Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Saddam and Al Qaeda
Posted by: mcq on Friday, March 24, 2006

The New York Sun is reporting the following today:
A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerrey, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." Mr. Kerrey said he believed America's understanding of the deposed tyrant's relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed.
Indeed. That there were some sort of relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda is becoming less and less debatable. What that relationship was remains quite debatable. However it seems the millions of untranslated documents siezed by the US in Iraq and presently being translated may clear that up a bit.

For instance, this from the ABC translations:
A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.
If authentic, and at the moment there's no reason to believe it isn't, this establishes a tentative relationship and the stated desire to continue it as the Sudanese were asking OBL to leave. While this document is hand written and has no official seal, ABC notes that:
Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.
ABC also points out:
It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)
There's more and it's worth reading. Probably the most shocking revelation to come out of these papers is the apparent fact that Russia gave Iraq our war plans prior to the invasion:
Two Iraqi documents from March 2003 — on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion — and addressed to the secretary of Saddam Hussein, describe details of a U.S. plan for war. According to the documents, the plan was disclosed to the Iraqis by the Russian ambassador.

Document written sometime before March 5, 2003

The first document (CMPC-2003-001950) is a handwritten account of a meeting with the Russian ambassador that details his description of the composition, size, location and type of U.S. military forces arrayed in the Gulf and Jordan. The document includes the exact numbers of tanks, armored vehicles, different types of aircraft, missiles, helicopters, aircraft carriers, and other forces, and also includes their exact locations. The ambassador also described the positions of two Special Forces units.

Document dated March 25, 2003

The second document (CMPC-2004-001117) is a typed account, signed by Deputy Foreign Minister Hammam Abdel Khaleq, that states that the Russian ambassador has told the Iraqis that the United States was planning to deploy its force into Iraq from Basra in the South and up the Euphrates, and would avoid entering major cities on the way to Baghdad, which is, in fact what happened. The documents also state "Americans are also planning on taking control of the oil fields in Kirkuk." The information was obtained by the Russians from "sources at U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar," according to the document.
To those who still cling to the belief that "Russia is our friend", heed and beware. They aren't and never have been. Countries don't have friends, but they certainly do have enemies. And given this revelation, it's not difficult to devine which category Russia is in.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
It doesn’t matter what comes out now. The "narrative" on Iraq is as established as Bush’s plastic turkey. It doesn’t matter that there never was a plastic turkey, it is the accepted "truth" according to our leftist mainstream media. (At least it seems to be, because their columnists keep referring to it - two more such references just this week.)

It is the accepted "truth" that there was no WMD, and any evidence that comes out about WMD being taken to Syria will first be ignored and then dismissed as flawed, no matter how solid it is. It is the accepted "truth" that Saddam and Al Qaeda had no significant connections, and any memos that contradict that will again first be ignored and then dismissed as forgeries or not indicating anything of consequence.

If, at some point in the future, the consensus of the MSM became "there actually was WMD, because we found some in Syria", then the anti-war left would suffer catastrophic meltdown. The media will absolutely not let that happen.

The left and their media accomplices have shifted the debate on the Iraq invasion to say (1) that we invaded only because of WMD, and there wasn’t any, therefore Bush lied, people died, and (2) the American people were fooled into believing that Saddam was connected to 9/11.

Both are clearly untrue. Bush talked about bringing democracy to the Middle East before Iraq was ever invaded, though he wisely did not emphasize that point. After all, laying out a plan to eventually destabilize the Iranian, Syrian, Saudi, and Egyptian thugocracies would have been a rather stupid move on his part, because it would have made them active opponents instead of sullen bystanders. (In fact, Iran and, at times, Syria became active opponents for that very reason.)

Second, I can’t find any evidence that anybody tried to fool the American people into thinking Saddam was behind 9/11. Certainly there is and has been a general feeling of "Middle Eastern terrorists were behind 9/11, and Saddam liked Middle Eastern terrorists", and since that is unassailable, people are correct to feel that way. That’s not the same thing of course, but that doesn’t stop the left from claiming that it is, and that deception is involved.

