The media is misrepresenting the 9/11 committee's findings.

[former conservative]

The media is deliberately lying about the 9/11 committee's findings, incorrectly portraying the facts. The fact is that the 9/11 committee was supposed to investigate 9/11, and that is in fact what they did. They investigated it, and they released their findings. The committee found that it could not be proven that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of September 11th, something the Bush administration never asserted.

Despite the fact that the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Muhammed Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official, the U.S. never was able to confirm this, nor refute it. The committee was not able to confirm nor refute this either. So the committee asserts that they can not prove that Saddam was behind September 11th, and the media misquotes the commission and misleads the American public by lying about the relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Queda. The media blatantly lies about this relationship, lying about the commission's findings.

The fact is, the link between Saddam Hussein and al Queda has been fairly well substantiated. The 9/11 commission was never supposed to investigate that broader connection, nor did it. The commission simply investigated whether or not Saddam was behind 9/11, and while there was some evidence supporting it, no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 could be proven. It amazes me how the media lies like this. The New York Times ran a headline saying that the commission found no link between Saddam and al Queda, a blatant lie. The Times is not the only offender, rather, the media in general is running similar stories, deliberately misleading the American public.

Dick Cheney, a man I must admit I do not like, does present compeeling evidence, saying that the relationship "involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials. It involves a senior official, a brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence service going to the Sudan before bin Laden ever went to Afghanistan to train them in bomb-making, helping teach them how to forge documents. Mr. Zarqawi, who's in Baghdad today, is an al-Qaida associate who took refuge in Baghdad, found sanctuary and safe harbor there before we ever launched into Iraq. There's a Mr. Yasin, who was a World Trade Center bomber in '93, who fled to Iraq after that and we found since when we got into Baghdad, documents showing that he was put on the payroll and given housing by Saddam Hussein after the '93 attack; in other words, provided safe harbor and sanctuary."

Now, that seems pretty compelling to me, and while I don't necessarily like to agree with Dick, I have to admit I agree with the evidence he has presented. Now, I am a liberal with misgivings about the war in Iraq, but I do realize that there was in fact a relationship between Saddam and al Queda. I realize I might get flamed for saying this, but I do believe it. The point I am trying to make here is that I am fed up with the spin the media is putting on this. There, I said my piece.

[redqueen]

1. No sale!

:puke:

[treepig]

2. not sure if the "former"

really applies . . .

[former conservative]

6. Hold on there...

I am 17 years old. As a child, I was indoctrinated into the conservative ideology by my archconservative parents. As I grew up, I accepted what they said at face value. But then I reached the age of fifteen, and I started to really think. I read conservative books, and they weren't really making sense. I then began to read liberal books, and something clicked. I became a liberal. Now, I am as liberal as ever, and I am offended by your implication that I am still a conservative. Make no mistake...I am a liberal.

[redqueen]

12. For a liberal

you seem to be soaking up a lot of right-wing BS.

Just because there were several incidental meetings over a 10 year period does not mean they were in cahoots. The failure of the chickenhawks to make their case says everything that needs to be said.

[wyldwolf]

14. I'm willing to cut him some slack... he's just a kid

[GiovanniC]

18. You're The Most Liberal Person I've Ever Heard Of

What with your assertion that "the link between Saddam Hussein and al Queda has been fairly well substantiated" and that Dick Cheney "presents compelling evidence" of that.

Oh, and the sig doesn't give you away at all, either.

[redqueen]

26. I like that quote actually

one o my favorite films. :)

[GiovanniC]

38. Mr. President, I'm beginning to smell a big fat Commie rat.

n/t

[robbedvoter]

3. Nice try. Read the IWR: the connection is assrerted there (and 1000

other places). Air America played about 10 versions today.

[killbotfactory]

There's no evidence of a relationship

Al Qaeda contacted a bunch of middle eastern gov'ts asking for help, including Iraq. Iraq rebuked them. That's all that happened.

There is no evidence Atta ever met with Iraqi's.

Let this bullshit die.

[curlyred]

4. "Fairly well substantiated?" post your link, then

Nothing from Newsmax, please, or any of those other right wing rags.

[Spazito]

5. Given that the US invaded a sovereign country based on this...

UNPROVEN statement, I would suggest that the media, for a change, got it right. Would you not think that it was up to the bush administration to provide PROOF that there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, especially to the commission investigating 9/11. The fact that they presented NO such proof says everything, imo.

