Posted on 06/17/2004 12:07:45 PM PDT by Wolfstar
Overview of the Enemy
Staff Statement No. 15, Released June 16, 2004
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
[Ed. Note: Commission staff spells name as Usama Bin Ladin. This report is online at the above link. It is in .PDF format. Readers of this thread are strongly encouraged to read the entire report for themselves. Following are selected excerpts that demonstrate three key points: (1) The danger al Qaeda posed to United States interests developed and grew exponentially while Bill Clinton was president. (2) The media is misrepresenting not only President Bushs statements on Iraq-al Qaeda links, but the statement on this subject in this very staff report released yesterday. (3) Media leaks present a clear danger to our national security.]
[Begin excerpts.]
In 1989, the regime in Sudan invited Bin Ladin to move there. He sent an advance team to Sudan in 1990 and moved there in mid-1991 By 1992, Bin Ladin was focused on attacking the United States.
With al Qaeda as its foundation, Bin Ladin sought to build a broader Islamic army that also included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea. Not all groups from these states agreed to join, but at least one from each did. With a multinational council intended to promote common goals, coordinate targeting, and authorize asset sharing for terrorist operations, this Islamic force represented a new level of collaboration among diverse terrorist groups.
[Ed. Note: The staff report appears to indicate that the earliest known attack by an al Qaeda-trained group occurred in Yemen in December 1992. An explosion occurred outside two hotels in Aden and killed one Australian tourist. That was a month before Bill Clinton took office. Throughout his eight-year presidency, al Qaeda continued to grow in strength and the danger it posed to American interests. Bill Clinton did virtually nothing to curb that growth.]
[Continue excerpts.]
In October 1993, two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down and 18 U.S. soldiers were killed in Mogadishu, Somalia. U.S. intelligence learned in the ensuing years that Bin Ladins organization had been heavily engaged in assisting warlords who attacked U.S. forces in Somalia.
Bin Ladin and his senior associates touted the subsequent withdrawal of U.S. forces from Somalia in March 1994 as a victory for the mujahidin and a demonstration that the Americans could be forced to retreat.
Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Husseins secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin 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.
[Ed. Note: President Bushs point all along is that, in a post-9/11 world, WE COULD NOT WAIT FOR THREATS TO MATURE. We had to act preemptively. Bin Ladin WAS seeking weapons and assistance from Iraq. Simply because the relationship had not matured by 9/11/01, doesnt mean it never would have. In fact the opposite is true. Any sign of weakness on our part after 9/11/01 would have been interpreted by our enemies as an indicator that they could succeed at even worse attacks and it might well have been all the encouragement Hussein needed to form an alliance with al Qaeda.]
[Continue excerpts.]
Al Qaeda remains extremely interested in conducting chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attacks.
Al Qaeda and other extremist groups will likely continue to exploit leaks of national security information in the media, open-source information on techniques such as mixing explosives, and advances in electronics.
Regardless of the tactic, al Qaeda is actively striving to attack the United States and inflict mass casualties.
(Excerpt) Read more at 9-11commission.gov ...
Pinging you FYI.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001: "ATTACK ON AMERICA!" (Updated)
http://www.truthusa.com/911.html
This seems so at odds with what is being reported ... remarkable.
I went to the trouble of finding it, reading it, and excerpting key paragraphs by typing them for posting on FR, precisely to reveal the media lie to all who are interested in the truth.
All sorts of pro and con AQ spin is in the air. The bottom line - If the terror alert flag goes down after 6/30 we will have done the right thing. If it doesn't, we screwed up.
It would take too long to explain here, but the Congress passed sedition laws during the term of our 2nd president, John Adams. He signed the bill into law, but it was highly controversial in his day. Eventually, it cost him a 2nd term. I don't know if any other sedition laws were passed in the subsequent 200 years.
Unless you believe the staff report from the 9/11 commission is "spin," the above is the truth insofar as their investigation was able to reveal. It is not spin. Taking down Hussein in a post-9/11 world was the right thing to do for many reasons.
BTW, Mike, the media distorts or hides truth frequently. Nothing at all remarkable about it.
911 commission bump
GORELICK GATE: Developing...
various FR links | 04-14-04 | The Heavy Equipment Guy
And the liberal newsrooms of course have no interest in "truth", LOFL!!!
Bush and the Republicans better start swinging back HARD and they better start swinging back NOW. The scumbag press and its network news versions will have a field day with these daily drips and drabs of "9-11" info that they can distort and spin any way they want in order to smear Bush.
All the MSM tabloids just love there spins.
Compare what was really said to what the media reported--huge chasm separates the two!
Absolutely true. You won't get any argument from me about that point. What I'm primarily doing here on this thread is demonstrating how the media are distorting what the Commission staff report said about the Iraq-al Qaeda links.
We have heard endless 'reasons'. I'll check with the impartial umpire. The bottom line - If the terror alert flag goes down after 6/30 we will have done the right thing. If it doesn't, we screwed up.
You and I (and many Freepers) say that, but the truth of the matter is that a large segment of our population gets its news from the network news. These people, I'm convinced, would rush to purchase the Brooklyn Bridge if Tom or Petah or Dan assured them it was for sale.
You know, I've thought on what you wrote, and I have the distinct impression that you think President Bush only mentioned Iraq as being responsible for terror. That is not the case, he mentioned other countries--and if he were to give another speech on the matter, he'd no doubt have to add still more.
The terror alert flag is not going to go down on June 30, because the vermin still infest Iran, Syria, Korea, and portions of Pakistan--among other places. It's like trying to eradicate cockroaches in a tenement--you fog one flat, and they all run into another one to wait for the air to clear. It's a rough job ahead of us, and it won't be over by June 30. At least, not by June 30 of this year.
You're right about where most people get their news. That is, most people who even bother to get any news at all. In a country as vast as this, it's extremely difficult even for a president of the United States to get his message out to the people unfiltered by the media. We also shouldn't forget that the people have a responsibility to inform themselves. If they won't, there's nothing anyone can do about it.
You're right. I suppose I'm just grumbling because I know that if those fools and idiots muck up this election, I'm going to have to suffer alongside them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.