Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: WikiLeaks provides the truth Bush obscured
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy ... 2903248.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Published: Nov 29, 2010
Author: Richard Cohen
Post Date: 2010-11-29 14:46:04 by go65
Keywords: None
Views: 29895
Comments: 57
Say what you want about WikiLeaks - and I don't much like what it has done - it nevertheless would be useful for its founder, Julian Assange, to follow George W. Bush as he lopes around the country, promoting his new book, "Decision Points." When, for instance, Bush attempts to justify the Iraq war by saying the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, Assange could reach into his bag of leaked U.S. government cables and cite Saudi King Abdullah's private observation that the war had given Iraq to Iran as a "gift on a golden platter." Iraq now has a Shiite-dominated government and many senior officials who are ominously friendly with Iran. It was always American policy to use Saddam's Iraq to counterbalance Iran since it was really Iran that posed a danger to the region. That danger is now amply documented in the new WikiLeaks documents - including the revelation that North Korea has sold Iran missiles capable of reaching, say, Tel Aviv or, a minute or so later, Cairo. To a certain extent the leaked documents contain the rawest form of gossip. It is amusing to learn that Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi is psychologically gridlocked with all sorts of neurotic ticks and will not travel without his Ukrainian nurse, described as a "voluptuous blonde." It is good to see that parody of a blowhard, Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, characterized as being in the pocket of Russia's Vladimir Putin and fun to wonder, in a Scrooge McDuck moment, how Afghanistan's vice president was able to take $52 million in cash out of the country and get it through customs in the United Arab Emirates last year when you and I get stopped for having a small bottle of shampoo. Something's wrong here, I suspect. The Arab world's alarm at the imminence of an Iranian bomb is on full display in the leaked documents - as is the Obama administration's methodical and effective attempts to isolate Tehran. Saudi Arabia's Abdullah implored Washington to "cut off the head of the snake" while there was still time, and the United Arab Emirates "agreed with [U.S. Gen. John P.] Abizaid that Iran's new President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad seemed unbalanced, crazy even." Some months later the Emirates' defense chief, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi, told Abizaid that the United States needed to take action against Iran "this year or next." If cables from Jordan and Egypt could be read, they would be no different. The (Sunni) Arab world loathes and fears Iran on sectarian grounds and also because it espouses a revolutionary doctrine of the sort kings and dictators find disquieting. This is the world George Bush left us. It exists everywhere but in his book, where facts are either omitted or rearranged so that the war in Iraq seems the product of pure reason. As my colleague, the indefatigably indefatigable Walter Pincus, has pointed out, Bush manages to bollix up both the chronology and the importance of the various inspections of Iraq's weapons systems so as to suggest that any other president given the same set of facts would have gone to war. "I had tried to address the threat from Saddam Hussein without war," he writes. On that score, he is simply not credible. The accumulating evidence at the time showed that Iraq lacked a nuclear weapons program and did not have biological weapons either. As for its chemical weapons program, while harder to ferret out, it not only no longer existed, but even if it had, it was insufficient reason to go to war. Poison gas has been around since the Second Battle of Ypres. That was 1915. "The absence of WMD stockpiles did not change the fact that Saddam was a threat," Bush writes. Heads he wins, tails you lose. Reading Bush's book, seeing him in his various TV appearances, I keep thinking of Menachem Begin, the late Israeli prime minister. In 1982, Begin took Israel to war in Lebanon. It cost Israel as many as 675 dead, 4,000 wounded and its image as invincible on the battlefield. Begin took responsibility. He resigned and became a recluse, a depressed and beaten man. I suggest no such course for Bush - only that he read the WikiLeaks documents and, for the sake of history and the instruction it offers, reassess his vaunted decisions. His jejune approach to decision- making - know yourself but not necessarily the facts - is downright repellent. On the book's dust jacket, Bush is shown in a ranching outfit. A Peter Pan outfit would be more fitting. Like him, Bush has never grown up.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: go65 (#0)
rotflmao. I was wondering how long til Bush was blamed, or otherwise attacked over this. You should read the book, its very good.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
The author has no credibility!
