- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 59,366
- Reaction score
- 27,052
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Cheney says that they found links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I'm sure there were links. But did Cheney ever say that Iraq was involved in 9/11?
[Cheney] described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Neither the CIA nor the congressional joint inquiry that investigated the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon found any evidence linking Iraq to the hijackers or the attacks. President Bush corrected Cheney's statement several days later.
Cheney says that they found links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I'm sure there were links. But did Cheney ever say that Iraq was involved in 9/11?
Letter linking Iraq and al-Qa'eda was forged by US spies says new book
The White House ordered the CIA to forge a hand-written letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein fabricating a visit by an al-Qa'eda operative two months before the September 11th attacks, according to a new book.
Ron Suskind claimed in "The Way of the World" that the letter was designed to portray a fictitious link between the dictator's regime and al'Qa'eda as a justification for the Iraq war.
Branding Mr Suskind's book "gutter journalism", the White House flatly denied as "absurd" any notion that it had ordered any forgery.
Suskind writes that the letter's author, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, had been in contact with the Bush administration and MI6 before the March 2003 invasion.
"The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001," Suskind writes.
"It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq - thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qa'eda, something the Vice President's Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link."
The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a senior Iraqi intelligence official stating "there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion".
Suskind states that according to Nigel Inkster, the former assistant director of MI6, the intelligence service sent Michael Shipster, one of its top officers, to Jordan for meetings with Mr Habbush. Suskind writes that Mr Inkster confirmed that Mr Shipster was told by Mr Habbush that there were no illicit weapons in Iraq.
Mr Inkster added that Saddam was focused on his own image and was worried about how he was viewed by Iran, and that Saddam didn't think a US invasion "was a serious proposition".
Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of British intelligence, was also interviewed by Suskind, who writes that Sir Richard confirmed Mr Shipster's meetings and report.
Suskind says he asked why Mr Blair did not act on the spy's intelligence and Sir Richard is quoted as saying that Mr Shipster's mission was an eleventh-hour "attempt to try, as it were, I'd say, to diffuse [sic] the whole situation".
The former spy chief added: "The problem was the Cheney crowd was in too much of a hurry, really. Bush never resisted them quite strongly enough. Yes, it was probably too late, I imagine, for Cheney. I'm not sure it was too late for Bush."
The letter's existence was first reported in December 2003 after a copy was passed to The Sunday Telegraph by a member of Iraq's transitional government
I would say the bar kept getting raised.
How is this news?I'm telling you folks this guy is pathetic..now that investigations are progressing and information is coming out in reguards to the Bush Administrations apparent motivatons for torturing people Cheney comes out and makes this stunning admission..why now?On whether Hussein helped al-Qaeda carry out the 2001 terrorist attacks, Cheney said, “I do not believe, and I have never seen any evidence, that he was involved in 9/11.”
Wow. Have you actually read the resolution? Because, really, what you just said is not in the least bit true.
It is true that the administration focused on Iraq's alleged WMD's and Iraq's desire to restrict WMD inspections... But the resolution voted on by congree alleged many other items including the repression of the citizens of Iraq and the stability of the Middle East.
But, don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.
How is this news?
Cheney never claimed there was a link between Iraq and 9-11.
[Cheney] described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Neither the CIA nor the congressional joint inquiry that investigated the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon found any evidence linking Iraq to the hijackers or the attacks. President Bush corrected Cheney's statement several days later.
It should be reiterated that until it became clear that GWB was willing to actuallly do something about it, there was never any question as to the considerable threat Iraq posed to the region, to the US and to our allies.But don't you see? It was all predicated on fear in a post-9/11 world. That's the only real reason I believe Congress voted in favor of going to war with Iraq. The U.S. and the world at-large had known about the genicide Saddam committed upon his people, but was it America's business to step in and stop that?
And granted, Saddam may not have had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, and Saddam and Osama may have been "friends...associates", but I remain firm in the belief that less you have concrete evidence of a opposing government or so-called rogue nation's intent to do the U.S. harm, you don't invade another soverign nation. No matter how you slice it, the Iraq War was just wrong.
I don't get it, whoever said Saddam had something to do with 9/11. I thought it was about not complying with UN resolutions.
It should be reiterated that until it became clear that GWB was willing to actuallly do something about it, there was never any question as to the considerable threat Iraq posed to the region, to the US and to our allies.
THAT threat was only enhanced in a post 9/11 world.
Look, its not MY assessment...How? When did Iraq ever pose a real threat to the U.S. or it's interest abroad?
How? When did Iraq ever pose a real threat to the U.S. or it's interest abroad?
Vladimir Putin warned Bush several times that Saddam was planning attacks against the US and US targets.
It was on CNN, LA Times, Fox, ....
There are videos of him saying it.
[Cheney] described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Neither the CIA nor the congressional joint inquiry that investigated the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon found any evidence linking Iraq to the hijackers or the attacks. President Bush corrected Cheney's statement several days later.
Hey, don't you know that CIA started lying to Congress after January 20, 2001?Look, its not MY assessment...
-------------------------------
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,)
and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
-------------------------
Your 'Iraq was not a threat" issue is with these people, not me.
Of course, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. However, there was also a genuine belief in the Democratic Peace Principle and the domino effect such an action would have in the region. They legitimately believed (and may well still believe) that 25 years from now, the region will be far more stable than it would have been otherwise, thus meaning a better situation for us. They may be right.
