Forums dot lukpac.org

Bolding by me.

Cheney claims ties between Saddam, al Qaeda

ORLANDO, Florida (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Saddam Hussein had "long-established ties" with al Qaeda, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.

The vice president offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al Qaida.

"He was a patron of terrorism," Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. "He had long established ties with al Qaeda."

In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with al-Qaeda operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public.

Cheney listed what he described as the accomplishments of the Bush administration in the war on terror, including fledgling democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq; and the decision by Libya's leader, Moammar Gadhafi, to abandon his nuclear ambitions.

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Florida, countered that the Bush administration had "a sorry record in the war on terror." Graham, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, spoke Sunday in a conference call arranged by John Kerry's presidential campaign in anticipation of Cheney's speech.

The State Department said last week it was wrong in stating that terrorism declined worldwide last year in a report that the Bush administration initially cited as evidence it was succeeding against terrorism, Graham noted. Both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department acknowledged.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

while PercentDuped < 100
function(LieAssOff)
wend

Ryan

Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link

Tuesday, June 15, 2004 Posted: 6:06 PM EDT (2206 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq was in league with al Qaeda under Saddam Hussein's rule, saying Tuesday that fugitive Islamic militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network.

"Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters at the White House. "He's the person who's still killing."

U.S. intelligence officials have said al Qaeda had some links to Iraq dating back to the early 1990s, but the nature and extent of those contacts is a matter of dispute.

Critics have accused the president and other administration officials of falsely inflating the links between Iraq and al Qaeda in the months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech Monday in Florida, raised eyebrows by reasserting claims that Saddam "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."

Bush said Tuesday that Saddam also had ties to Palestinian militant groups and was making payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

"We did the absolute right thing in removing him from power, and the world is better off with him not in power," he said.

Bush has tried to portray the war in Iraq as the "central front" in the war on terrorism that began with al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

In September, after Cheney asserted that Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," Bush acknowledged there was no evidence that Saddam's government was connected to those attacks.

U.S. officials blame Zarqawi for a series of attacks on U.S. forces, Iraqi civilians and others since the American-led invasion of Iraq, including the April beheading of American businessman Nicholas Berg and the August 2003 bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad.

Before the invasion, U.S. intelligence reports suggested Zarqawi had his leg amputated in a Baghdad hospital after being wounded fighting American forces in Afghanistan. The allegation was part of Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003, laying out the U.S. case for war.

But in April, a senior U.S. official said that report had been called into question: Zarqawi was still thought to have received medical treatment in Baghdad, but reports that he had his leg amputated appeared to have been incorrect, a U.S. official said.

Earlier this year, U.S. officials touted what they said was an intercepted letter from Zarqawi to al Qaeda leaders seeking their help in provoking a civil war in Iraq, where the U.S.-led occupation authority is scheduled to hand over power to an interim Iraqi government at month's end.

The principal reason cited for the coalition invasion was that Iraq was violating U.N. resolutions requiring it to give up chemical and biological weapons, long-range missiles and efforts to build a nuclear bomb. The U.N. did not give a final vote to approve the war but the U.S. pointed to previous resolutions that called for "serious consequences" if Iraq did not disarm.

Since then, inspectors have turned up some evidence of undeclared weapons research and two chemical artillery shells, but none of the stockpiles that Iraq was accused of maintaining.

A total of 833 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion -- more than 500 of them in guerrilla attacks since Bush's May 1, 2003, declaration that "major combat" was over.

Bush acknowledged that creating a free society in Iraq is "hard work."

"But we'll get there," he said. "And we'll get there because people want to be free. That's why we'll get there. People long to live in freedom."

From today's press gaggle:

Q Can I ask about Vice President Cheney, because yesterday he repeated what is a very controversial claim. He said that Saddam Hussein had long-established ties with al Qaeda. Does the President believe that Saddam Hussein had long-established ties with al Qaeda?

MR. McCLELLAN: We certainly talked about the ties with terrorism between the -- between the regime that was removed from power, and we talked about those ties prior to the decision to remove that regime from power. So that was well-documented. Secretary Powell went before the United Nations and talked about some of those ties to terrorism, as well. And Zarqawi is certainly a senior al Qaeda associate who was in Iraq prior to the decision to go in and remove the regime from power.

Q There's also al Qaeda in the United States. That does not mean the United States is cooperating with those members of al Qaeda. Just by the presence of someone does not mean there's a cooperation.