Iraq now has a Shiite-dominated government and many senior officials who are ominously friendly with Iran. This is exactly right. Iran was the only effective counterbalance to Iran in the middle east. They fought a war for 8 years. They would have fought again. The other long term consequence of the Iraq war could be the destabilization of Turkey. Iraq has a large Kurdish population. So does Turkey. Turkey's Kurdish areas stretch deep into the center of the country. The Kurds in both Iran and Turkey long to have their own country. At some point, Shiite control of Iraq could throw the country into civil war, at which point the Kurds might try to form a Kurdistan, incorporating large parts of Turkey into the process. The Iraq war cost America $1 trillion and the lives of over 4,000 American kids. American didn't get any benefit from it. The downstream problems it could cause are large and unpredictable.
This is exactly right. Iran was the only effective counterbalance to Iran in the middle east. They fought a war for 8 years. They would have fought again. Uh...no. 1. Iraq's military never recovered from the Gulf War. They did NOT have the capability to fight another war with Iran. The only reason Iran didn't wipe the floor with Saddam and Son's in the wake of the Gulf War was because they believed they would face WMD's AGAIN. 2. The biggest 'counterweight' to Iran is its own inability to provide logistics to its own military. Iran has no means of attacking any nation it can't 'walk to'. 3. Look at a map of the region. On September 10th, 2001, Iran had a puppet regime to its west, the Taliban in Afghanistan. It had a desperately weak Iraq to its east. Today, it has democracy's in both countries. Afghanistan, while tenuously holding on to its fledgling democracy, has enough US military power to take down Iran if we had to 'go there'. As does Iraq. To suggest Iran is in a 'better position' today simply defies the facts on the ground in comparision to a decade ago. Prior to taking down Saddam and Son's, and the Taliban, for just one glaring example, we would have been forced to rely on B-52's and B2 bombers flying from the Continental US, or maybe out of Deigo Garcia in the Indian Ocean, along with the fleet Carriers, if it came down to open war with Iran. Today, we have airfields in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a very strong logistical chain into Iraq, we have one in Afghanistan that isn't nearly as 'strong' but still, its THERE TODAY. There are other aspects debunking the assertion 'Iran is in a stronger position today' theory, but you get the drift I'm sure. 4. Do I have to point out this claim is coming from the Saudi's, and that given their history of 'military expertise' its laughable to take it seriously? Guess so....(laughing) What, Ethiopian military experts weren't available for comment? rotflmao
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
ROFLMAO. An Afghan Democracy where a Vice President has just spirited $52 million of American tax money out of the country. Read it on WikiLeaks. Besides Israel, who has the most effective Democracy in the Middle East? Not Afghanistan. Not Iraq. It's Iran. Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran had the the most pro-U.S. population in the region. They were electing reform governments that were challenging the clerics. 40% of Iranians are under 20 years old. They don't remember the Shah of Iran with his secret police and his torture chambers. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, the hardliners in Iran were able to stand up and say "see, we told you so. We can't trust the U.S. They'll be interfering in our country next". The Iraq war is complete disaster for America. We have not seen the end of the consequences.
But Iraq was behind 9/11!!!! Seriously you nailed it. The main problems I had with the idea of invading Iraq was the potential for high casualties, which we have seen (not just the physically killed/wounded, but the tens of thousands of cases of PTSD), and the fact that it made no sense to remove Iran's arch-enemy in the region. But, the neo-cons had their domino theory that argued that a Democratic Iraq would start democracy movements in neighboring countries, and that the war would pay for itself. As we now know, both of those views were based in fantasy (though Badeye still believes that they happened).
So you admit that despite claims by Bush and Cheney, Iraq hadn't reconstituted their WMD programs? Seriously?