In short, while I salute anyone trying to get some clarity on what really happened, and it may indeed be of interest and benefit to a small number of folks who pay attention, it won’t help the bigger problem of misunderstandings about the Iraq conflict and the Middle East in general promulgated by the American left.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda

Gee. I’m completely suprised by this nugget of information.
 
Written By: Tom
URL: http://
It is the accepted "truth" that Saddam and Al Qaeda had no significant connections, and any memos that contradict that will again first be ignored and then dismissed as forgeries or not indicating anything of consequence.
No, no, no. It’s commonly accepted that Saddam and Al Qaeda had no operational relationship. The 9/11 commission excplicitly notes that they had various contacts in the mid to late 90s. These new details are all very interesting — and they should certainly eliminate the rather silly notion that Secular Saddam "would never cooperate with Al Qaeda" or vice versa — but they don’t seem to tell us much we didn’t already know. Saddam and Al Qaeda had contacts in the mid/late-90s, but we’ve no evidence that they actually went anywhere.

These new memos are quite consistent with the prevailing understanding of matters there.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
No, no, no. It’s commonly accepted that Saddam and Al Qaeda had no operational relationship.
Among people who are paying attention to elements such as the 9/11 Commission report, that’s true. But it’s not what I was asserting.

Ask the average anti-war leftist if they believe there were any significant connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda before 9/11, and I can almost promise that you’ll get a resounding "No!" Ask a typical journalist, and they’s say there were maybe some incidental contacts, but that none of them meant anything.

The nuance that there may have been contacts and sympathy between those two parties, but no formal operational relationship, is not a point I think the left or the MSM is interested in tackling.

 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
1995? How about something of a more recent vintage.

From the AP, 3/21/06:
A few of the documents were gathered by the U.S. military during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and date from Saddam Hussein’s regime. But most have nothing to do with Iraq, and are al-Qaida-linked documents the U.S. military says were "captured during recent operations."

U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra said many had been gathered in Afghanistan.

The release, expected to continue for months, is designed to let U.S. lawmakers and the public investigate what documents from Saddam’s regime claimed about such issues as weapons of mass destruction before the invasion of Iraq.

The Web site cautioned the U.S. government "has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available."

Many of the documents were in Arabic, including one indicating Saddam’s regime was investigating what it called rumors that 3,000 Iraqis and Saudis had traveled unofficially to Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks to fight U.S. troops.

The Pentagon Web site said the document confirmed the presence of an al-Qaida terror group in Iraq. It described the document this way: "2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaida Members in Iraq."

However, a translation by The Associated Press found the document, a letter from an Iraqi intelligence official, dated Aug. 17, 2002, merely asked agents to be on the lookout for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and another suspect whose picture was attached. The letter cited reports that the two could be in Iraq and directed Iraqi security officials to be on alert as a matter of "top priority."

Attached were three responses in which Iraqi agents said there was no evidence that al-Zarqawi or the other man were in Iraq. Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, is now the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq.
So not only was there no operational relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq on the eve of the war, Iraqi agents were told to be on the "lookout" for Al-Zarqawi. Now, if there were an operational relationship, wouldn’t Saddam know that Al-Zarqawi was there? And why would Saddam be on the "lookout" for him, unless he was concerned that Al-Zarqawi might represent some kind of threat to his regime?

And then we get this:
The left and their media accomplices have shifted the debate on the Iraq invasion to say (1) that we invaded only because of WMD, and there wasn’t any, therefore Bush lied, people died, and (2) the American people were fooled into believing that Saddam was connected to 9/11.

Both are clearly untrue.
So why did a majority of Americans believe Saddam was behind 9/11?

And let’s be clear about what is going on here: ABC reports the existence of some document from 1995 that shows there were contacts between Al Qadea and Saddam. ABC doesn’t report that in 2002, Saddam felt threatened by Al Qaeda operative Zarqawi. And yet, the MSM, i.e., ABC, is somehow in league with the leftists in some kind of conspiracy to keep Bush down.

Right Billy, right.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
I won’t pretend to know their interpretation of "contacts", but I’ve seen little dispute that they occassionally had some contact. Kevin Drum put it best...
Basically, Saddam and Osama had a few tentative contacts, the most recent of which was in 1998/99 when Osama’s relationship with the Taliban was undergoing some strain and Saddam had just been bombed by U.S./British forces. But even at that, the evidence for some of those contacts turned out to be third-hand, recanted, denied by other al-Qaeda prisoners, or contradicted by known facts. The supposed meeting of Mohamed Atta with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague, for example, now appears to be thoroughly debunked. It just didn’t happen.

We’ll never conclude that there were absolutely no contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda, of course. This is the Middle East: everyone has connections of some kind with al-Qaeda. But Iraq seems to have had fewer contacts than virtually every other regime in the area.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I was wrong. ABC did report it. Good for them.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
So why did a majority of Americans believe Saddam was behind 9/11?
I’ve always thought it was because most Americans just don’t pay attention. They know little about the Middle East, but they know who Saddam was. I’m not even sure "most Americans" could find Iraq on a blank map.

In any event, by 9/13/01, "most Americans" already thought Saddam was likely involved with 9/11. Clearly, the administration didn’t give them that idea.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
The masks are falling off the Russian proxies McQ, and I rely on blogs like yours to keep tugging on them. Keep up the good work!

I think that Marxism’s generals didn’t just roll-over after the cold-war. They covertly took the movement in three logical directions. And our people were too blinded by the promise of a "peace dividend," and claims of media and politicians at the time to notice either one.

First, the movement returned home to its roots: Western Europe’s urbanized electorate and intelligentsia. Leave aside the fact that Marx did his best work in Austria, and remember that, following WWII, the driving force for Truman’s Marshall Plan was the fear that if we did not act, Western Europe from England to Italy, would elect Communist governments. In ’45 Truman’s administration knew what is obvious now: that Marxism’s sympathizers commune in Paris, Berlin, Cologne, Antwerp, London, Rome (and Berkeley, and Brooklyn).

Second, it cast a wide, uncritical net for proxy-actors. Fascistic Islamists and NPT-violators are natural allies to a prideful dictatoriat, bent on rewinning a lost era, but concerned, too, about preserving Russia’s newly-acceptable, post-Gorbechev, public mien.

Third, they concocted multiple new fronts on which their proxies attacked frequently. They breathed life into any organization that might oppose our nation’s foreign policy in a strategy that, more and more, relied on supra-national* bodies for legitimacy. They proliferated NGO’s of all progressive stripes, with advocacies ranging from Anti-Globalization to Anti-Zionism. They stood up the super-state E.U. and made no secret that they intended this monolith to serve as a socialist counter-weight to our nation in world affairs. And they populated U.N. debates with a discuss-it-ariat that saw it wise to convene one after another anti-American Conference on Sustainability, Racism, Global Warming, GM-foods, etc. (while ongoing Arab slavery, China’s CO2 emissions, Africa’s starving millions and Third-world debt conveniently don’t make these conferences’ agendas). An ancillary tactic is to manufacture nagging distractions that keep our government off balance and grind down our electorate’s resolve. An example would be keeping inflammable proxy battles alive: so long as the "Palestinian Crisis," "inflamed Arab Street," "Kashmir Crisis ," North Korean nuclear "crisis," Iraqi Baby-killing Sanctions "Crisis" remained unresolved, they could be inflamed at will to problematicize our nation’s policy debates, with little cost to the Russian nation, or her nation-state co-actors.

Sad thing is, I had the feeling during the nineties that these jerks were gaining some ground. Ponder that throughout the 90’s, while we dreamily surfed broadband and spent the "peace dividend," anti-American "Socialist" governments reigned, or took power, in Germany, France, Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Serbia, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and France (I could list any of Freedom House’s "less-free" countries like Malaysia or Indonesia, too).

But now I sense the tide has changed. Merkel’s win in Germany, regime Change in Iraq and Afghanistan, Harper’s win in Canada, Howard’s reelection in Australia, the awakening of France’s electorate to their nation’s internal mess, and Bush’s re-election in ’04 all are encouraging signs.
-Steve
*The word "multi-lateral" is preferred by those whose agenda it is to delegitimize the nation-state’s traditional role as the primary organizing unit in global governance.
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
The information was obtained by the Russians from "sources at U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar," according to the document.

