enemy would have used that time to, you know, prepare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

People in my area treat other people bad. I feel that we bastards should be nuked.

[Guest The Mustang]

I think anyone against Bush coulda told you that there was really no point in going to Iraq..the country's poorer then an alley hobo, the only thing they got that we need is Oil and look what happen..Gas Prices went up..fuck that, seriously, and we gave them millions of dollars that shoulda been used on katrina.

[I like Forums 0]

And this guy got re-elected.

 

Why aren't American voters pissed off about this? Even if you believe reguardless of the reasons, that Saddam needed to be taken out anyway, how can they support being lied to by your government?

 

I know all politicians are liars but when they get caught lying they should be punished.

[2GOLD 0]

And this guy got re-elected.

 

Why aren't American voters pissed off about this? Even if you believe reguardless of the reasons, that Saddam needed to be taken out anyway, how can they support being lied to by your government?

 

I know all politicians are liars but when they get caught lying they should be punished.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Cause I didn't care about the WMDs when they told me. I knew the UN and Clinton admin had been saying for years that Iraq had WMDs and I knew the kind of man was running that country. To me, the guy running the country was enough for me.

 

I'm mad at how piss poorly they handled it but that's it.

ETA: I can see how others would be mad though if that was the only reason they agreed with it.

[NoCalMike 0]

And this guy got re-elected.

 

Why aren't American voters pissed off about this? Even if you believe reguardless of the reasons, that Saddam needed to be taken out anyway, how can they support being lied to by your government?

 

I know all politicians are liars but when they get caught lying they should be punished.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Cause I didn't care about the WMDs when they told me. I knew the UN and Clinton admin had been saying for years that Iraq had WMDs and I knew the kind of man was running that country. To me, the guy running the country was enough for me.

 

I'm mad at how piss poorly they handled it but that's it.

ETA: I can see how others would be mad though if that was the only reason they agreed with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

To me Bush's dad had the correct method. You tell the Iraqi people to uprise and overthrow Saddam, and when they decide to do it, they will be supported by the American Military. Of Course Bush Sr. didn't keep to his word, and THAT is what is what resulted in the Kurds being gassed, but it sets a bad precident that our government, with the including the President can stand up there and lie about why we are dropping bombs on another country, and as more and more evidence comes out that he was lying, he can just brush it off as "well Saddam was bad"

[NoCalMike 0]

There is also a report out now in England that a newspaper there had a confidential report that Bush wanted to Attack Al Jazeera Network Headquarters, but Blair talked him out of it, but the newspaper was threatended by the Government there about printing the story, under some law, about not being able to print "secrets" unless they were obtained in the right way.

[cbacon 0]

To me Bush's dad had the correct method.  You tell the Iraqi people to uprise and overthrow Saddam, and when they decide to do it, they will be supported by the American Military.  Of Course Bush Sr. didn't keep to his word, and THAT is what is what resulted in the Kurds being gassed

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That, and it's kind of hard for the people to rebel when there are sanctions crippling the country.

[Art Sandusky 0]

What I want to know is this: If Mr. Rumsfeld is right with his "if we say when we're leaving, then all the terrorists have to do is wait and the place'll go batshit" line, then when the fuck are we supposed to leave? I think they'd notice if 150,000 American soldiers weren't in the country anymore whether it was a year from now or ten years from now. If the place descends into chaos upon our departure, is the message here really "we're there to stay?"

[2GOLD 0]

What I want to know is this: If Mr. Rumsfeld is right with his "if we say when we're leaving, then all the terrorists have to do is wait and the place'll go batshit" line, then when the fuck are we supposed to leave? I think they'd notice if 150,000 American soldiers weren't in the country anymore whether it was a year from now or ten years from now. If the place descends into chaos upon our departure, is the message here really "we're there to stay?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would think he means against a full pull out on the first move. I really don't see us needing the number of troops that are in the country in the country after the first of the year. A good 75-85% should be able to move out with a mild secruity force hanging around for a few more months. After that, shit hits the fan more than they can handle then they call us and we'll come sweep up the mess.

 

No excuse for the size of the force we have there staying there. None.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Couldn't we have just threatened Sadaam with being killed personally? I hate how this whole thing makes me wretch, until I say "hey, at least that guy's out of power." So confusing.

 

I feel the problem was simply not going in with enough force. If we'd gone in there with the kind of might that would have been warranted if we were, say, trying to capture the real terrorists in Afghanistan (real number for sake of discussion: 300,000-400,000) then we would probably be looking at the current number of 150,000 as not all that bad, and probably just another stepping stone in a complete withdrawl by the middle of 2007 or so. A greater number involved in the invasion would mean plenty of logistical support to go around, an ability to occupy areas after completing offensives, not to mention common Iraqis being a hell of a lot more frightened of enlisting as a terrorist. Not that they'd have to be frightened, a greater budget that would go with a greater force would lead to the place being a lot more stable in day-to-day affairs than it is now. Business could operate normally thanks to the added security, and the understanding with such a huge number of foreign soldiers is that they're going to pull as many of them out as quickly as possible, otherwise it would start looking dangerously colonial.

 

But hindsight and all. I honestly don't see us out of there until New Year's Day 2008 if we really want to ensure a solid foundation for the new Iraqi Republic.

[Art Sandusky 0]

And, to take this into the even more distant future, how does this War on Terror pan out once we're out of Iraq? When will the mission be complete in Afghanistan? I don't think we'll ever find Osama or his remains, ever.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

No excuse for the size of the force we have there staying there. None.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I couldn't disagree more.

 

Many of the post-war problems have been exacerbated by having such a *small* force in Iraq (see Shinseki, Eric). The country is not secure partly because we do not and never did have *enough* troops. (On a side note, we also didn't have enough civilians, and the few that we did have came primarily from resumes submitted to the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.)

 

It's a cache-22, though, because increasing the level of US troops to the level needed to actually make substantial progress:

 

A.) Would probably require a draft, because of the current recruiting crisis. This is, domestically, politically unfeasible.

 

B.) Upping troop levels would only further piss off Iraqis. The Iraqi government even wants us out!

 

To me, though, the only responsible thing to do is to send in more troops. As Colin Powell would say--you break it you bought it. American public opinion was solidly behind the war back in aught 3. Now it seems to have executed a complete 180 while developing a serious case of buyer's remorse.

 

Whether you think the war was just or not (I think not), I think we can all agree that it was horribly botched.

[2GOLD 0]

And, to take this into the even more distant future, how does this War on Terror pan out once we're out of Iraq? When will the mission be complete in Afghanistan? I don't think we'll ever find Osama or his remains, ever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I really think we already found him but everyone and their mother knows the massive amount of the country will be like, "well he's caught, terrorism is over! Yay!"

 

And we did threaten to kill him, he laughed at us. The guy knew the UN would have never allowed us to just kill him. Gulf War really should not have ended until he was dead and gone the first time. Going with sanctions against him was the stupidest move that was ever made. Both the US and the UN had to know the only ones that was going to hurt was the people of Iraq. It was a bonehead decision. Should have just finished the job right then and there.

 

Iraq is a mess and it's going to be a mess for a very long time. I don't think there was any way to avoid it from being a mess no matter how we went in after we left in the 90's. My problem wasn't numbers, it was the total lack of needed equipment we sent the guys in with that pissed me off. And our sand capable tanks and choppers don't seem very sand capable when the stuff gets near their engines.

 

Our military just really frustrates me. Not the soldiers but the other high level red tape shit that seems to constantly pop up and cause major problems.

[2GOLD 0]

And, to take this into the even more distant future, how does this War on Terror pan out once we're out of Iraq? When will the mission be complete in Afghanistan? I don't think we'll ever find Osama or his remains, ever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd say at least a decade to fix both of them and even then they will be a small infant that can be knocked over at any moment. It's our headache now and I hope the future government realizes that.

 

And if I hear more talk of us going into Iran, I think a ton of people in Mickey Mouse House need a slap in the mouth. Handling these two countries is going to take a bulk of our time and energy and going into Iran is an ENTIRELY different situation.

 

As for more troops...I don't know anymore. Eventually we have to make them stand on their own two feet and if they stumble badly, we go back in and help them. Right now, I'd hope 50,000 would be able to handle just sitting around and watching their back.

 

ETA: Stupid ass computer sending it as two posts....

[Art Sandusky 0]

Like I say, the horrid mismanagement and general malaise we're seeing is what happens when businessmen have been running the country for the last twenty-five years.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Kotzenjunge

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Like I tell say, the horrid mismanagement and general malaise we're seeing is what happens when businessmen have been running the country for the last twenty-five years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That wouldn't be such a bad thing if they weren't incompetent, unethical businessmen.

[SuperJerk 0]

I love this whole "Yeah...so what if it had nothing to do with terrorism or WMDs, because we had other reasons to go to war" argument that's being presented.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

I love this whole "Yeah...so what if it had nothing to do with terrorism or WMDs, because we had other reasons to go to war" argument that's being presented.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed.

 

I had given Bush the benefit of the doubt, thus far...Misleading and lying aren't necessarily the same thing.

 

This is out and out lying.

 

*just got Roundabout by Yes in his head.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I love this whole "Yeah...so what if it had nothing to do with terrorism or WMDs, because we had other reasons to go to war" argument that's being presented.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's the new marketing direction, since you can change the stated positions of a world power with the same attitude apparently. New Coke, sez I.

[The Czech Republic 0]

It's a cache-22

Oh shit, that's a whole collection of paradoxes. (Paradocies?)

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

but the newspaper was threatended by the Government there about printing the story, under some law, about not being able to print "secrets" unless they were obtained in the right way.

 

Like from a leak by a highly placed, anonymous source from within the Bush administration, for example!

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

IRAQ: Strategic City Stabilization Initiative

 

The United States Agency for International Development is seeking applications for an Assistance Agreement from qualified sources to design and implement a social and economic stabilization program impacting ten Strategic Cities, identified by the United States Government as critical to the defeat of the Insurgency in Iraq. The number of Strategic Cities may expand or contract over time. USAID plans to provide approximately $1,020,000,000 (~!) over two years to meet the objectives of the Program. An additional option year may be considered amounting to $300 million at the discretion of USAID. Funds are not yet available for this program.

 

Submit your proposals...

Edited December 6, 2005 by bigolsmitty

[Art Sandusky 0]

That's only a billion written out with all the zeroes. Not like it's some astronomical amount that we haven't dealt with already.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

That's only a billion written out with all the zeroes. Not like it's some astronomical amount that we haven't dealt with already.

 

That wasn't really my point. The point is that any schmuck off the street can get that money and anybody can send in proposals. So, to me, that is a lot of money.

[Art Sandusky 0]

But you're assuming some schmuck is actually going to get that money. Thinking it won't go to a corporation or firm that's in good with the government (no matter the side of the aisle) is delusional.