Saddam and al Qa'ida - why is Bush suppressing the evidence?

[Immortal Wombat]

The Pentagon released a statement last Saturday.

Several newspapers and other media outlets had egg on their face Monday after reporting or endorsing a Weekly Standard story revealing new evidence of an "operational relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

Several outlets, including the New York Post, The Washington Times and FOX News, ran with the story. There was just one problem: On Saturday, the Pentagon issued a press release stating that "news reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq ... are inaccurate."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ed...ent_id=2030480

There is no link. Boo hoo.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MRT144


god forbid someone criticize the right though. god forbid someone point out how wrong coulter is in her rants.

Criticize the right based upon their positions, MRT. Drop the ad hominems. Sure Coulter is wrong at times. But tell us why, like C-Cubed did in a recent post. Just labelling her a Nazi as did Rufus in his Nazi Barbie thread gets nowhere fast.

[Ned]

Immortal Wombat, ah hah! Bush is trying to suppress the leak!

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
Bush actually justified the war both on Saddam's attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons and upon Saddam's possession of bio and chem weapons. The potential of Saddam giving terrorists anthrax was a significant cause for the war.

On Atta, the report notes significant controversy surrounding the 2001 visit to Praque. However, this only diverts attention away from confirmed visits earlier, including the well documented visit in the Spring of 2000 and the Iraqi order for a wire transfer of funds.

Actually the pro-war press, did nothing to dismiss the insinuations that it was Saddam Hussein who was behind the Attack. If it was Saddam who was behind it, why would America attack Afghanistan first, when clearly that would then be the lesser 'clear and present danger'? No first the connection was made to Al-qaida, which had bases in Afghanistan. however since the US would not hand any evidence over to the Taliban, they had to refuse to hand over Osama bin Laden. This of course was presented as a reason to attack. Then Afghanistan is conquered, or rather Kabul is, now the focus shifts from Al-quida to Saddam.

Clearly Bush could not insinuate in his adress to the American nation that Al-qaida was in fact closely tied to Saddam Hussein, because that was a) untrue, or b) the people who stood behind Bush needed another reason to attack and therefore, not only was Saddam a terrorist, he was also developing nuclear weapons. Now if it indeed was true that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11, why would there be any need to cook up a story on him having nuclear weapons. Surely if Saddam was sugardaddy to Osama, there should be no reason to suspect that the American people would then not either jubilantly or grudgingly support that Iraq was indeed to be attacked.

And to restate, Bush unequivocally stated that the reason to attack Iraq was that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons. There has been absolutely no eveidence of that turning up as of yet. Neither has any chemical nor biological weapons turned up. The only thing poisonous in Iraq is the depleted Uranium shells left over from now two wars. So that means that even if Saddam Hussein indeed had any important role to play in influencing Al-qaida, he would not even then have the capability to supply Al-quida with WMDs.

Regarding Atta, why is so much effort being done to tie him to Saddam when I am not even sure that there has been any evidence that he could in fact be tied to Al-qaida? Seems like a smoke screen to me. And why is it so important to say that he met in 2001, when that is clearly controversial, when as you say there is evidence that they in fact met in 2000?

I think that you are completely overlooking the interest that various european intelligence people would have in a war between the US and the Muslim world. These people did not fight communism because they believed they were fighting to defend democracy. In fact, and I restate, I would seriosly consider the political affiliation of the British and the Italian intelligence services. And the new persons in the overhauled Czech one. Then I would consider what the political afiliation of Cheney, who overrided the CIA several times, was, if such blatant lies which goes under the name of intelligence reports are allowed to be passed on to the President. Finally I would consider if in fact it serves Americas interests to have a president who is unwilling to look through reports critically. But I would only do that if I did not believ that war was about oil, in which case such considerartions are fairly inconsequential.

But the point remains. Why is Bush being silent on this issue? Is he allowing the Dems to dig a deep hole so that he can bury them in it in next year's campaign? I think this is the reason.

It was suggested, (by Maclaughlin amongst others) in the weeks after the invasion of Iraq was completed, that Bush, was in fact holding back on any information on WMD, because it would seriously embarass the opposition if they were allowed to scream bloody murder, and then have the evidence shown to them in a shock revelation. No, I believe that this present attempt to say that Bush will pull a white rabbit out of his hat at some undisclosed time in the future, is so that now people will level off in their criticism.