I certainly hope someone is looking into THIS....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
So why did a majority of Americans believe Saddam was behind 9/11?


For the same reason they believed that Iraq was an imminent threat...

Shoddy reporting from the mainstream media, misreporting what the President, et al, said.

Clearly, the administration was trying to drive home the fact that, in the post 9/11 security environment we find ourselves in, we simply can not wait for a rogue state to develop weapons that can be easily passed to a 3rd party, and responsibility disavowed.

The fact that ABC and others in the mainstream media are finally picking this story up, gives me hope that a fuller picture of the threat Saddam posed will be shown to and absorbed by the public.

But, that’s just the optimist in me...
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
In any event, by 9/13/01, "most Americans" already thought Saddam was likely involved with 9/11. Clearly, the administration didn’t give them that idea.
A joke, right?

From the CS Montior, March 14, 2003:
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year [2003], attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
If most means 3%, then yes, by 9/13/01, most Americans thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
A joke, right?
No.
The Washington Post did a survey on 9/13/01 - just two days after 9/11 - asking ""How likely is it that Saddam Hussein is personally involved in Tuesday’s terrorist attacks..."".

————————-Likely———————————Not Likely———
DATE - - NET - Very - Somewhat - NET - Not very - At all No opin.
9/13/01 - 78 - - - 34 - - - - 44 - - - - - - 12 - - - - 9 - - - - - 3 - - - -9

78% of the general public thought it was likely that Saddam was involved in 9/11.....only TWO DAYS AFTER 9/11. Prior to ANY public statement by the administration. And two years later, despite all that "insinuation" going on....that percentage was down to 69%.
I’m sure the formating fouled up, so here’s a direct link to the poll.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Oh Jon, facts... facts are for LOSERS. MK just admitted in another thread. It’a all about ADVANTAGE. A better Poll would simply say 115% of the People of the United States Blamed Saddam for 9/11 and Demanded His Head. See it’s easy when you don’t have to use facts. Also in the NYT, "142.5% of all those Polled Think Joe Ought to be Named Absolute Dictator of the US, and Wouldn’t Mind Giving up Their Daughters to Him."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
MK
So why did a majority of Americans believe Saddam was behind 9/11?
Give me a break
Why do so many Americans read magazine like STAR and National Enquirer?

What, you think because the majority of Americans believe something that
necessarily means BUSH must have made them believe it?

Pull the other one.....

While I don’t think it was actively discouraged by the administration, I don’t recall it being touted as a link that existed directly.
IF THEY HAD CLAIMED AN ACTIVE LINK DO YOU REALLY REALLY THINK WE’D HAVE ASKED UN PERMISSION TO WHACK SADDAM’S IRAQ?
Let’s not rewrite history MK, okay?

You ought to be able to find plenty of articles to prove that was what Bush was claiming a link in past MSM publications if that is the case. And don’t you think the NYT and WAPO would dragging those out as samples if you could?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
What, you think because the majority of Americans believe something that necessarily means BUSH must have made them believe it?
Yes, he does think that. Blaming anything you don’t like on Bush is a classic symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
What, you think because the majority of Americans believe something that necessarily means BUSH must have made them believe it?
Again, you did not read the information I posted. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when asked an open-ended question about who was responsible for 9/11, only 3% of respondents mentioned Iraq or Hussein. In 2003, when the same open ended question was asked on the eve of war, 44% said Iraqis were involved.

Now, what changed in the meantime. Did documentary evidence come to light that Saddam was involved? No. Did Saddam say he was involved? No. Did OBL say Saddam was involved? No.

Did the Bush administration begin a innuendo campaign suggesting Saddam was involved? Yes.

If you have another possible reason, let me hear it.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Oh the OOOOOOLD "Innuendo Campaign" that old trick...........
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Again, you did not read the information I posted. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when asked an open-ended question about who was responsible for 9/11, only 3% of respondents mentioned Iraq or Hussein. In 2003, when the same open ended question was asked on the eve of war, 44% said Iraqis were involved.
So, how do you explain the poll Jon cited showing 78% of Americans on 9/13/01 thought it likely Saddam was behind the attacks?