Exactly. First, they were in cahoots with bin Laden. Next, they were working on nuclear weapons with delivery systems that were an "imminent threat" to America. Even Dick Armey called Cheney a liar and said that he would have never voted for the war had he known the truth. The sad fact is that there is a segment of the GOP that worships the Bush family like the Democrats used to worship the Kennedys. Forget about the facts. Forget about the evidence. George HW, George W, and Jebb are some kind of unholy trinity that can do no wrong. No different than people felt about John, Robert, and fat Teddy 40 years ago. It's wrong. It's dangerous. I don't understand it. And it infuriates me to no end.
Don't forget the drone army too! Yep. Nobody has ever been able to offer a good reason why Bush pulled the inspectors out of Iraq when they had unfettered access to Iraqi weapons sites.
I more or less noted the democracy in Afghanistan in tenuous, jw. But the fact is the assertion Iran is in a 'better position' today is completely without any merit. And its laughable to suggest Iran had the most 'pro American' population 'in the region'. Try telling that to the Kuwaiti's, let alone Israel.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Nobody ever suggested this, except for uber liberals that liked to pretend the previous administration did. They didn't, no more than Palin said 'I can see Russia from my House'.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
They did NOT have the capability to fight another war with Iran. So you admit that despite claims by Bush and Cheney, Iraq hadn't reconstituted their WMD programs? Admit? We know that didn't happen, despite what Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Al Gore, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman claimed prior to the invasion of Iraq. And yes, Bush and Cheney did agree with the Democratic Party's Presidential tickets of 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 about Iraq's WMD program. Bush and Cheney did agree with the NSA, the CIA, the governments of Iran, Kuwait, France, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Italy, Egypt, Germany, Britain, Belguim, Sweden, South Korean, Australia, Japan, Libya, Canada, Mexico, Chile, and the entire UN General Assembly excluding the 'usual suspects'. And yes, Bush and Cheney agreed with the previous Administration's position of 'regime change' in Iraq. Nice bit of bi partisanship when you recall who said what. Oh, almost forgot, the vast majority of the House and Senate, including a HUGE MAJORITY of DEMOCRATS also not only believed it, but VOTED FOR THE WAR to remove Saddam and Son's. Another nice bit of bi partisanship there. Thanks for bring up the memories of a time when Democrats and Republicans could in fact work together.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Wow. I don't know anyone that feels the way you indicate here, jw. By the end of Bush's second term, his support was in the low 30's nationally. Where are these 'people' you speak of?
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
no gnu taxes is a really good example. So is anyone who wishes Jeb would run for President in 2012.
Where are these 'people' you speak of? no gnu taxes is a really good example. So is anyone who wishes Jeb would run for President in 2012. Mmmm, that would be a 'person' not 'people' jw, as it relates to Bush. Personally, I've had enough of Bush President's to last my lifetime.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Cheney certainly alluded to that several times, even after the CIA said that it was nonsense.
I guess Dick Cheney is an uber-liberal then? http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/15/94839.shtml You are confusing Badeye with facts.
CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection. RUSSERT: But is there a connection? CHENEY: We don't know. Thanks GO!
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Stop with the juvenile personal attacks because I dare to disagree with an opinion. You want to fill the dwarf's former role here at LF, thats your right. But I won't keep reading it.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link (June 18, 2004) Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible." "There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."
By Badeye's own definition, Dick Cheney is an uber liberal. ------ ----- here's a whole thread in which "uber liberals" argue that Iraq was involved in 9/11:
Bush backs Cheney on assertion linking Hussein, Al Qaeda (June 16, 2004) President Bush yesterday defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion this week that Saddam Hussein had longstanding ties with Al Qaeda, even as critics charged that the White House had no new proof of a connection... he and other members of his administration have continued to say they believe there were ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda. In a speech to the conservative Madison Institute in Orlando on Monday, Cheney called Hussein ''a patron of terrorism" and said ''he had long established ties with Al Qaeda." Cheney's comments Monday echoed a January interview with National Public Radio in which he said, ''There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. However, a former top weapons inspector said yesterday he and other investigators have not found evidence of a Hussein-Al Qaeda link. ''At various times Al Qaeda people came through Baghdad and in some cases resided there," said David Kay, former head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, which searched for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism. ''But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all." ''Cheney's speech is evidence-free," Kay said. ''It is an assertion, but doesn't say why we should be believe this now."
How much money do you think we can borrow from China (certainly the "no new tax" gang ain't gonna pay for it) to finance this war with Iran we're in a better position to wage?
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
It's not an opinion - you stated that only "uber liberals" said Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. That statement is blatantly false unless Dick Cheney is a "uber liberal"
But it's Badeye's opinion that only uber liberals claimed a link between Iraq and 9/11. Questioning that opinion is childish.
I guess that depends on how you define effective - I'd argue that its Turkey.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
I agree, but part of Turkey is in Europe and most Turks see their future as part of the European Union, not part of the Middle East.
Which is revisionist history. The far left led on the anti Iraq war effort, which is why I voted for Nader in 2004 -- to try to send some kind of message. No one was listening back then. They are now, and most Americans want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
There was a 'relationship' between al Qaeda and Saddam. There is no denying it. Thats not the same as saying Iraq was 'behind the 9/11 attack'. Nobody has ever said THAT.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f- news/982713/posts Whats Cheney's screen name? (laughing) Posters at Free Republic are now 'credible sources'? Sheesh.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
jw, You are giving me stuff I've already seen. What I want to see is something that supports the assertion that the previous administration claimed Iraq was 'behind 9/11'. I've never seen such a thing.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Nobody is advocating a war with Iran 'here', so I don't see how the question is relevant to this discussion. Read the thread from the beginning.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Oh come on. I have a relationship with you on this board. If I go out and whack a TSA agent, would it be okay for your opponents on this board to claim that your relationship with me means that you had something to do with it? Cheney was LYING to the American people to justify his desire to invade Iraq. He kept LYING even after the CIA and other intelligence sources said that there was no evidence whatsoever to support his assertions. His LIES cost us $1 trillion and the lives of over 4,000 American kids. It's just that simple.
Another nice bit of bi partisanship there. Thanks for bring up the memories of a time when Democrats and Republicans could in fact work together. It was unpatriotic to disagree with Bush; "you hate Bush and you hate America". It was the kind of bi-partisanship coveted by tyrants everywhere.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
Thats true. This thread is a great example of it. YOU on the Left claim the Bush administration stated this. Then when called on it, you produce a transcript of Cheney talking to Russert that does NOT state in any way, shape or form 'Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks'. Cheney did not claim Iraq was 'behind the 9/11 attacks'. He stated, correctly, there were links between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
President Bush yesterday defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion this week that Saddam Hussein had longstanding ties with Al Qaeda, even as critics charged that the White House had no new proof of a connection... he and other members of his administration have continued to say they believe there were ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda. In a speech to the conservative Madison Institute in Orlando on Monday, Cheney called Hussein ''a patron of terrorism" and said ''he had long established ties with Al Qaeda." But it's Badeye's opinion that only uber liberals claimed a link between Iraq and 9/11. Where, EXACTLY, in what you cut and paste here says 'Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks'? Saddam Hussein WAS a 'patron of terrorism'. He paid the families of suicide bombers $25,000 each for years. Saddam did have connections to al Qaeda, there is no disputing that. But you have yet to show me anything that shows Bush OR Cheney claiming 'Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks'. If you have it, I'd love to see it. But we both know you don't...so why continue this?
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
There was a 'relationship' between al Qaeda and Saddam. There is no denying it. Oh come on. I have a relationship with you on this board. If I go out and whack a TSA agent, would it be okay for your opponents on this board to claim that your relationship with me means that you had something to do with it? Iraq hosted known al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad. This is known fact. They had a training ground for terrorists al Qaeda used, this is also known fact. If I were to have you here into my home for a visit, THEN you and I would have a similiar relationship that could be compared to this somewhat. Thats never happened, so the analogy doesn't work here jw. Look, its a very simple question. Does anyone here have a link, or a transcript, where Bush or Cheney stated 'Iraq was behind 9/11'? The FACT is nobody does, because THAT never occured.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
It was 'unpatriotic'? Who claimed THAT? Do YOU have a link?