The true reason that the reports are being muffled is that no report so far has proved itself capable of standing up to public scrutiny.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tripledoc

The true reason that the reports are being muffled is that no report so far has proved itself capable of standing up to public scrutiny.

You don't know this. But, still, you may be right. What Bush might be wanting to do is leak the report and have the press and others criticize it to see where the holes are, if any. Clearly Bush was extremely embarrassed by the forged documents from concerning Niger uranium.

As to the state of knowledge concerning the links between Saddam and al Qa'ida, clearly they are growing all the time as we capture senior al Qa'ida leaders and Saddam henchmen. I suspect the state of our information on cooperation between the two at the time of 9/11 was insufficient for our going after Iraq at that time.

As to your point about Bush justifying the war solely on the basis of Saddam acquiring nuclear weapons - well I do not remember it that way. I will conduct a little research to find out what Bush actually said and post back when I have it.

[Ned]

Here is a link to Bush's speech to the UN. I will quote a few excepts that clearly support my view:

"From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

....

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.
....
If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020912-1.html

[Tripledoc]

Actually now I think about it, the reason that Bush stated that Saddam was aquiring nuclear weapons was that perhaps there was the hope on behalf of the neo-cons of lowering the nuclear treshold, meaning the point at which it becomes politically accepteable to use such weapons. If in fact Saddam had used nuclear or other kinds of WMD, against Iraq, the US would have to respond in kind. Probably with tactical nukes, nevertheless, that would set the stage for further use of nukes against Iran and North Korea. Unfortunately for the neo-cons Saddam either thought that he had a nuclear weapons capability, and could not employ it because his scientists handed him false information, or he knew that he in fact did not have them, but decided to wear down any attacker in guerilla warfare. Then again he might have them in possesion, but is refraining from using them.


So Al-Qu'ida was the smokescreen to go after Saddam, which it was hoped would provide the smokescreen for going after North korea and Iran.

[Ned]

Tripledoc, was that last post a joke or were you serious?

[Tripledoc]

January 28 2003
President Delivers "State of the Union"

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.



March 17, 2003
President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

......

Bush mentions nuclear weapons connected with Iraq two days before the attack. Furthermore he is insinuationg that Iraq is working with Al-Qa'ida.

[Ned]

I'm sorry, Tripledoc, but your own quotes only reinforce my prior statements. President Bush did not limit his remarks solely to nuclear weapons as you contend. He specifically included biological weapons in all speeches and specifically mentioned anthrax in his UN speech.

[Tripledoc]

Yes but the UN speech was from september 2002, and does not mention nuclear weapons. In his later speeches in January and March 2003 he does mention nuclear weapons. That means that the threat perpective was deliberately made more grave. And there was no evidence supporting such gravity. It does trigger a different psychological response in humans if they believe they are potential targets of nuclear attacks, than if it is 'only' bio-cemical weapons, as these are not, and rightfully so, considered as devastating as nuclear weapons.

[Ned]

Tripledoc, I agree with your statement. The nuclear threat was more threatening. But it still does not change the fact that Bush never dropped the other WMDs from the threat equation.

[Drake Tungsten]

Chegitz and Ramo are both WRONG

Good work, Ted.

[mrmitchell]

A joke.

Q. Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, a Smart Blonde, and the Iraq-Al Quida link all jump out of a plane. Which one hits the ground first?

A. No one. None of them exist.

[Berzerker]

If Bush has actual evidence of this connection and is holding back to sandbag his opponents, it better be irrefutable evidence because lots of people will just start after all the BS this administration has thrown at us. I mean, c'mon, virtually nothing they've said has been true but now we're supposed to believe them? Fool me once...shame on...umm...you...fool me twice...umm...won't get fooled again...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MRT144
god forbid someone criticize the right though. god forbid someone point out how wrong coulter is in her rants.

Hey, NED is the one who worships her. I hereby disassociate myself from any comments made by Ned or Coulter.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
If Bush has actual evidence of this connection and is holding back to sandbag his opponents, it better be irrefutable evidence because lots of people will just start after all the BS this administration has thrown at us. I mean, c'mon, virtually nothing they've said has been true but now we're supposed to believe them? Fool me once...shame on...umm...you...fool me twice...umm...won't get fooled again...

I have to admit, that's funny

[Ned]

Originally posted by skywalker


Hey, NED is the one who worships her. I hereby disassociate myself from any comments made by Ned or Coulter.

Methinks, Skywalker, that you are insufficiently zealous.

[orange]

.

[Berzerker]

[DRoseDARs]