MR. McCLELLAN: But, remember, we're talking about an oppressive regime that was in power in Iraq that exercised control over that country. And go back and look at what we documented, Norah. We documented all this, and I think that's what the Vice President was referring to.

Q So today you're saying the President does agree there were long --

MR. McCLELLAN: We stand by what we've said previously, in terms of the regime's ties to terrorism, yes. And I think that's what the Vice President was referring to.

Q The President said there were no ties in the run up to the war.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, that's a mischaracterization. There were clear ties to terrorism between the regime --

Q He said there were no ties with al Qaeda.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- certainly supporting suicide bombers in the Middle East.

Q Are you repudiating what the President said?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think you're talking about September 11th.

Quick wrap-up of Iraq/al Qaeda linkage on Spinsanity:

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?200 ... 8380818766

Ryan

MR. McCLELLAN: But, remember, we're talking about an oppressive regime that was in power in Iraq that exercised control over that country. And go back and look at what we documented, Norah. We documented all this, and I think that's what the Vice President was referring to.

What the hell is he trying to say here?

Patrick M wrote:

MR. McCLELLAN: But, remember, we're talking about an oppressive regime that was in power in Iraq that exercised control over that country. And go back and look at what we documented, Norah. We documented all this, and I think that's what the Vice President was referring to.

What the hell is he trying to say here?

I'm pretty sure he's saying, "Saddam is bad. Al Qaeda is bad. Therefore, Saddam and Al Qaeda must be linked somehow."

Would that be a spurious correlation fallacy?

Patrick M wrote:

MR. McCLELLAN: But, remember, we're talking about an oppressive regime that was in power in Iraq that exercised control over that country. And go back and look at what we documented, Norah. We documented all this, and I think that's what the Vice President was referring to.

What the hell is he trying to say here?

I read it as, "Saddam was an evil dictator that controlled every last detail of the entire country. Therefore, if Zarqawi was in the country, Saddam was a member of al Qaeda."

Ryan

9/11 Panel Finds No Collaboration Between Iraq, Al Qaeda
Findings Contradict Comments by Cheney, Bush

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 16, 2004; 9:00 AM

There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, including the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackings, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the hijacking plot.

Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990s, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein's secular government, and Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons, the panel's report says.

The findings come in the wake of statements Monday by Vice President Cheney that Iraq had "long-established ties" with al Qaeda, and comments by President Bush yesterday backing up that assertion.

The Sept. 11 panel, which opened its last two-day round of hearings this morning, said in a report on al Qaeda's history that the government of Sudan, which gave sanctuary to al Qaeda from 1991 to 1996, persuaded bin Laden to cease supporting anti-Hussein forces and "arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda." But the contacts did not result in any cooperation, the panel said.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report says. "Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The conclusions provide the latest example of how the Sept. 11 commission has become a political irritant for the Bush administration. The 10-member bipartisan commission, initially opposed by the White House, has frequently feuded with the government over access to documents and witnesses and has issued findings sharply critical of the Bush administration's focus on terrorism prior to the Sept. 11 attacks.

The findings were included in the first of three staff reports being issued by the commission this week. Later today, the panel is expected to release significant details about the planning of the attacks, including what sources have said previously was a plan to carry out the hijackings earlier in May or June of 2001.

Thursday, the panel will explore shortcomings in the nation's air-defense system, which witnesses and commission members have said was ill-prepared for an event of the magnitude of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The initial 12-page report is a broad examination of the history of al Qaeda and bin Laden, who for years went unnoticed or underestimated by U.S. intelligence officials.

The report says that bin Laden was intent on carrying out attacks on the United States as early as 1992, viewing America as "the head of the snake" because of its support for Israel and Arab regimes he considered corrupt. But U.S. officials were not aware of these plans, or knowledgeable about any details of his organization, until four years later, the report says.

"Contrary to popular understanding," the report says, "bin Laden did not fund al Qaeda through a personal fortune and a network of businesses," and he never received a $300 million inheritance. "Instead, al Qaeda relied primarily on a fundraising network developed over time," the report says.

In 1998, the suicide truck bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania -- which killed 224 people and injured more than 5,000 combined -- marked a new departure in that "they were planned, directed and executed by al Qaeda, under the direct supervision of bin Laden and his chief aides," the report says.

But a January 2000 attempt to attack a U.S. warship, the USS The Sullivans, failed because the boat to be used in the suicide attack was overloaded with explosives and sank, the report says. Ten months later, a similar attack was executed successfully against the USS Cole in Yemen.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks and the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, "al Qaeda's funding has decreased significantly," the report says. But the group's expenditures have decreased as well, and "it remains relatively easy for al Qaeda to find the relatively small sums required to fund terrorist operations," the report warns.

Now, the organization is far more decentralized, with operational commanders and cell leaders making the decisions that were previously made by bin Laden, the panel found.

Yet, al Qaeda remains interested in carrying out chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attacks against the United States, the report says. Although an attempt to purchase uranium in 1994 failed -- the material proved to be fake -- "al Qaeda continues to pursue its strategic objective of obtaining a nuclear weapon," according to the report.

By any means possible, it warns, "al Qaeda is actively striving to attack the United States and inflict mass casualties."

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong...

http://home.comcast.net/~ephemeralnotion/Liars_3.JPG

Ryan

And, according the home page poll on CNN at this moment, 31% still believe Iraq was behind 9/11.

Cognitive dissonance ahoy.

Ryan

Am I missing something here?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 615-7.html

Q Thanks. Why hasn't the administration made more of the U.N. inspectors' report that says Saddam Hussein was dismantling his missile and WMD sites before and during the war? And doesn't that, combined with the now proven al Qaeda link between Iraq -- between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization -- unequivocally make the case for going to war in Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think in terms of Iraq and ties to terrorism, Secretary Powell outlined the former regime's support for and ties to terrorists when he went before the United Nations. Director Tenet has testified in open session before Congress about what we know about those ties. You heard the President talk about some of those ties earlier today in the Rose Garden when he was asked a question. So I think those ties are well known, and we have talked about them previously.

Certainly, when you look at someone like al Zarqawi, he was an individual who was in Iraq prior to the decision to go to war, and he is someone who remains in Iraq. And he is a senior al Qaeda associate.

Q Is that why you went to war?

MR. McCLELLAN: And -- Helen, I think we spelled out our reasons why we went to war.

Q I think you did.

MR. McCLELLAN: And certainly ties between the regime --

Q There were weapons of mass destruction.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- ties between the regime and terrorism was a very serious concern.

Q And getting back --

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.

Q Getting back to that, Scott --

MR. McCLELLAN: In terms -- in terms that you're talking about his WMD activities, and capabilities, and intentions, those are all issues that Iraq Survey Group continues to look into. And Charles Duelfer is heading that group so that we can find out the truth and learn more about what had happened -- what happened to those programs and weapons.

Q But the report establishes that there were WMD missiles and sites in Iraq before and during the war.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think if you look at what has already been reported by the Iraq Survey Group it clearly shows that the regime was in serious violation of Security Council 1441, which called for serious consequences. We know that he continued to have the intention and the capability when it comes to weapons of mass destruction. And certainly, this was intelligence shared by Congress, and shared by the international community -- not just the administration. But those are all issues that we continue to look at so that we can find out more about the truth. We know that he had a history of using weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He used chemical weapons.

The guy asking that question is Jeff Gannon, who's the White House correspondent for these guys. Scottie likes to call on him for easy softball questions if things get too sweaty for him during the briefings. When you see a question in the transcript that sounds like it's a plant, it's probably Gannon.

"Scottie, is George Bush a God among men or simply a living legend?"

"Well, Jeff..."

Ryan

This was on his website:

What strikes fear into the black hearts of terrorists is a George W. Bush victory in November. Four more years of an American president with a zealous commitment to fight terrorism and a new mandate to wage it is what monsters like Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda disciples can ill afford. Terrorists have already changed the outcome of one national election with a heinous attack against citizens in Madrid. It is unwise to think that they will not try it again considering how successful they were with only a few well-placed bombs. But an attack on the American homeland could rally voters behind the incumbent and steel U. S. resolve. Undermining the transitional government in Iraq would be far easier and much more effective to achieving their political aim: regime change in America.

On that score they share a common objective with Kerry and the Democrats. That is not to say Democrats want to murder innocent people, they most assuredly do not. But they are every bit as passionate about removing Bush from office. Democrats stand to lose big with a successful handover of sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30. A stable, peaceful Iraq dooms the Kerry candidacy and proves wrong the hateful members of MoveOn.org and International ANSWER. Democracy taking root in Arab soil will be as much of a seismic event on the American Left as it will be in the Middle East.

Is it just me, or does he have it all backwards? Terrorists are frightened by Bush? If anything, it seems to me like the stuff Bush is doing is just adding fuel to their fire. People like bin Laden thrive on animosity towards the US, don't they? Given the current state of things, I'm honestly not sure how much difference a Democrat would make in November as far as relations go, but suggesting that the terrorists want Kerry to win just seems silly.