This about sums up the lies about Iraq's al Qaeda connections

MICHAEL SCHEUER, head of the CIA's bin Laden unit and until recently a senior analyst, said something remarkable last week on Hardball with Chris Matthews.

Scheuer told Matthews that he "happened to do the research on links between al Qaeda and Iraq," and Matthews asked him, "and what did you come up with?"

"Nothing."

It was a strange and troubling response. As Thomas Joscelyn points out, Scheuer argued in his 2002 book, Through Our Enemies Eyes, that Iraq and al Qaeda worked together regularly.

Out of respect for the size limit for web articles, you can read the contradictions here.

But the point here, as illustrated conclusively above, is that those, such as Schauer and Richard Clarke, who claim there was no connection between Saddam and bin Laden are lying through their teeth. Many of these people, such as Schauer and Clarke, have contradicted themselves to the point of embarassment on this issue.

What's really sad is the only place you will ever be notified of these blatant lies is on so-called right-wing websites like the Weekly Standard, while the mainstream propaganda wing of the Democratic party (CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, etc...) continues to tout the party line, "no connection, ever."

Look, you can disagree with the Iraq war even if the claims of the administration prove to be true, which, though not exactly the way they said they would, they have.

But you can no longer, in the face of overwhelming evidence that is available to anyone interested enough to bother looking (this site's supposed to be about denying ignorance, no?), claim that the administration's justifications for war were false. The only thing that we said they had that we haven't found is a WMD stockpile. Given the nature of WMD's--their destructive power in small doses--and the fact that Iraq maintained an illegal capability to make them whenever they wanted (see the Kay Report and the Deulfer Report), you cannot say with a straight face that Bush lied or even that this war was started based on false pretenses.

What you should be concerned about, at least if you're an American or a Brit or a citizen of any other nation in the coalition, is the systematic attempt by global media, including American and British, to discredit the war rationale based on purely political motivations. Our troops are in the field, dying, getting shot at, in danger. This is a disgrace.

God damn them all.

[edit on 22-11-2004 by Ibn Iblis]

I saw the same type of contradictions on Meet the Press on the weekend from the infamous "Anonymous". The whole issue of Iraq's Al Qaeda links and WMD's has been so politicized, no amount of real evidence - past, present or future, matters anymore

if you are on one side you will claim motive, logic, etc

if you are on the other side you will claim lies, conspiracy, cover-ups

the sad part is - the same people that will not trust the govt to tell them the truth about anything, will base their entire argument on the results of govt commissions (being conducted before the Iraq conflict is even finished)

the saddest part is - they won't even consider - not even for a moment - the other side's case

damn shame

Excellent point.

So true.

I wonder why the change then? Why would they want this connection hidden? Is it not political suicide to hide it?

Thanks for this information.



I have a thread on this exact thing, Iraq and Al Qaeda Ties and I think there were

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
It was a strange and troubling response. As Thomas Joscelyn points out, Scheuer argued in his 2002 book, Through Our Enemies Eyes, that Iraq and al Qaeda worked together regularly.

Hey I am reading this one now! Cool



[edit on 22-11-2004 by edsinger]

I wrote a voter's guide to the Iraq war before the election, documenting the evidence of Iraq's WMD programs by the ISG (Kay and Deulfer), as well as the OFF scandal, Joe Wilson's Niger/yellowcake lies and a brief survey of Iraq's al Qaeda ties.

mindfilter.net... if anyone's interested.

Good reference guide for slapping liberals and conspiracy nuts who try to tell you Bush lied people died blah blah blah.

Well I am waiting for Durden to see this one, he and I have been arguing this for weeks.


We know that Iraqi Intelligence officials reported in 1992 that Osama bin Laden was an Iraqi intelligence an "asset" that had "good relations" with the Iraqi intelligence station in Syria. We know that Sudanese government officials met with Uday Hussein at bin Laden's behest in 1994 to discuss cooperation on bin Laden's behalf. We know that deputy Iraqi intelligence director Faruq Hijazi met with bin laden, at least twice. We know that Saddam agreed to air anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi national television. We know that the Iraqis considered the numerous "contacts" with bin laden a "relationship"--as revealed in their internal documents. We know that in the mid-1990s an internal Iraqi intelligence memo revealed that Saddam sought "further cooperation" with al Qaeda. And we know that meetings between high-level al Qaeda terrorists and senior Iraqi intelligence officials took place throughout 1998.


Hey wasnt 911 planned in 1998? Wasnt that what the 911 report said? or was that 1999?



Page 2 of the article

[edit on 22-11-2004 by edsinger]

To the best of my knowledge the Planning actually began in the late 80's. There has been alot of inconclusive evidance as to an actual year. I would have to go with OBL's statement on thinking about it in '82. The only thing I could see as far as contradictions goes is that they in all likelyhood would not mention it while they were in an Office Position, to kind of keep some peace, yet it does look like it would destroy alot of credibility. It, to me, is that more and more "former" staff members are, and have been, coming out with these things. Maybe a reason they left, who knows?

Yeah but the 911 report said that the Airplanes as missles idea and the operational start of this particular operation started in 1998 I think, better check it to be sure....

Originally posted by edsinger
Yeah but the 911 report said that the Airplanes as missles idea and the operational start of this particular operation started in 1998 I think, better check it to be sure....

This might have been when it was put into effect, but the planning started in the 80's. Something of this Nature I would rather take it from the Horse's Mouth, rather than people paid to form an opinion based on information they collect.

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK
Something of this Nature I would rather take it from the Horse's Mouth, rather than people paid to form an opinion based on information they collect.

Good point!

trick wasn't it just the idea of using planes as missiles that came in the 80's. originally wasn't the idea to steal something like 20 planes and crash them into pacific rim cities? subtle point but i think the new york targeting was later.

However you want to look at it, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft - and all the other players who had precise information on which week the 9/11 attacks would occur and who took actions such as avoiding commercial flights and contacting their close friends to advise them to avoid commercial flights - are liars and traitors of the worst order.

Bush's justifications for the war in Iraq - predicated even to the point of evidence presented by a formerly honorable man Colin Powell about the precise location of immediately deployable weapons posing an imminent threat to the United States - were total fabrications and lies. They were engineered by the Office Of Special Plans, instructed by Cheney to assemble tenuous evidence from severeal intelligence agencies about Iraq into a plausible argument. Cheney's mission failed as the war in Iraq has failed as the lies about a "War On Terror" will fail. Criminals of the grand scale of the Bush administration cannot avoid justice. No amount of spin or attempts to deceive by the administration will ever cover the lies they presented in justifying this foreign incursion.

I just heard the biggest thunderclap I have ever heard directly over my building. Wow. That really was something...

Over and out.

[edit on 22-11-2004 by MaskedAvatar]

Originally posted by keholmes
trick wasn't it just the idea of using planes as missiles that came in the 80's. originally wasn't the idea to steal something like 20 planes and crash them into pacific rim cities? subtle point but i think the new york targeting was later.

Well the NY targeting was always an option, They wanted to hit the US Financially(NY) and Militarily(DC). As far as the Pacific Rim Cities, I have to do some research on that. I am under the Assumption, and this is just an assumption of mine based on research and info, that first strike wanted to be nuclear, since the vision came up during the Cold War, Nukes were a big Item. I just dont think they could have carried it out back then. They could have laiden the Planes with bombs, but instead of "Stealing" them, it proved easier to just Hi-Jack them. Ill see what I can dig up tomorrow.

Originally posted by keholmes
trick wasn't it just the idea of using planes as missiles that came in the 80's. originally wasn't the idea to steal something like 20 planes and crash them into pacific rim cities? subtle point but i think the new york targeting was later.

Yes it was later, and I think the 911 report put it in the late 90's

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by keholmes
trick wasn't it just the idea of using planes as missiles that came in the 80's. originally wasn't the idea to steal something like 20 planes and crash them into pacific rim cities? subtle point but i think the new york targeting was later.

Yes it was later, and I think the 911 report put it in the late 90's

The thing is that they could not carry this out like the US, Russia, or anyone else can carry out an operation in as little as time possible. The "Idea" and "Planning" occured in the 80's, but they didnt put it into action until 97-98. Im sure there were little things going on in the US, but not the extent that they did from 98-2001.

You are probably right.......I remember that the 'operatives' were chosen after 2000? right?

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
I wrote a voter's guide to the Iraq war before the election,

mindfilter.net... if anyone's interested.

Good reference guide for slapping liberals and conspiracy nuts who try to tell you Bush lied people died blah blah blah.

A few things of note. I read your guide.

You are digging conspiracy up yourself to defend the Prez, and spinning the truth.

One point of fact is that Iraq would not need a rail gun to make a nuclear weapon. A rail gun achieving speeds like you mentioned would be too gigantic to covertly transport, and besides that, the same effect can be made with conventional explosives as it was on the original US gun-type bombs.

The number of countries in the first war's coalition was 35, including the United States. The coalition today is represents 30 nations. Bush 41's coalition consisted of the following nations (23):


Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Bush 43's coalition is as follows (24):


United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Italy, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Albania. Macedonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Moldova, Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Palau, Thailand, United States of America, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Australia, and New Zealand.
It is notable that the only major powers missing from 43's coalition that were in 41's are France and Germany. Russia and China were not involved in either, nor are they allies of ours;

Hmmm, China and Russia no allies, though we routinely conduct training with Russia, and China is our #1 trading partner. The only 'major powers' exempted from Bush 43's Coaltion are France and Germany? Well, that's one way to describe France and Germany. Of notable exemption from the current alliance is every Middle East country along with Turkey, that assisted us in the First Gulf War. There are two major powers in the Coalition, US and Great Britain. The alliance is a coalition of weak countries that admire the US and Great Britain and its former colonies.

Why isn't France an ally? Because they were in Saddam's back pocket the whole time. Charles Duelfer reports that Saddam paid $1.78 billion to French government officials, businessmen and journalists in a bid to have sanctions removed and U.S. policies opposed.

$1.78 billion. Wow, that's a lot of cash. When you consider the amount of money to be made in Iraq by cooperating with the Coalition, you realize that their motive for staying out of the war was anythign but cash. The US has spent $200 Billion on the war already, much of it to companies of nations in the Coaltion. By staying out of the war, France missed out on reconstruction of the country - certainly a cash cow that would far exceed $1.78 billion dollars over a similar ten-year period, by many times.

So the ISG scoured the country, with no stone unturned, they didn't find any evidence of anything but plans for plans for WMD programs, and evidence that can be considered anything like the casus belli, which Powell describes as 100 - 500 tons of chemical agent, conservatively. Also never were found were the machinery to make or deliver these agents.

Also, you mentioned the Niger Yellowcake scandal, but forgot to mention the obviously forged documents on which it was based.

So, I wouldn't go around trying to slap anyone with this spin of yours. You have a pretty limp wrist at the moment.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
However you want to look at it, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft - and all the other players who had precise information on which week the 9/11 attacks would occur and who took actions such as avoiding commercial flights and contacting their close friends to advise them to avoid commercial flights - are liars and traitors of the worst order.
...........

Can you actually present evidence to what you said above?

I mean evidence, not the lies that sites like RENSE come up with most of the time...

Originally posted by taibunsuu
One point of fact is that Iraq would not need a rail gun to make a nuclear weapon. A rail gun achieving speeds like you mentioned would be too gigantic to covertly transport, and besides that, the same effect can be made with conventional explosives as it was on the original US gun-type bombs.

You'll have to take that up with Mr Deulfer. I quoted his report directly.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Hmmm, China and Russia no allies, though we routinely conduct training with Russia, and China is our #1 trading partner. The only 'major powers' exempted from Bush 43's Coaltion are France and Germany? Well, that's one way to describe France and Germany. Of notable exemption from the current alliance is every Middle East country along with Turkey, that assisted us in the First Gulf War. There are two major powers in the Coalition, US and Great Britain. The alliance is a coalition of weak countries that admire the US and Great Britain and its former colonies.

Russia was caught selling night-vision equipment to the Iraqis during the pre-war runup (LINK). Just because China is a trading partner doesn't mean they're a military ally. They were not involved in the first Gulf War. In contrast, they were a major trading partner with Iraq. At the onset of the invasion, Iraq launched Chinese Silkworm missiles into Kuwait (LINK. Nope, not an ally.

Originally posted by taibunsuu$1.78 billion. Wow, that's a lot of cash. When you consider the amount of money to be made in Iraq by cooperating with the Coalition, you realize that their motive for staying out of the war was anythign but cash. The US has spent $200 Billion on the war already, much of it to companies of nations in the Coaltion. By staying out of the war, France missed out on reconstruction of the country - certainly a cash cow that would far exceed $1.78 billion dollars over a similar ten-year period, by many times.

You're making an unbelievably large reach there. France was a longtime trading partner of Iraq for several decades. Not only was France making money off them, but they still had billions in umpaid debt that is now in danger of being lost forever. Like Russia, the French were providing Iraq with arms up until the beginning of OIF. There was far too much information to provide in my guide to be practical. The OFF scandal was the biggest, most obvious slap in the face, but there were others. For example. Not only was it not in France's financial interests to support Saddam's ouster, but, of course, they ran the risk of their illegal activities being exposed with no one in the Iraq government to contain their secrets. Now the #'s hit the fan and this is what they feared.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
So the ISG scoured the country, with no stone unturned, they didn't find any evidence of anything but plans for plans for WMD programs, and evidence that can be considered anything like the casus belli, which Powell describes as 100 - 500 tons of chemical agent, conservatively. Also never were found were the machinery to make or deliver these agents.

Yes. Like I said, the lack of a stockpile was the only hole in our case for war. But if you take into account the destructive power of their capabilities, you see that a stockpile was not necessary if they retained the capability to make it at their own whim. With this in mind they were still a threat. One liter of VX can kill around 40,000 people. I'm an American and I don't deal in liters, but I do know that one US quart of VX contains 46,500 lethal doses, at 10mg per lethal dose. That's over 15 times the death toll of 9-11.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Also, you mentioned the Niger Yellowcake scandal, but forgot to mention the obviously forged documents on which it was based.

Not entirely true. There was a story about the yellowcake that was based on forged documents. But that story emerged after Wilson went to Niger. He couldn't possibly have known about it when he was there. What Wilson discovered in Niger proved conclusively that Iraq did indeed attempt to buy yellowcake from Niger. I provided the link to the Senate Intelligence Report. Wilson met with the former Niger prime minister who testified to him that he had met with Iraqi agents interested in opening trade negotiations with Niger. Yellowcake is just about the only asset Niger has that Iraq could be interested in.

And this as well as all the other crap is proof of the left's shameful hypocracy. They accuse the president of lying, yet when someone gets caught lying about the president lying no one bats an eyelash. This all begs the question: if Bush is so dirty, so sneaky, so dastardly, such a liar, why does the left need to lie about his "lies"? Shouldn't the truth be plenty enough on its own? Why is Schauer and Clarke lying about the al Qaeda connection? WTF is going on here? OUR TROOPS ARE DYING IN THE FIELD AND THEY'RE TRYING TO DESTROY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

This is a disgrace and an outrage, and they will get away with this over my dead body.

For those who have not been here in Iraq how do you have the gaul to say we are here for only political reasons?

Have you flown over Iraq and seen the people run out and wave from their homes have you been there when you see the mass graves where Sadam killed hundreds of women and their babies? Have you seen the fear in the eyes of the Iraqi and you know from talking to them that when the sun goes down that they may be abducted from their families? I have and I live it everyday. Spin your liberal anti-Bush theories on someone who doesn't know better!