[former conservative]

16. You are missing my point.

The point I am trying to make is that the Bush administration never asserted Saddam was tied to 9/11. He never said that. The only evidence connecting Saddam to 9/11, unconfirmed evidence, I might add, was that thing with Atta. I do not believe that. The 9/11 commission didn't either. But, on the question of a broader relationship between Saddam and al Queda, the commission never addressed this. This broader connection has been shown, and I absolutely believe it. The problem is, the media is lying about the commission's findings, saying that the commission found no relationship on a broad scale between Saddam and al Queda, something the commission NEVER INVESTIGATED. It is this broader relationship, though, that the evidence supports.

[daa]

24. Bushes own words

Statement by President George W. Bush

"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations."

Source: President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003).

Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."

Source: President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003).

[redqueen]

28. Define "broader relationship"

There is waaaaaay too much reich-wing spin in your posts.

[merh]

29. please enlighten us then, why is it GW & his admin, ordered the invasion

of Iraq, a weaker nation that had been contained for 13 years?

[papau]

32. Bush administration never asserted Saddam was tied to 9/11? -read

a few of the speeches leading up to the war

Saddam was part of Osama's support network and might give him WMD at any time was the sales pitch.


We know Osama did not have WMD.

A lot of folk have small missiles like Iraq did. Why did we attack Iraq rather then them? Why did every sentence say "in a post 9/11 world we must attack Saddam" if not to tie Saddam to 9/11 - and indeed it worked - about 35% or more of the population thinks Saddam is in some way involved - if only a little bit - in 911. A con job well sold by Bush and the media.

As to "broader connection has been shown" we have Iraqi intel meeting Osama friends.

Shall we discuss CIA meeting Osama friends - say at the hospital in Oman in the summer of 01 as reported in the French Press - but not the US Press? the point is that any such meetings - CIA or Iraqi - with Saddam - do not mean squat in terms of a justification to go to war. Indeed If the Americans that met with Osama in Oman - and the CIA fellow in Oman - were doing anything I'll let someone PROVE that "anything" before I'd ask for the CIA's head on a platter - so to speak - a bad image to use today I guess.

LIHOP - not MIHOP - is on the table unless more facts come out. Likewise, the committee did show a "broader connection" to do anything - and they say they could not find such a connection.

The right wing spin "broader connection" is no doubt what our media will try to sell this weekend - and that is why our media is seen by most as media whores.

Well I am off to the South for a few days -

I will of course try to check into DU - but the grandkids have the priority!

till later!

[shance]

39. You have no point Former.

You have nothing but a post of essentially empty chatter.

Where are your facts?

Where is your *compelling* evidence?

What you do seem to have is a marketing thread for Dick Cheney.

Thats how I read it.

[Spazito]

48. The broader connection was shown where? Where is the PROOF

of the connection??? Your belief does not equate to proof nor does Cheney or bush's belief equate as proof. Please, if you have PROOF of that connection please provide it otherwise it is pure conjecture and would have little merit.

[Mountainman]

50. Why did you and 71% of the people believe Saddam was connected to 9/11?

Jeez, it must have been some kind of mental telepathy if no one said it out loud?
Even if he didn't say the exact words it was his administration that put that message out via blast fax to all conservative mouth pieces they could.

Bush is the head of that administration.

[Walt Starr]

7. WOW, I thought my browser went to the wrong site for a second

I'm not buying the shit you're pawning off.

[GiovanniC]

8. Hahahahaha!

Nice try, "former" conservative.

[kentuck]

9. When they reported "no credible evidence"...

That meant it could not be proved or disproved. You do not send people to die under such circumstances. This is evidence that should be in your hand before you go to war, even if you luck up and find the evidence later, it is a stupid and irrational decision. The media has not lied - Bush and Cheney have lied. If the CIA says there is no credible evidence, what gives them the right to say they don't know what they are talking about??

[former conservative]

23. You are mistaken.

What are you talking about? The commission never said anything about a broad link between Saddam and al Queda! The commission was only supposed to investigate 9/11 and that is what it did! The commission never even investigated a broad link between Saddam and al Queda! The CIA said there was no credible evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, but there certainly is credible evidence, much of it I might add, linking Saddam to al Queda. Perhaps we need a commission to investigate that! But, the way the media is portraying it, it seems the 9/11 commission did and found nothing. Heh.

[curlyred]

27. Why don't you back up your assertions?

In case you missed it, we're pretty big on that kind of thing around here. Post some sources--not Newsmax or those right wing rags--that back up what you are saying about the credible evidence linking Saddam and Al Quaeda, and you will have an easier time with this discussion.

