The media report the Senate says there was no connection between UBL/Al Qaeda and Saddam for 9/ll. They're right. There's still not enough evidence to suggest they colluded for 9/ll.
But we knew this. Why did the Senate Democratic "leadership" and their hand maidens in the media choose to trumpet this "story"? After hearing about the clear connections a 9/ll commissioner was shocked here. And why didn't the Senate/Media include other connections besides training camps? Read Tom Joscelyn's reaction/response here and find out what was left on the cutting room floor. Read his latest piece in the Weekly Standard. And what about these connections? Why did the Clinton administration allege an allegiance between the two when it indicted UBL in 1997-8 (which did a whole lot of good, didn't it?) And what about these connections? And these? (here's a nay sayers site here. Note the cogent 'arguments.') Here's the one about the mother of all connections.
We DO know however there were plenty of connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq for years before our invasion.
From the LA Times:
The 356-page report is certain to fuel the election-season debate over the administration's foreign policy at a time when Bush is seeking to shore up support for the war in Iraq through a series of speeches that cast the conflict as central to winning the larger war on terrorism.
Bush on Thursday again asserted that the battle in Iraq was inextricably linked to Al Qaeda, and disparaged those who considered it a "diversion" from the war on terrorism.
White House spokesman Tony Snow on Friday downplayed the significance of the report, describing it as "nothing new."
"It's … kind of relitigating things that happened three years ago," Snow said. "In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had, and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on."
The report's publication was marked by intense political wrangling within the Republican-controlled Intelligence Committee, with two GOP members — Sens. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska — breaking ranks to vote in favor of conclusions drafted by Democrats.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
No Connection? On 9/11? So far, they're right, but ALL CONNECTIONS? Is that what this Senate report says? They're kidding, right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Found in the 911 Commission Report;
Page 134: In February 1999,Allen proposed flying a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had coverage. Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.” Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually impossible” to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.134 Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight,but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and “Pak[istan’s]intel[ligence service] is in bed with” Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: “Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.”135 Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad,Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight. Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred.136
Page 358: Lacking a management strategy for the war on terrorism or ways to see how
funds were being spent across the community, DCI Tenet and his aides found it difficult to develop an overall intelligence community budget for a war on terrorism.
Responsibility for domestic intelligence gathering on terrorism was vested solely in the FBI, yet during almost all of the Clinton administration the relationship between the FBI Director and the President was nearly nonexistent.
Jim Thompson former governor of Illinois and member of the 9-11 Commission: When asked by Soledad O’Brien on CNNs Good Morning America on 18 June 2004: "So we hear from both President Bush and Dick Cheney clearly there was a relationship. Does your report contradict what the White House is saying?"
Thompson answered: Not at all. In fact, the report says that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are correct. It's a little mystifying to me why some elements of the press have tried to stir this up as a big controversy and a big point of contradiction because there is none. We said there's no evidence to support the notion that Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein collaborated together to produce 9/11. President Bush said that weeks ago. He said it again yesterday. The vice president said it again yesterday. I said it again yesterday in television interviews. What we did I say was there were contacts between Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi administration of Saddam Hussein, and the president has said there were contacts. The vice president has said there were contacts. They may be in possession of information about contacts beyond those that we found, I don't know. That wasn't any of our business. Our business was 9/11. So there is no controversy; there's no contradiction, and this is not an issue.
amazing the liberals. haven't seen this Duco-drama and are calling it scandal.all I can say is there must be some true facts. that hit home for there hero Billie.
Post a Comment