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Oh, I thought you were claiming that Bush's Iraq attack put us in a stronger position to war with Iran Prior to taking down Saddam and Son's, and the Taliban, for just one glaring example, we would have been forced to rely on B-52's and B2 bombers flying from the Continental US, or maybe out of Deigo Garcia in the Indian Ocean, along with the fleet Carriers, if it came down to open war with Iran. Today, we have airfields in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a very strong logistical chain into Iraq, we have one in Afghanistan that isn't nearly as 'strong' but still, its THERE TODAY. Must've read youse wrong.
Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. Thomas Jefferson
Comments (42 - 57) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: go65 (#0)
the Obama administration's methodical and effective attempts to isolate Tehran
#3. To: go65 (#0)
(Edited)
the war had given Iraq to Iran as a "gift on a golden platter."
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
#4. To: jwpegler (#3)
the war had given Iraq to Iran as a "gift on a golden platter." Iraq now has a Shiite-dominated government and many senior officials who are ominously friendly with Iran.
#5. To: Badeye (#4)
it has democracy's in both countries
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
#6. To: jwpegler, badeye (#3)
This is exactly right. Iran was the only effective counterbalance to Iran in the middle east. They fought a war for 8 years. They would have fought again.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#7. To: Badeye (#4)
They did NOT have the capability to fight another war with Iran.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#8. To: go65 (#6)
But Iraq was behind 9/11!!!!
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
#9. To: jwpegler (#8)
Exactly. First, they were in cahoots with bin Laden. Next, they were working on nuclear weapons with delivery systems that were an "imminent threat" to America.
ven Dick Armey called Cheney a liar and said that he would have never voted for the war had he known the truth.
The sad fact is that there is a segment of the GOP that worships the Bush family like the Democrats used to worship the Kennedys. Forget about the facts. Forget about the evidence. George HW, George W, and Jebb are some kind of unholy trinity that can do no wrong. No different than people felt about John, Robert, and fat Teddy 40 years ago. It's wrong. It's dangerous. I don't understand it. And it infuriates me to no end.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#10. To: jwpegler (#5)
ROFLMAO. An Afghan Democracy where a Vice President has just spirited $52 million of American tax money out of the country. Read it on WikiLeaks.
#11. To: go65 (#6)
But Iraq was behind 9/11!!!!
#12. To: go65 (#7)
#13. To: jwpegler (#8)
The sad fact is that there is a segment of the GOP that worships the Bush family like the Democrats used to worship the Kennedys. Forget about the facts. Forget about the evidence. George HW, George W, and Jebb are some kind of unholy trinity that can do no wrong. No different than people felt about John, Robert, and fat Teddy 40 years ago. It's wrong. It's dangerous. I don't understand it. And it infuriates me to no end.
#14. To: Badeye (#13)
Where are these 'people' you speak of?
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
#15. To: jwpegler (#14)
#16. To: Badeye (#11)
Nobody ever suggested this
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
#17. To: Badeye (#11)
Nobody ever suggested this, except for uber liberals that liked to pretend the previous administration did.
After telling a national radio audience last week that there was no connection between the World Trade Center attacks and Saddam Hussein, "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert got an earful on Sunday from Vice President Dick Cheney, who outlined a mountain of evidence tying Iraq to the 9/11 catastrophe.
Recalling that he had told Russert two years ago that he knew of no Iraqi link to the attack, Cheney said Sunday, "Subsequent to that, we've learned a couple of things."
The Vice President contended that more recent evidence indicates "that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example."
Though he did not specifically mention the South Baghdad terrorist training camp Salman Pak, where radical Islamists rehearsed 9/11-style hijackings on a Soviet-era Tupelov 154 airliner, Cheney noted that "al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved."
Cheney also cited reports of a meeting between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi in intelligence agent in Prague just months before the attacks, saying that U.S. intelligence has not yet been able confirm or discredit the information.