[scarletwoman]

36. Put up or shut up

SHOW us this "credible evidence". Since you are asserting that it exists, then post a link or cite a source. Back up what you're saying with some actual documentation.

Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out of your nether regions.

[kentuck]

40. There is an article in Weekly Standard....

but I do not consider that credible evidence. What other sources are you talking about? How do we know these terrorists were in Iraq when we invaded? How come we didn't put them on the infamous deck of cards? We had no evidence they were there. After the fact, and after the massive debacle, now we have conservatives looking for any excuse to validate the invasion, no matter how many experts disagree with them. It all depends on what the definition of "is" is...seems to be their argument.

[papau]

41. the 9/11 commission did and found nothing - yes that is indeed what they

said -

why is that so hard to accept?

The various talking head shows will be rebroadcast and yoy will get a second and third chance to see commission folks sayting exactly that thet went looking for links of Saddam to al Queda - and found none showing any co-operation between the two.

They found a few meetings - which they said appear to have lead to no co-operation between the two.

Seems pretty clear.

[democraticgator]

10. riiiiiight

So, using your logic, since there were al queda agents training in the United States at our flight schools then they must have been links between Al Queda and America. This is an outrage, we should definitely bomb the flight schools they trained at and torture the instructors for any information they may hold about the terrorists. MORAN.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

20. ...and since Al Queda agents were training in the U.S.

that makes us a nation which gives aid to terrorists, and under the "Bush Doctrine" (which Jon Stewart last night showed Cheney stating: "Any state who allows terrorists to exist within its borders will be considered a sponsor of terrorism"), then we are obligated to attack ourselves, remove our leader (and show him being examined for lice), and then occupy ourselves.

It's all so simple if you're a neocon.

[redqueen]

31. Yes, but remember the asterisk

* doctrine not valid in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen or Pakistan.

[wyldwolf]

11. Not really. O'Reilly and the like are playing on semantics

Their bone of contention:

The media says there was no connection between Saddam and al Queda when in fact the 911 Commission said (essentially) there was no credible or collaborative connection.

However, the only connection that is (or would be) important to the American people would be a collaborative connection.

O'Reilly, for example, builds his case by stating that one of the terrorists involved in 9/11 was treated at one time in a hospital owned by one of Saddam's sons. "See" O'Reilly says, "THAT is a connection!"

But... so?

You and I are now connected. We have ties to each other because I responded to you on a message board. If you one day you rob a bank, I'm not guilty by association.

Sure - top Saddam people are rumored to have met with Al Queda (no compelling evidence) in the mid 90s but they were rebuffed.

So... so what?

[Banjo]

13. Something the Bush administration never asserted?

If the media lets the adminstration get away with that, then they ARE deliberately lying.

"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." - Dick Cheney, September 7, 2003

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

[wyldwolf]

15. Let's cut the kid some slack. He's 17. Nurture him

[luaneryder]

17. Perhaps you thinnk the media is lying

this time because it has been hijacked by this administration for so long, and lying for this administration, that when they finally, finally do tell something that is true, you can't believe it. Can you not see how BushCo has manipulated the American people through manipulation of mainstream media? Please think some more on this and look at all the lies that have been put forth as fact. The media is just now, just barely, beginning to do what it is supposed to do.

[loudsue]

19. Read My Lips: There was NO connection. There was NO connection.

There was NO connection. But there sure is a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda NOW!! Thanks to George dubya bush!!!

:kick::kick::kick:

[former conservative]

30. Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Look, I hate George W. Bush. I hate Dick Cheney. I hate a lot of these conservative zealots. But the fact remains that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Queda, and it was not a lot of refuted advances, as some of you are asserting. There was an ongoing relationship. Come on people, this case could be easily won in court!

[redqueen]

33. I'm wondering if it's so obvious, why are there no links to sources?

Where are you getting the information that there was an ongoing 'relationship'?

[Cat Atomic]

46. Like what?

Back it up with links, or I'll assume you're full of shit.

[Beaverhausen]

21. Get yourself a copy of "The Truth Uncovered"

and watch for yourself the Bushies blaming 9/11 on Iraq.

http://www.truthuncovered.com/home.cfm

or go see Michael Moore's "Farenheit 9/11" when it opens next week.

[former conservative]

25. Show me a quote.

Show me a quote where Bush or Cheney explicitly asserts that Saddam was directly involved in the 9/11 plot, and where they are not just citing that Czech intelligence report. Please, I will wait.

[redqueen]

35. While you wait for that

would you *please* show the rest of us *anything* (not in a reich-wing rag, that is) that backs up YOUR assertions?

Pretty please?

[merh]

45. without a quote I wish you would explain to me why our government

invaded Iraq. What justification did Bushco have for waging war and occupying another nation? Iraq never attacked us. The only basis for our invasion was the war on terrorism, i.e., retaliation for 9/11.

You my friend, would lose in court.

[Beaverhausen]

47. Here are two

“After the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, we will not allow grave threats to go unopposed. We are now working to locate and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This is a historic moment. Just over a month ago, not all that long ago, a cruel dictator ruled a country, ruled Iraq by torture and fear. His regime was allied with terrorists, and the regime was armed with weapons of mass destruction. Today, that regime is no more.”
— President Bush, Speech to workers at Abrams tank plant in Lima, Ohio, April 24, 2003.


“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.”
— President Bush, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4752.htm

[papau]

49. The quotes are of them warning thatwe can not wait until Saddam gives Osam

those nasty weapons of mass destrction - implying that Osama and Saddam would work together.

The implication was a lie. They knew it was a lie.

and indeed they said that they only lied so as to sell the war to all of us (and yes there are quotes from Bush folks out there which I am paraphrasing now - use your google to find them please.)

The real reason for war was that Saddam might be a threat in the future - and that just was not enough to sell a war to the voters.

[slutticus]

22. Saw the same crap on...

O'reilly last night... And what about the "high level contact" between Rummy and Hussein. How soon we forget.

"Warning, You are entering a No-spin zone"

Ha!

The point is that the American people were mis-lead into believing that Saddam was involved. That's why our men and women are dying every day.

[papau]

42. Well said :-)

:-)

[Beam Me Up]

34. Yeah, all the evidence disappeared with Vreeland

:crazy:

http://www.guerrillanews.com/wildcard/vreeland_one

[redqueen]

37. I was just thinking about him last night!

I had completely forgotten and was wondering about how that was going.

Thanks for the link.

[Beam Me Up]

52. My pleasure, RQ

I think it is interesting there has been so little follow-up on this bizarre story. He claimed to be carrying documentation that connected Iraq (specifically one of Sadam's sons) to 9/11. From what I could gather at the time, Vreeland believed what he was carrying was authentic. I was never convinced--not only of THAT particular question, but the much larger questions surrounding Vreeland.

All in all, however, the thing that stands out in my mind is HOW STRANGELY SIMILAR THE MYSTERY OF VREELAND IS TO THAT OF NICK BERG. I'm not referring to the people themselves as being "similar" but of the peculiarities that surround them.

Who ever controls your perception of reality controls you.

[loudsue]

51. Vreeland was "disappeared".....

They finally got him. Nobody has heard anything about his whereabouts, and if I remember the final chapter correctly, he evidently didn't "run off" and hide somewhere. He was on the way to meet his son, or something, but Vreeland never showed.

:kick:

[Beam Me Up]

53. Very possibly.

I don't think Vreeland was the type of person who could remain incommunicado very long. He needed an audience -- or perhaps we should say, his CHARACTER needed an audience. About the man himself what do we have but spook and mirrors?

[Cat Atomic]

43. Hannity's site is... -> thataway.

[Career Prole]

44. Former Conservative...a question, if you please. You say...

..."Dick Cheney, a man I must admit I do not like, does present compeeling(sic) evidence"
If Cheney has presented such evidence to you, do yourself a favor and present it here and allow us to judge it on its merits, if any.
Don't give us "because he said there's compelling evidence", because quite frankly Cheney's been lying about all sorts of "compelling evidence" for a few years now.
In short he's a deceitful sack of shit, and if you actually believe this one after all the other lies then I'd have to say you just don't pay much attention, my friend.
I hold my government to a higher standard of proof than "Dick says" or "Dubya says" or "Donny says". Unpatriotic? No, not at all. They brought it on themselves. They no longer deserve our trust, and you're unwise to give them yours.

[Spazito]

54. Interesting, Condi is pushing the same contention as you are...

and the 9/11 commission heads are stating this in response:

The Sept. 11 commission's staff report said there had been contact between Iraqis and al Qaeda members including a Sudan meeting between al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and Iraqi intelligence officers.

But the panel concluded that Iraq never responded to a bin Laden request for help and said there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship."

Link to the article:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=4&u=/nm/20040618/ts_nm/iraq_bush_rice_dc

[Moderator]

55. Locking.....

The author is no longer with us.


DU Moderator