No Iraq-Qaeda ties, we're told: True or false?
by JohnHuang2
It's amazing. What incredible gall these people have. The spectacle last week was nothing short of pure chutzpah. It takes staggering hubris -- a brazen disdain and contempt for facts. Facts about Iraq and al-Qaeda that, by now, should be beyond dispute. Yet, it seems that no matter what the facts, no matter what the evidence, these people's minds are made up. They adamantly refuse to see. They reject proof. Why? I think they do it for the worst possible reason -- because they could. Case Closed, don't bother me with facts, Jack. Did you catch the headlines last week? Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie, the New York Times finds. Al Qaeda-Hussein Link is Dismissed, the Washington Post dismissed. No Signs of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties Found, the Los Angeles Times found. 9/11 Panel Finds No Link Between al-Qaeda and Iraq, the Associated Press finds. CNN reported Thursday that the Iraq Commission, er, the September 10 Commission, oops, the September 11 Commission had "found 'no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda'" were linked in any way, and found no credible evidence of a pre-war "Collaborative relationship" between Saddam and al-Qaeda -- even if they could. (Lots of contact, yes -- but no relationship. Kinda like Bill and Monica).
In a preliminary report, the panel staff rolled out its big guns, citing testimony from two captured al-Qaeda biggies who have "adamantly denied" any relationship, CNN reports. (These murderous savages slaughtered 3,000 Americans in cold blood. So what makes you think they would lie?) Mohammed Atta, who could not be reached for comment, would doubtless also adamantly deny any Collaborative Relationship with Iraq, especially since he's an Ariel Sharon-loving Zionist hand (See Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah). But there's more. Saddam Hussein himself had, over a year ago, adamantly denied any relationship to al-Qaeda, angrily telling a reporter for Britain's Channel 4, "I did not have Collaborative Relations with that man, Mr. bin Laden, even though I could!" Well, not quite what he said, but words to that effect.
"If we had a relationship with al Qaeda and if we believed in this relationship, we won't be ashamed to admit it," said Saddam, who's a firm believer in monogamous relations with one terror network at a time. Did Saddam have an affair with al-Qaeda? He left no doubt: "The answer is no." Saddam firmly resisted any temptation to hop in bed with al Qaeda. (Besides, who in their right mind would climb on the same bed with Teddy Kennedy?) And, in fairness, let's not forget that, on 9/11, Saddam, in a surprisingly solemn and touching statement, did offer sincerest condolences, saying, "America is reaping the thorns planted by its rulers in the world." In the same heartfelt spirit, darling son Uday movingly called the attacks "courageous operations carried out by young Arabs and Muslims." (What a dummy. As Michael Moore proves in his new non-controversial movie, these young Arabs and Muslims were really working for Dick Cheney and Halliburton).
The evening news broadcasts led with the Commission's blockbuster finding. "The 9/11 commission (contradicted) the White House today, particularly on claims that Iraq and al-Qaeda were linked before the war," NBC News reported. CBS News noted one of Bush's "last surviving justifications for war in Iraq took a devastating hit when the 9/11 Commission" found no collaborative relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda. "One of the Bush administration's most controversial assertions" is that bin Laden was linked to al-Qaeda," observed ABC News. "Today the 9/11 Commission said unequivocally, not so."
So the Commission and the New York Times and Saddam Hussein and two al-Qaeda detainees said unequivocally, 'not so' -- no links, no Collaborative Relationship, no affair between Saddam and al-Qaeda. That settles it, yes? Nope. In an act of brazen defiance towards the 9/11 Commission which found no credible evidence of al-Qaeda ties to Iraq, al-Qaeda big-wig al-Zarqawi continues to live in Iraq, having shacked up there long before the war, this despite the panel finding no credible evidence of any ties between him and Iraq. See what I mean? Zarqawi has a lot of gall defying the Commission this way. Has he even read the 9/11 staff report? He's not supposed to be there. (Other than contact with al-Qaeda, training of al-Qaeda and giving al-Qaeda safe haven in Iraq, where's the evidence Saddam had any ties to al-Qaeda?)
In even more blatant defiance of the Commission, documents continue to insist on showing that a senior Iraqi official, Ahmed Hikmad Shakir, attended a 9/11 planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in early 2000, despite the Infallible Commission finding of No Credible Evidence of cooperation. (What part of No Collaborative Relationship don't these documents understand?) Think that's galling defiance of the Commission? How about reams of documents which still maintain, despite the Commission finding, that al-Qaeda's Abdul Rahman Yasin was sheltered in Baghdad for 10 years and put on Saddam's payroll? This was the fellow who masterminded the '93 World Trade Center bombing. Or records which continue to show, despite the Commission finding, a 1996 meeting in Sudan involving bin Laden and senior Iraqi intelligence. Documents also argue that Osama, as early as '94, was eager to work with Baghdad, and that Baghdad was eager to work with Osama. These records appear unwilling, despite the Commission finding, to abandon their position. The Commission staff also found no credible evidence that, after 9/11, Saddam was preparing strikes in the U.S. and its interests abroad, just as reports surfaced that, after 9/11, Saddam was preparing strikes in the U.S. and its interests abroad. So even Russia's president appears in brazen defiance of Commission findings. (Who are you going to believe -- Jamie Gorelick, Osama Ben-Veniste or mere undercover officers spying on Saddam?)
But the mother-of-all defiance came from Dick Cheney. Speaking of the U.S. bombing of an al-Qaeda-linked pharmaceutical plant in Sudan during the Clinton administration, Cheney insisted "that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program, and that the CIA had found traces of EMTA nearby the facility itself."
"So let me get this straight," said Cheney. Here "you had a plant that was built under the following circumstances, (the manager had gone) to Baghdad, you had Osama bin Laden who had funded at least the corporation and you had traces of EMTA and you did what? You did nothing? Is that a responsible activity...?"
Oh wait -- that was former Clinton Defense chief William Cohen, testifying before the 9/11 Commission in March, insisting on strong Saddam-al-Qaeda ties.
Kidding aside, from everything I've seen, there appears to be no credible evidence of a collaborative relationship, no evidence of any link, no proof of any ties between Commission staff and Commissioners. The ink had barely dried on the staff's interim 'report' when Chairman and Vice-Chairman took to the airwaves to swiftly disavow its silly conclusions. This staff never lets facts get in the way of shoddy work, it seems. But the problem plaguing this mockery of a commission goes deeper than just a cheesy staff pulling strings in the background. A colossal failure, no one outside the Beltway takes this irrelevant panel seriously. Sink your teeth into this: Despite the media 'No Iraq-Qaeda Ties' propaganda barrage worthy of the Third Reich, the latest Washington Post Poll shows an overwhelming 61 percent of Americans believe Saddam and al-Qaeda were joined at the hip. Bush wasn't blazing any new trails; people instinctively knew there was a connection, again showing a keen grasp of the enemy, confounding the Ministry of Truth expecting to reap big dividends. The lopsided result is all the more striking given that the pollster, TNS, gave Democrats an 8 percentage point sampling advantage over Republicans, 38%-30%. (State elections data show the parties roughly even in registration). Moreover, despite the built-in sampling bias, Kerry barely edges Bush, 48%-44% in a three-way matchup. Take away the sampling bias, and Bush puts Kerry out to pasture.
Small wonder the media punks have taken on a tone of desperation. I smell victory.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