In perhaps his most startling remarks, the vice president became the first White House official to argue that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda's attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993, telling Russert:
"We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we've learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."
The vice president might have also mentioned that Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 attack and whose laptop computer contained plans to crash U.S. airliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, entered the U.S. with an Iraqi passport.
After his capture in 1995, the FBI flew Yousef over the World Trade Center and reminded him that his plan to destroy the Twin Towers had not succeeded. His reported response - "Not yet."
Last Wednesday Russert insisted to radio host Don Imus, "No one will say there was a direct involvement of Saddam Hussein in Sept. 11. ... There's no direct link that can be substantiated." The full exchange between Russert and Vice President Cheney on the evidence tying Iraq to 9/11 went like this:
RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.
RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
CHENEY: We don't know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we've learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in '93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#18. To: jwpegler, badeye (#16)
Cheney certainly alluded to that several times, even after the CIA said that it was nonsense.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#19. To: go65 (#17)
RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
#20. To: go65 (#18)
Cheney certainly alluded to that several times, even after the CIA said that it was nonsense. You are confusing Badeye with facts.
#21. To: Badeye (#19)
(Edited)
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
#22. To: jwpegler (#21)
But Iraq was behind 9/11!!!!
Nobody ever suggested this, except for uber liberals that liked to pretend the previous administration did.
After telling a national radio audience last week that there was no connection between the World Trade Center attacks and Saddam Hussein, "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert got an earful on Sunday from Vice President Dick Cheney, who outlined a mountain of evidence tying Iraq to the 9/11 catastrophe.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#23. To: jwpegler, badeye (#21)
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#24. To: Badeye (#19)
(Edited)
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
#25. To: Badeye (#4)
We have a very strong logistical chain into Iraq, we have one in Afghanistan that isn't nearly as 'strong' but still, its THERE TODAY.
#26. To: Badeye (#20)
Stop with the juvenile personal attacks because I dare to disagree with an opinion.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#27. To: jwpegler, badeye (#24)
President Bush yesterday defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion this week that Saddam Hussein had longstanding ties with Al Qaeda, even as critics charged that the White House had no new proof of a connection... he and other members of his administration have continued to say they believe there were ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda. In a speech to the conservative Madison Institute in Orlando on Monday, Cheney called Hussein ''a patron of terrorism" and said ''he had long established ties with Al Qaeda."
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#28. To: jwpegler (#5)
Besides Israel, who has the most effective Democracy in the Middle East? Not Afghanistan. Not Iraq. It's Iran.
#29. To: lucysmom (#28)
I'd argue that its Turkey.
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
#30. To: go65 (#27)
(Edited)
But it's Badeye's opinion that only uber liberals claimed a link between Iraq and 9/11.
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
#31. To: jwpegler (#21)
#32. To: go65 (#23)
here's a whole thread in which "uber liberals" argue that Iraq was involved in 9/11:
#33. To: jwpegler (#24)
#34. To: lucysmom (#25)
How much money do you think we can borrow from China (certainly the "no new tax" gang ain't gonna pay for it) to finance this war with Iran we're in a better position to wage?
#35. To: Badeye (#31)
(Edited)
There was a 'relationship' between al Qaeda and Saddam. There is no denying it.
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
#36. To: Badeye (#12)
Oh, almost forgot, the vast majority of the House and Senate, including a HUGE MAJORITY of DEMOCRATS also not only believed it, but VOTED FOR THE WAR to remove Saddam and Son's.
#37. To: go65 (#26)
It's not an opinion - you stated that only "uber liberals" said Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks.
#38. To: go65 (#27)
#39. To: jwpegler (#35)
#40. To: lucysmom (#36)
It was unpatriotic to disagree with Bush; "you hate Bush and you hate America". It was the kind of bi-partisanship coveted by tyrants everywhere.
#41. To: Badeye (#34)
Nobody is advocating a war with Iran 'here', so I don't see how the question is relevant to this discussion.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]