Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Page 3......"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."

My reasoning is that al Qaeda would not admit to a Iraq collaboration relationship, as it would benefit al Qaeda with Anti-Bush and Anti-Blair sentiments at home and with our allies(?).

10 posted on 06/16/2004 9:12:03 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: fight_truth_decay; Max Combined
Actually, while it says no cooperation on ATTACKS AGAINST THE US. It does shatter the myth that they were enemies, and in fact puts them on communicating terms. That said, lets look at EXACTLY WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID. (SOTU).

..... With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

Bush is Vindicated, by the report. No matter how they try to spin it.

20 posted on 06/16/2004 9:19:47 AM PDT by hobbes1 (Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: fight_truth_decay
Good highlight.

Here's another:

Bin Laden strongly favored targeting the White House, and Binalshibh urged Atta to agree. But Atta was concerned that the presidential mansion was too difficult to hit, and backed the U.S. Capitol instead. The matter appears to have been unresolved as late as two days before the attack.

I read another article on this matter this morning quoting Keene as saying they are asking why President Bush was reading to children, and also why he went "hop-scotching" around the country after the attacks.

I just heard a reporter for MSNBC report the same about the "hop-scotching", using that dismissive and mocking phrase.

It is completely inappropriate for that language to be used. I well remember the relief I felt on 9/11 when I heard the president was NOT returning immediately to Wasshington, D.C. when events were just breaking. Also, President Bush and VP Cheney have met with this commission. I would think those "questions" have been asked and, I am positive, more than adequately answered.

This commission is beyond a disgrace.

Oh, the other tack I've heard on reporting this morning is that we didn't move quickly enough to shoot down the airplanes. You can bet your bottom dollar had that response occurred before, say, the Pentagon was hit, this commission and the dems already would have tried (and perhaps succeeded) in impeaching President Bush for murdering our own citizens. They would have pointed to the attacks being "confined" to New York, I'd bet, and that there "wasn't enough proof" that simply because the plane was hijacked (I would surmise, in this hypothetical, that evidence of Barbara Olson's call and so on would exist so we'd know it was hijacked), didn't mean it was going to be used as a missile.

We can see that objective facts and reasoning mean nothing to these people, and it's how circumstances can be twisted to paint the administration in the worst light is the aim. Why Keene and some other "Republicans" are playing along is a mystery to me, but there it is. There is no denying that he is following the course of irrational thinking.

35 posted on 06/16/2004 11:56:25 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson