9/11 Commision member says new info after report written about Iraq-Al Quadia link

[buggs]

911 Commission member John Lehman, on Meet the Press with TIM RUSSERT, June 20, 2004:

The Bush administration has never said that they participated in the 9/11 attack. They've said, and our staff has confirmed, there have been numerous contacts between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda over a period of 10 years, at least. And now there's new intelligence, and this has come since our staff report has been written because, as you know, new intelligence is coming in steadily from the interrogations in Guantanamo and in Iraq and from captured documents. And some of these documents indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al-Qaeda. That still has to be confirmed. But the vice president was right when he said that he may have things that we don't yet have. And we are now in the process of getting this latest intelligence.

Here is the MSNBC webpage with the transcript of the show:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5255893

[MrMacphisto]

There's one slight problem with this scenario.... If the V.P. had more info on this topic, then he should be more specific about it. If the administration was so sure about the Al-Quida connection, then they should've disclosed more specifics about these connections during the period in which we sent in the U.N. inspectors.

As for the official under Saddam's government and his connection to Al Quida, I can only say this: I'm sure that Al Quida has plenty of connections to certain members of various Middle Eastern governments, but does that make it right (or smart) to invade all of their countries, especially when we're recovering from a recession?

[buggs]

MrMacphisto, alot of that is still classified for various reasons. Alot of it is still being fact checked. We probably wont have alot of documents coming out for years. Some documents will not come out as the information contained in them are being used in curent investigations to seek out other involved parties. It is not that they don't want to turn them over. It is because, for whatever various security reasons, they can't be truned over. Again, a quote from that link above between Russert and Ben-Veniste:

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Lehman said that it's quite possible that Vice President Cheney does know things that the commission doesn't know. You agree with that?

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Yes, I hope he does on a current basis.

[MrMacphisto]

I understand the principle behind keeping some intel classified, but he still has to disclose a bit more for his claims to be believable. If they're still in the fact-checking phase, then we shouldn't have entered the war until we were certain that Saddam's regime had a direct connection. We jumped the gun on this one, and a lack of preparation is biting us in the ass.

[buggs]

We had a lot of intel that told us that Iraq had connections to Saddam's regime. I even posted something two weeks ago where Russian President Vladamir Putin said that they had given the administration intel right after 9/11 that Iraq wanted to attack us. We know that Zarqawi had gone to an Iraqi hospital after his camp was raided in Afganistan. We also have intel that he had a training camp in the Northern region of Iraq. Even if it was a no-fly zone, he still had it there. Bush said in his speech after 9/11 that he was going to go after the terrorists and the countries that harbored terrorist. As for the Cheney question about disclosing intel, I just posted something, but realized since it is based on a conversation I had with an ex intel guy, and his opinions are based on what he experienced first hand in that community, I am removing it from this post. I am doing that as what I had posted was his opinion, and he is not actively involved in the Iraq investigation, not does he have any connection to anyone that is. He has not been actively involved in the intelligence community for over 15 years, since the 80's. It is not something that can be looked up online. I wish I could post my response, but I am afraid it would be deleted, so I am leaving my reply as this.

[MrMacphisto]

Well, buggs, I have one question for you... given Bush's statement about going after all states that harbor terrorists, would you support a never-ending war with the majority of the Third World? Heck, even some First World countries could fall under this policy, but I know the Third World ones would be the first targets. Do you really think it's smart, let alone affordable, for us to pursue such things?

[qjakal]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto


I understand the principle behind keeping some intel classified, but he still has to disclose a bit more for his claims to be believable. If they're still in the fact-checking phase, then we shouldn't have entered the war until we were certain that Saddam's regime had a direct connection. We jumped the gun on this one, and a lack of preparation is biting us in the ass.


Well, buggs, I have one question for you... given Bush's statement about going after all states that harbor terrorists, would you support a never-ending war with the majority of the Third World? Heck, even some First World countries could fall under this policy, but I know the Third World ones would be the first targets. Do you really think it's smart, let alone affordable, for us to pursue such things?


---------------------------------------------

Nicely phrased and tough to dispute. A horrific lapse in our intelligence agencies, either in falsely identifying WMD or being unable to track them carefully enough that they have now disappeared...we don't look like the sharpest crayon in the box either way now do we?

But as for the second half, I think we have no choice but to pursue those who have vowed to destroy us since they have demonstrated their capability to inflict significant harm. Basically, they've called down the thunder, to get a bit Old West for a moment, and now have to bear the consequences. We can't afford NOT to continue or we'll have wasted most of the effort we've put forth to date. Why let up and allow them to regroup, or allow countries to think we won't pursue terrorism and encourage them to shelter this cancer?

Sometimes 90% of the fight is being willing to step into the ring...

Q

[buggs]

As far as intelligence, I believe they had WMD's and moved them into Syria before the war, when France and Germany was stalling us in the U.N.(http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39182). Israeli and Jordanian intelligence says they moved it, and we also have satelite imagery. The White House isn't talking about it yet because they want it confirmed. So I don't think we screwed the pooch on this. I think we got screwed by supposed allie's stalling us so that Saddam could quickly destroy some, and hide rest of the weapons that they illegally sold to him (there was a U.N. ban on this that both countries signed after Gulf War 1), and now those weapons are somewhere else.

And as far as going after every country that has terrorist? Yes I believe we should. This problem has been going on for too long and no one did anything about it but sit on their hands, including us, till it was too late. Europe had been having problems with terrorists but decided to take the "Let' just leave them alone and they will go away" approach. Well guess what? They didn't go away. They just got cockier, more brazen, and a hell of a lot bigger. So now are a real problem. It usually falls to us taking care of the problem, even though the rest of the world bitches and moans. And that is what we are going to do-take care of the problem once and for all. And as far as it taking for years, if that is what it takes then that is what it takes. I am trying to find the name and link to the one Noble prize winner who is behind the War with Iraq, and on terror, because he said something like "sometimes to have peace you have to have war to attain that peace." When I find it and a link I will edit and put it in this post. I know he was a spanish guy, or had a spanish last name.