Hey, don't you know that CIA started lying to Congress after January 20, 2001?But they also started lying to Congress before 2001 in preparation for the Bush Administration.
Not at all true. We went to war in Iraq in 1998, if you recall correctly.We always knew Iraq posed a threat (Gulf War???). We also know Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Saudia Arabia, China, and Russia pose a threat.
The point is are the threats worth acting on? Previous leaders didn't think so.
Based on the idea that, after 9-11, things had changed.Bush and his admin felt evidence had presented itself that the known threat of Saddam was NOW worth acting on.
Look at some of Bush's earliest speeches on the issue. You'll find that the fomentation of democracy and civil rights in Iraq are high on the list of priorities.
AFTER 9/11
AFTER 9/11
AFTER 9/11
Now why don't you come back when you can prove Putin was lying. Go now.
How is this news?
Cheney never claimed there was a link between Iraq and 9-11.
From the 9/11 Commission Report: 9/11 Commission Contradicts Bush/Cheney: No Link Between Al-Qaida and SaddamThe Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq.
On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator ``had long established ties with al-Qaida.''
Defending their record in office these past eight years, figures from the last administration seem especially touchy on the subject of torture. Led by the former vice president, Dick Cheney, they have argued that there was no torture, preferring more vague and delicate terms such as “enhanced interrogation” or simply “the program.” They have insisted that any harsh tactics were used only to extract “actionable intelligence” from recalcitrant terrorists in order to save “thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands” of innocent lives.
But now we are learning that those methods, long banned as torture in our own laws and treaties, may well have been employed for a very different and deeply nefarious purpose: to justify the dubious invasion of Iraq by falsely connecting Saddam Hussein’s regime to al-Qaida and the 9/11 attacks.
Truthdig - Reports - Cheney and the Iraq-Torture LinkA former top aide to Colin Powell recently revealed that a Libyan prisoner was brutalized by Egyptian intelligence agents, at the behest of the Bush White House, until he talked about a connection between Saddam and al-Qaida. (That man, who later recanted those statements, which he said had been made under torture, has supposedly killed himself in a prison cell in his homeland, so he is no longer around to offer any inconvenient testimony.)
A pair of retired senior intelligence officials told former NBC News investigative producer Robert Windrem that in April 2003 the vice president’s office itself suggested the waterboarding of a former Iraqi intelligence official captured in Baghdad, in order to make him talk about the mythical ties between his government and al-Qaida. A series of reports have indicated that torture was used to elicit the same false testimony from Abu Zubaydah, an al-Qaida operative subjected to waterboarding literally dozens of times—even though he had begun to cooperate with FBI interrogators.
Despite the expected denials of such gross misconduct emanating from the intelligence community, some of the most damning evidence came from Mr. Cheney’s own mouth. Back in 2004, according to the McClatchy Newspapers, he boasted to the Rocky Mountain News (a Denver daily that has since ceased publishing) that the fruits of interrogation had vindicated him.
When a Rocky Mountain News reporter asked whether he still stood by earlier statements linking Saddam to the terrorist perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, despite demurrals from Mr. Powell, Mr. Cheney replied: “We know for example from interrogating detainees in Guantanamo that al-Qaida sent individuals to Baghdad to be trained in ... chemical and biological weapons technology.” He went on to predict that when all of the Saddam regime’s records were examined, there would be “ample evidence confirming the link.”
Five years later, there is still no evidence confirming the link. There is persuasive evidence, however, that Gitmo prisoners were tortured on orders from the Bush White House, where Mr. Cheney commandeered authority on such matters. Former U.S. Army psychiatrist Maj. Charles Burney told Army investigators in 2006 that he and other interrogators at the detainee camp had been ordered to focus on a certain topic, without success, despite resorting to those “enhanced” techniques.
“While we were there, a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al-Qaida and Iraq, and we were not successful in establishing a link between al-Qaida and Iraq,” Major Burney testified.
As Mr. Cheney no doubt knows, prisoners enduring torture can be induced to say almost anything to ease their pain and fear. American Special Forces are trained to resist those ugly methods precisely because they have been used by totalitarian regimes to extract false confessions for centuries.
It is hard to imagine anything more disturbing than the use of torture by the U.S. government in seeking to justify an aggressive and unjustified war, which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. Now we need to know whether those awful offenses were perpetrated on Mr. Cheney’s watch—by fully empowering a truth commission to take testimony from him and his associates under oath.
Not at all true. We went to war in Iraq in 1998, if you recall correctly.
Based on the idea that, after 9-11, things had changed.
A perfectly legitimate position.
Congress thought it was worth acting on, and so did the UN.We always knew Iraq posed a threat (Gulf War???). We also know Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Saudia Arabia, China, and Russia pose a threat.
The point is are the threats worth acting on? Previous leaders didn't think so. Bush and his admin felt evidence had presented itself that the known threat of Saddam was NOW worth acting on. Or they just required less evidence to attack people then the Democrats do.
“While we were there, a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al-Qaida and Iraq, and we were not successful in establishing a link between al-Qaida and Iraq,” Major Burney testified.
Congress thought it was worth acting on, and so did the UN.
Of course Congress did. The American people wanted blood and the politicians weren't going to risk losing their seats by opposing the citizens. A huge black mark for our politicians in my eyes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?