Or does that poll not count?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
Is there a 9/13/01 poll that asks, "How likely is it that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks?" Or one for Iran? Or Egypt? Or Saudi Arabia? I suspect that any such poll would garner ’Very Likely’ answers at that time. When asked to pick the most likely one, it seems people were listening to the news reports that the hijackers were al Qaeda (Afghanistan) from Egypt and Saudia Arabia. It required a systematic effort to expunge those original details from the public mind.
 
Written By: Cat’s Yawn
URL: http://
Another thread wasted by MK. Sigh...

The post was about Russia’s duplicitous ties to Saddam - so MK winds the thread around "Bushlied."

Jeez.
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
The facts no longer matter in this debate. The left has already made up its mind that Bush lied, he "implied" that Iraq was connected with 9/11 etc. etc.

Not surprisingly, MK can’t directly respond to the Washington Post poll because it conflicts with what happened in fantasy world.
Did the Bush administration begin a innuendo campaign suggesting Saddam was involved? Yes. If you have another possible reason, let me hear it.


Perhaps it was becasue Bill Clinton told us repeatedly that Iraq posed a threat to our security sufficient that he needed to bomb it repeatedly. For one of many examples, on February 17, 1998, Bill Clinton gave a speecha at the Pentagon wherein he said "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals, who travel the world among us unnoticed." Also, in 1998, Mary Jo White (U.S. Attorney for Southern Dist. of New York who he appointed and a loyal Democrat who refused to indict Torch Torricelli for his obvious crimes) presented evidence to a Grand Jury in Manhattan and received an indictment against Bin Ladin that specifically charges "In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda woud work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq." Finally, remeber Clinton’s excuse for bombing the Sudanes aspirn factory? It was allegedly manufacturing precusor chemicals for chemical waepons for Iraq. Those are just three examples of many more establshing why the American people may have been predispoes to believing Iraq was involved with al Qaeda and, therefore, 9/11.

MK then points to some poll from 2003. Well, by 2003, there was additional evidence that Iraq was at least aware that al Qaeda was preparing an attack. Notwithstanding Jon credulously quoting Kevin Drum, Mohammed Atta’s meeting in Prague with Iraqi intelligence hasn’t even been close to debunked. The only "evidence" that Atta wasn’t in Prague at that meeting is that during the period of five days surrounding that meeting, when neither the CIA or FBI have any evidence of his whereabouts, his cell. phone was used in the U.S. He apparently had one of those cell. phones that only allowsits owner to place calls. Vcalav Havel and the former head of Czech Intelligence are still positive Atta attended the meeting. Then ther is the 2001 meeting of 9/11 conspirators (I believe it was in Malaysia) that was attended by Iraqi intelligence. Given that it was less than a year before the attacks and its participants travelled from all over theworld to attend, I am sure the subject of 9/11 never came up at the meeting. Those two facts came to light by 2003 and were reported in the media so there was a basis for someone thinking Iraq was involved. I don’t think they were directly, but there are lots of facts someone can point to to justify answering that second poll in the affirmative.

One of the most accurate generalizations one can make is that liberals are liars. They couldn’t care less what happens in reality. They really think that by merely saying "Bush led the American people into believing Iraq was responsible for 9/11" it is true regadless of the facts. The facts set forth above have been referenced on this web site ad nauseam over the lst several years, but MK has stuck to his guns nonetheless. Facts just down’t matter.
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://www.qando.net
A coda:

Look, I would concede there were some latent abti-Saddam feelings when polls where taken immediately after 9/11. Most polled Americans probably would have mentioned Saddam if his name was referenced during a question, but probably would not have mentioned him if his name wasn’t mentioned. After all, 2001 was only 10 years after 1991.

But when asked who was responsible for 9/11 immediately after 9/11, in an open ended question form, only 3% said Saddam. Two years later, 44% said it. The WaPo post is interesting, but it is not as revealing as the poll I referenced because the poll I referenced shows the impact of Bush’s propaganda.

In the end, every winger who peruses this blog knows that the Bush admiinistration sold the public on the idea that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Those who disagree engage in Clinton-like parsing.

Finally, we get Anonnymous:
Mohammed Atta’s meeting in Prague with Iraqi intelligence hasn’t even been close to debunked.
And a Republican opponent of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy in race for Senator from New York claims that Hillary is flying helicopters over her house. No, really.

Black Helicopters.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
In the end, every winger who peruses this blog knows that the Bush admiinistration sold the public on the idea that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
Well, you’re almost right. It should read:
In the end, every left winger who peruses this blog knows that the Bush admiinistration sold the public on the idea that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
The rest of us (libertarian and right wing alike) know that there’s no documentation to back up that claim. We understand that in the real world of people who don’t really follow the news that closely, the idea that "Saddam is bad and he likes terrorists" is enough for many people to jump to the conclusion that he was involved in 9/11, without anything specific ever telling them that.

Look, mk, surveys have shown that around something like half the population believes we have an alien spaceship in Area 51. I suppose you blame Bush for that too.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
But when asked who was responsible for 9/11 immediately after 9/11, in an open ended question form, only 3% said Saddam. Two years later, 44% said it.
Actually, that second poll asked nothing of the sort. It asked what nationality the hijackers were, and there’s no evidence from the passage you cited that the second poll was open-ended.

What we’d have to believe is that while 78% percent of the people thought Hussein was likely to have been involved in 9/11, 97% thought it more likely that someone else was involved. That isn’t a reasonable result.

The poll Jon cited showed the percentage of people who thought it "likely" or "very likely" that Saddam was personally involved with 9/11 declined over the next two years.
In the end, every winger who peruses this blog knows that the Bush admiinistration sold the public on the idea that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Those who disagree engage in Clinton-like parsing.
Curiously enough, you provide no citations for the propaganda you speak of. The only cite you gave was an analysis of two different polls. If you went through all the trouble to find that cite, surely you could have found evidence of this massive propaganda campaign you claim existed.

In the end, most everyone who peruses this blog knows that you’re full of baloney.


But, just for argument’s sake, let’s say that everything you posted on this thread is true. Let’s say that the Bush administration somehow brainwashed a huge percentage of the country into believing that Saddam had a hand in 9/11. What does that have to do with the information in the original post? Does it refute the assertion that Iraq did have contact with AQ? Does it refute the assertions that Russia tipped Iraq to the US’s plans?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
Maybe these US champions of freedom and democracy were looking for Bin Laden in the Baghdad mosque?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=93037
 
Written By: Martin
URL: http://
Bad Link. 2nd try.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=93037
 
Written By: Martin
URL: http://
Finally, we get Anonnymous:
Mohammed Atta’s meeting in Prague with Iraqi intelligence hasn’t even been close to debunked.
And a Republican opponent of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy in race for Senator from New York claims that Hillary is flying helicopters over her house. No, really.
MK, that non-sequitur response is pathetic even by the ridiculously low standard you have set for yourself. Neither the CIA nor the FBI know where Mohammed Atta was for five days surrounding the day upon which Czech Intelligence is positive he met with an Iraqi Intelligence officer outside of Prague. The idiotic claim that his cell. phone being used (by whom is unknown) in the US during that time "debunks" Czech Intelligence is laughable. You didn’t address the substance because you can’t. It never ceases to amaze me how lefty Bush Haters refuse to accept reality.

Steverino is right, you’re trying to change the subject from the fact that al Qaeda and Saddam had multiple contacts before and after 9/11. Notwithstanding the after the fact, semantical games from a 9/11 staffer who had to insert the word "operational" in the 9/11 report to salvage the lefty, moon bat fantasy that al Qaeda and Saddam never had any connection whatsoever (and that is exactly what Michael Moore, Howard Dean and others said prior to the 2004 election), according to the Clinton Administration there were "operational" contacts regarding bomb making and chemical plants in the Sudan. The facts also contradict the lefty moonbat, junior varsity debate team, mantra that Saddam was secular and al Qaeda was religious so they would never ally themselves with one antoher.
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
Countries don’t have friends, but they certainly do have enemies.
Saudis are a friend and ally of America. Same Saudis that sponsor the Chechen "jihad" that massacres Russian children. Guess that makes America an enemy of Russia.


BTW Which member of America’s military, DoD or Whitehouse is the traitor that provided battleplans to Russia?
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider