Scott McClellan's new book on his tenure at the White House.

[TRNDRVR]

Their are just too many pissed off americans that had enough of the Republicans for a while.

arty: arty: arty:

 

[Ecomike]

I already answered that--Iraq is the only one that has a demonstrated willingness to use WMD. Could you pay attention instead of running down your talking point sheets?

That is not true, Iran used WMDs on Iraq during the Iran Iraq war. The US, Britain, Germany, and France used mustard gas (now illegal chemical WMD) in WWII. Britain and the US used chemcial WMDs on an entire city, Hamburg Germany in WWII.

I assume you mean chemical WMD weapons when you say WMDs, since Iraq never had and never used Nuclear or Biological WMDs. Just a thought, but even that defination (Chemical WMDs) is a bit unyieldy and broad, as one could consider using napal on an entire city (Hamburg Germany, WWII, IIRC) the use of chemical WMDs. Google "fire storm, Hamburg Germany WWII". IN fact all convential weapons (except maybe knives) are chemical!!!

The Russians used illegal chemical nerve agents just a few years ago during the GWB administration against a group of their own people (who were holding hostages at the time, Croatians I think?).

Interesting that we classify our own depleted uranium artillary and anti-tank shells as convential weapons, yet we send in the nuclear hazmat teams to clean up the mess they leave behind.

And the GW Bush administration is the first in US history to switch to a first strike with nuclear missiles option at a time of their choosing, should they believe the circumstance warrants their use. So much for MAD, (mutually Assured Destruction) the pollicy we used successfully for 50 years to avoid WWIII and to contain the cold war to non-nuclear conflicts.

In case you people don't realize it, it was in part because of our own beligerance throughout the world after WWII and our prior use of nuclear weapons that we ended up in a nuclear arms race with the Russians (USSR at the time) that nearly destroyed all human life on the planet. Running around the world using our military to kick ass anytime we please, or anytime a US president gets pissed off and decides to act on his own initiative (like GWB did in Iraq), is all these little countires like Iran need to justify arming themselves with Nukes!

Better to do like Teddy Roosevelt, "Walk Softly and Carry a Big SticK". No need to use the stick, just carry it and display it.

Right now we are so mired down and stuck in Iraq, we are no lomger considered a viable thread on the ground (too many of our limited number of ground troops are already committed, and the rest of the world will no longer support our troops with their troops becuase of GWBs failures and excesses) by many other countries, as we are currently way over committted ground troop wise in Iraq because of the mistakes GWB made in Iraq. In fact we are so over committed in Iraq that we have let the Taliban retake parts of Afganistan.

How can any of you seriously try to defend GWBs failures and mistakes as success stories?

 

[Ecomike]

Well it certainly was one of the reasons

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

I don't recall Suddam ever trying to assasinate Bush senior, nor do I ever recall Iraq attacking the USA directly (except in words). I do recall Bush senior openly suggesting that the Iraq people should assasinate Saddam after the Gulf War ended! Even GWB sanctioned assasination attempts on Saddam.

The engagements you refer too were started by US forces months after the Gulf war ended when Saddam was using his remaining air forces to kill Iraq rebels (not US troops) that he was fighting with to retain power, just like we are now fighting some of those same rebel forces in Iraq. Eventually Saddam's people started shooting back at us after we shot at them.

Don't get me wrong, Saddam and some of his cronnies had to go, or at least be contained. The mistake was to move in and try to occupy Iraq so we could scare the Iranians and threaten them directly from their own border.

Now that Iran, and AlQuida have us exactly where they want us in Iraq, they are doing the same thing to us that Communists did to us in the Vietnam war (which nearly started a civil war in this country), and the same things we did to the Russians when they got bogged down in Afganistan during the 1980s Russian occupation of Afganistan (which by the way bankrupted the USSR and lead to its eventual downfall in 1990-91). In fact our own CIA created Osama Ben Ladin, trained and equiped him, and sent him from Saudia Arabia in the 1980s to Afganistan to train the Taliban how to fight the Russians who were occupying Afganistan at the time.

Are any of you old enough to remember the Shaw of Iran! The dictator we set up and supported in Iran from the end of WWII till his fall in the mid 1970's? He was another US puppet dictator that we created, and supported in return for his supporting us durring the cold war with the Russians. History says he was just as blood thirsty a dictator as Saddam was, but he was our dictator, just like Saddam was until he invaded Kuwait!

 

[ehall]

The US, Britain, Germany, and France used mustard gas (now illegal chemical WMD) in WWII.

I love this argument, it's like the US is supposed to invade the US

People are completely missing the point about all this--after 9/11, the threat that terrorist groups would use WMD in attacks against the US became extremely real. The Saddam regime had a history of working with terrorist groups (including AQ aligned groups), had a history of actually using WMD in attacks against his enemies, and had a history of attacking US citizenry and interests.

Playing little games like "oh the US used them 60 years ago too" is just a way of sticking your head in the sand and avoiding the actual threat.

 

[ehall]

I don't recall Suddam ever trying to assasinate Bush senior, nor do I ever recall Iraq attacking the USA directly (except in words).

Clinton bombs Iraq in retaliation for assassination attempt

U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush
By David Von Drehle and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 27, 1993; Page A01

U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April.

The attack was meant to strike at the building where Iraqi officials had plotted against Bush, organized other unspecified terrorist actions and directed repressive internal security measures, senior U.S. officials said.

Clinton, speaking in a televised address to the nation at 7:40 last night, said he ordered the attack to send three messages to the Iraqi leadership: "We will combat terrorism. We will deter aggression. We will protect our people."

Clinton said he ordered the attack after receiving "compelling evidence" from U.S. intelligence officials that Bush had been the target of an assassination plot and that the plot was "directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service."

"It was an elaborate plan devised by the Iraqi government and directed against a former president of the United States because of actions he took as president," Clinton said. Bush led the coalition that drove Iraq from Kuwait in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. "As such, the Iraqi attack against President Bush was an attack against our country and against all Americans," Clinton said.

[...]

Clinton was persuaded to act by three kinds of evidence, a senior intelligence official said last night. First, key suspects in the plot confessed to FBI agents in Kuwait. Second, FBI bomb experts painstakingly linked the captured car bomb to previous explosives made in Iraq. Third, unspecified intelligence assessments concluded that Saddam meant seriously the threats he has made against Bush. Other classified intelligence sources supported this analysis, the official said.

The combination made the CIA "highly confident that the Iraqi government, at the highest levels, directed its intelligence service to assassinate former president Bush," said the intelligence official.

Iraqi ties to Abu Sayyaf bombings of US targets

Iraqi link to two Abu Sayyaf bomb plots: report

Tuesday, February 18, 2003 Posted: 10:26 PM EST (0326 GMT)

MANILA, Philippines (AP) -- A cell phone used by a member of the Abu Sayyaf Muslim extremist group to call an Iraqi diplomat was later employed in a failed attempt to trigger a bomb, according to a confidential Philippine intelligence report.

Iraqi Consul Husham Husain was expelled last week after the report claimed he received a call from an Abu Sayyaf member on October 3 last year, a day after a bomb in southern Zamboanga city killed a U.S. soldier and two other people. [...]

Six days after the contact was made, the caller's cell phone was used to try to set off another bomb in Zamboanga's San Roque district, near the military's Southern Command headquarters, but it failed to go off, according to the intelligence report, obtained by The Associated Press.

Police later recovered the bomb and the cell phone, a security official said. The cell phone listed contacts for Hamsiraji Sali, one of five Abu Sayyaf leaders on a U.S. wanted list.

Sali, believed to be hiding on southern Basilan island, has threatened to launch terror attacks in Manila and other Philippine cities if the United States attacks Iraq, the intelligence report says.

Last week, Philippine Foreign Secretary Blas Ople confronted Iraqi Charge d'Affaires Samir A-Masih Bolus with the intelligence report linking Husain to the Abu Sayyaf.

There's plenty more out there if you are interested in actually learning about the documented history.

 

[Ecomike]

People are completely missing the point about all this--after 9/11, the threat that terrorist groups would use WMD in attacks against the US became extremely real. The Saddam regime had a history of working with terrorist groups (including AQ aligned groups), had a history of actually using WMD in attacks against his enemies, and had a history of attacking US citizenry and interests.

I disagree, I think the highest threat point was just before 9/11 when the republicans weren't paying enough attention to the real threat. In fact they (Condalisa Rice IIRC) fired the one man that was close to figuring out the conspiracy and stopping the 9/11 attack just weeks before the attack happened.

I was a Local Emergency Planning Committee chairman for 15 years here, and back in 1990 I was saying the biggest threat was having a plane drop out of the sky (for any reason) onto the local refinery complexes around Houston. :doh:

It would make Phopal look like a joy ride. Since 9/11 we have been much more focused and alert and watching out for such threats, and yet the Republicans have done nothing to properly guard our ports from such attacks, not anything like what they did with airport security. In fact they nearly sold our US ports and nearly turned over US port security to a bunch of Arabs in the UAI recently!!!

Everything I have heard and read has disputed that, saying there has never been any connection betwen terrorists (meaning AlQuida!!!) an Saddam, in fact the terrorists hated Saddam as much we did! Where are you get this from? The Bush manufactured lies to sell the war?

So you are saying we went to war for 5 years, because some two bit despotic dictator that we tried to knock off unsucesfully, tried to bump off the retired president that had previously ordered or sanctioned a hit on him?

Saudia Arabia, Iran, rebels in Afganistan, Syria, North Korea, Russia (up until 1990-91), Libya for years, various elements in Pakistan, and palestinians in Lebonon, all had far more to do with supporting terrorism that Saddam ever had. Saddam did not bother with terrorism he was too busy fighting wars with Iran and us. If we had followed your thinking the last 30 years, we would be at war with half the planet by now.

 

[ehall]

Everything I have heard and read has disputed that, saying there has never been any connection betwen terrorists (meaning AlQuida!!!) an Saddam, in fact the terrorists hated Saddam as much we did! Where are you get this from? The Bush manufactured lies to sell the war?

ROFL there is a documented history that precedes the Bush administration. Indeed, under the Clinton administration it was an accepted fact. Now we are told that it was all a Bush fabrication, as if time started on his inaugriation day.

For starters, the 9/11 Commission found evidence of Saddam and AQ trying to work together:

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin. In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December. Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

A little more info about it

Just days after Operation Desert Fox [a four-day bombing strike launched by Clinton against Iraq] concluded one of Saddam's most loyal and trusted intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, was dispatched to Afghanistan. He met with senior leaders from the Taliban and then with bin Laden and his cohorts on December 21.

While we cannot be sure what transpired at this meeting, we can be sure that it was not some benign event. In fact, within days of the meeting bin Laden loudly declared his opposition to the U.S.-led missile strikes on Iraq and called on all Muslims to strike U.S. and British targets, including civilians, around the world. According to press accounts at the time, bin Laden explained, "The British and the American people loudly declared their support for their leaders' decision to attack Iraq." He added that the citizens' support for their governments made it "the duty of Muslims to confront, fight, and kill" them.

Bin Laden's words sounded alarm bells around the world. Countless media outlets scurried to uncover the details of the relationship between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. Dozens of news outlets--foreign and domestic--reported on the growing relationship and its ominous implications. When assessing any news account the reader must take all of the information with a grain of salt. But the sheer weight of the evidence reported from so many different sources paints a disturbing picture.

reporting from ABC News in January 1999 about the meetings which has dropped into the memory hole

Oh and I guess you've forgotten that the Clinton administration bombed a chemical plant in Sudan because they thought there was proof positive of Iraqi-Al Qaeda joint VX production

For nearly two years, starting in 1996, the CIA monitored the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. The plant was known to have deep connections to Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation, and the CIA had gathered intelligence on the budding relationship between Iraqi chemical weapons experts and the plant's top officials. The intelligence included information that several top chemical weapons specialists from Iraq had attended ceremonies to celebrate the plant's opening in 1996. And, more compelling, the National Security Agency had intercepted telephone calls between Iraqi scientists and the plant's general manager.

Iraq also admitted to having a $199,000 contract with al Shifa for goods under the oil-for-food program. Those goods were never delivered. While it's hard to know what significance, if any, to ascribe to this information, it fits a pattern described in recent CIA reporting on the overlap in the mid-1990s between al Qaeda-financed groups and firms that violated U.N. sanctions on behalf of Iraq.

The clincher, however, came later in the spring of 1998, when the CIA secretly gathered a soil sample from 60 feet outside of the plant's main gate. The sample showed high levels of O-ethylmethylphosphonothioic acid, known as EMPTA, which is a key ingredient for the deadly nerve agent VX. A senior intelligence official who briefed
reporters at the time was asked which countries make VX using EMPTA. "Iraq is the only country we're aware of," the official said. "There are a variety of ways of making VX, a variety of recipes, and EMPTA is fairly unique."

That briefing came on August 24, 1998, four days after the Clinton administration launched cruise-missile strikes against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan (Osama bin Laden's headquarters from 1992-96), including the al Shifa plant. The missile strikes came 13 days after bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 257 people--including 12 Americans--and injured nearly 5,000. Clinton administration officials said that the attacks were in part retaliatory and in part preemptive. U.S. intelligence agencies had picked up "chatter" among bin Laden's deputies indicating that more attacks against American interests were imminent.

So yeah there is a pretty well established documented history here that pretty much destroys your theory that "in fact the terrorists hated Saddam as much we did" and that it was all manufactured by the Bush administration.

Whatever. You have made a little cocoon for yourself, no reality allowed. S'alright.

 

[Ecomike]

Pentagon Report on Saddam's Iraq Censored?
ABC News Tuesday 12 March 2008
ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's release and will no longer make the report available online.
The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.
It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online.
Asked why the report would not be posted online and could not be emailed, the spokesman for Joint Forces Command said: "We're making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we'll send it out via CD in the mail."
Another Pentagon official said initial press reports on the study made it "too politically sensitive."
ABC News obtained the comprehensive military study of Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism on Tuesday. Read the report's executive summary HERE.
The study, which was due to be released Wednesday, found no "smoking gun" or any evidence of a direct connection between Saddam's Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist organization.
The report is based on the analysis of some 600,000 official Iraqi documents seized by US forces after the invasion. It is also based on thousands of hours of interrogations of former top officials in Saddam's government who are now in U.S. custody.
Others have reached the same conclusion, but no previous study has had access to so much information. Further, this is the first official acknowledgement from the U.S. military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda.

The primary target, however, of Saddam's terror activities was not the United States, and not Israel. "The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq." Saddam's primary aim was self preservation and the elimination of potential internal threats to his power.
Bush administration officials have made numerous attempts to link Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda terror group in their justification for waging war against Iraq.
"What I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network," former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations February 5, 2003.

"But the cost is far less than it will be if we get hit, for example, with a weapon that Saddam Hussein might provide to al-Qaeda, the cost to the United States of what happened on 9/11 with billions and billions of dollars and 3,000 lives. And the cost will be much greater in a future attack if the terrorists have access to the kinds of capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed," Cheney said.

------
I can't help but wonder how that potential cost would have compared to the real latest cost of the war in Iraq, add up the 1 trillion or so we have spent on the war already, the dead and injured US troops, loss of goodwill worldwide, I just don't see the numbers, in fact if we had spent that trillion dollars on securing the US borders, ports and inteligence gathering efforts, we would be far more secure than we are now. Right now we have several million really pissed off arabs running around with far more reason to hate us then they ever had. In fact, we probably would have 100,000 fewer casualties, and 3000 fewer dead troops if we had not invaded Iraq.

--------

Link the news above"

http://www.truthout.org/article/pentagon-report-saddams-iraq-censored



But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.
The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Clarke also tells CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl that White House officials were tepid in their response when he urged them months before Sept. 11 to meet to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda.

"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking.

Clarke is due to testify this week before the special panel probing whether the attacks were preventable. Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorism czar, then held over again by the current President Bush.

In the 60 Minutes interview and the book, Clarke tells what happened behind the scenes at the White House before, during and after Sept. 11.

When the terrorists struck, it was thought the White House would be the next target, so it was evacuated. Clarke was one of only a handful of people who stayed behind. He ran the government's response to the attacks from the Situation Room in the West Wing.

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."

Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

When Stahl pointed out that some administration officials say it's still an open issue, Clarke responded, "Well, they'll say that until hell freezes over." By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism, even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous chatter.

The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."

Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.

Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden. The president's new campaign ads highlight his handling of Sept. 11 -- which has become the centerpiece of his bid for re-election.

"You are writing this book in the middle of this campaign," Stahl tells Clarke. "The timing, I'm sure, you will be questioned about and criticized for. Why are you doing it now?"

"Well, I'm sure I'll be criticized for lots of things," says Clarke. "And I'm sure they'll launch their dogs on me."

Does a person who works for the White House owe the president his loyalty?

"Yes ... Up to a point. When the president starts doing things that risk American lives, then loyalty to him has to be put aside," says Clarke. "I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11 has made us less safe. Absolutely."

Hadley staunchly defended the president to Stahl: "The president heard those warnings. The president met daily with ... George Tenet and his staff. They kept him fully informed and at one point the president became somewhat impatient with us and said, 'I'm tired of swatting flies. Where's my new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda?'"

Hadley says that, contrary to Clarke's assertion, Mr. Bush didn't ignore the ominous intelligence chatter in the summer of 2001.

"All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas. But interestingly enough, the president got concerned about whether there was the possibility of an attack on the homeland. He asked the intelligence community: 'Look hard. See if we're missing something about a threat to the homeland.'

"And at that point various alerts went out from the Federal Aviation Administration to the FBI saying the intelligence suggests a threat overseas. We don't want to be caught unprepared. We don't want to rule out the possibility of a threat to the homeland. And therefore preparatory steps need to be made. So the president put us on battle stations."

Hadley asserts Clarke is "just wrong" in saying the administration didn't go to battle stations.

As for the alleged pressure from Mr. Bush to find an Iraq-9/11 link, Hadley says, "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."

When told by Stahl that 60 Minutes has two sources who tell us independently of Clarke that the encounter happened, including "an actual witness," Hadley responded, "Look, I stand on what I said."

Hadley maintained, "Iraq, as the president has said, is at the center of the war on terror. We have narrowed the ground available to al Qaeda and to the terrorists. Their sanctuary in Afghanistan is gone; their sanctuary in Iraq is gone. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are now allies on the war on terror. So Iraq has contributed in that way in narrowing the sanctuaries available to terrorists."Does Clarke think that Iraq, the Middle East and the world is better off with Saddam Hussein out of power?

"I think the world would be better off if a number of leaders around the world were out of power. The question is what price should the United States pay," says Clarke. "The price we paid was very, very high, and we're still paying that price for doing it."

"Osama bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country. He had been saying this. This is part of his propaganda," adds Clarke.

"So what did we do after 9/11? We invade an oil-rich and occupy an oil-rich Arab country which was doing nothing to threaten us. In other words, we stepped right into bin Laden's propaganda. And the result of that is that al Qaeda and organizations like it, offshoots of it, second-generation al Qaeda have been greatly strengthened."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda

Two main questions have been raised regarding the alleged connection between the Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda. The first asks whether the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda had a cooperative relationship, and the second whether Saddam Hussein's government supported the September 11, 2001 attacks.[citation needed]

• The intelligence community (CIA, NSA, DIA, etc) view, confirmed by the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, is that there was not a cooperative effort between the two and that Saddam did not support the 9/11 attacks. According to this view, the difference in ideology between Saddam and al-Qaeda made cooperation in any terrorist attacks very unlikely.[6] The Senate Report discussed the possibility of Saddam offering al-Qaeda training and safe-haven, but confirmed the CIA's conclusion that there was no evidence of operational cooperation between the two.[7]
• The Bush administration view, as defined by the Colin Powell speech before the UN, postulated that there might have been a cooperative relationship, but that Saddam was not supportive of the 9/11 attacks. Powell presented several credible intelligence reports vetted by the Intelligence Community showing contacts between Iraq's Intelligence Service and al-Qaeda. Powell pointed out that Saddam had already supported Islamic Jihad, a radical Islamist group and that there was no reason for him not to support al-Qaeda. Powell discussed concerns that Saddam may provide al-Qaeda with chemical or biological weapons. The Bush Administration view was influenced in part by the "false flag" view of Laurie Mylroie, whose answers to the questions followed along the lines that not only did Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda have a cooperative relationship, but also that the Iraqi regime supported the 9/11 attacks as well. Very few people share Mylroie's view but her book on the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was very influential among several top Bush Administration officials. Mylroie maintains that the existence of a Saddam-9/11 link has been confirmed by evidence uncovered since Saddam's overthrow.[8][9] Dr. Robert S. Leiken of the Nixon Center noted that Mylroie "also believes Saddam perpetrated 9-11 in spite of the fact that the joint FBI-INS-police PENTBOM investigation, the FBI program of voluntary interviews and numerous other post-9-11 inquiries, together comprising probably the most comprehensive criminal investigation in history—chasing down 500,000 leads and interviewing 175,000 people -- has turned up no evidence of Iraq's involvement; nor has the extensive search of post-Saddam Iraq by the Kay and Duelfer commission and US troops combing through Saddam’s computers."[10]

While some contacts between agents of Saddam's government and members of al-Qaeda have been alleged, the consensus of experts and analysts has held that those contacts never led to an "operational" relationship. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that there was only one actual meeting between representatives of the Baathist regime and representatives of al-Qaeda. This single meeting took place in the Sudan in 1995, and the Iraqi representative, who is in custody and has been cooperating with investigators, said that after the meeting he "received word from his IIS chain-of-command that he should not see bin Laden again." The Panel found evidence of only two other instances in which there was any communication between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda members. On the other two occasions, the Committee concluded, Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qaeda operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qaeda and Iraq."

 

[ehall]

In regards to your cites that there is no evidence of a "direct connection between Saddam's Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist organization", please point out where somebody with standing has stated otherwise. I was responding to your claim that "there has never been any connection betwen terrorists (meaning AlQuida!!!) an Saddam, in fact the terrorists hated Saddam as much we did!" and that any such claim was a Bush fabrication, both of which I proved to be complete bull.

"never been any connection" is also COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from whether or not they had operational cooperation. Nobody of any standing has claimed the latter to my knowledge.

It's also irrelevant, since (1) AQ is not the only terrorist group in the world with an interest in striking the US, and (2) Saddam has a demonstrated history of working with other groups at the operational level to attack US interests (and that includes AQ aligned groups such as Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines)

 

[ehall]

Well thanks for the dupe post I guess

 

[Ecomike]

It's also irrelevant, since (1) AQ is not the only terrorist group in the world with an interest in striking the US,

and (2) Saddam has a demonstrated history of working with other groups at the operational level to attack US interests

It is relevant as the 9/11 attack was the excuss we used to attack Iraq, and there has never been any proof found that Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attack which was orchestrated by AlQuida, not Saddam.

And by the way, IIRC Saddam was executed, so it's past tense now, had not has.

 

[Ecomike]

Well thanks for the dupe post I guess

There are some terrorist gremlins loose in the server this weekend. Duplicate has been deleted.

 

[ehall]

It is relevant as the 9/11 attack was the excuss we used to attack Iraq, and there has never been any proof found that Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attack which was orchestrated by AlQuida, not Saddam.

I'll ask you again, please point out where somebody with standing has stated that Saddam had a direct involvement in 9/11?

 

[ZomBrady]

"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. . . that was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11." - Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News

"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Dick Cheney, Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004)



You mention Al Qaida, 9/11 and Iraq enough times in the same sentence and people are going to begin to think that they all are connected. It's a clever word game that worked beautifully since SO many people still believe that Iraq was connected and/or responsible for those attacks.

 

[ehall]

"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. . . that was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11." - Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News

"that was the one that possibly tied the two together" is not a declarative statement that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government.

That is not a statement of operational coordination on 9/11 either, it is a statement that AQ and Iraq had connections which has been documented as true.

You mention Al Qaida, 9/11 and Iraq enough times in the same sentence and people are going to begin to think that they all are connected. It's a clever word game that worked beautifully since SO many people still believe that Iraq was connected and/or responsible for those attacks.

What's funny is that judging from the number of stramwan posts crying that there was no connection, when nobody of any standing ever made the claim, it's the lefties who are confused about it.

 

[ZomBrady]

What's funny is that judging from the number of stramwan posts crying that there was no connection, when nobody of any standing ever made the claim, it's the lefties who are confused about it.

That's funny. No really, it's comedy gold.

It's called culpable responsibility. If 'I' lend material support to someone who in turn uses that support to commit a crime, 'I' must show that 'I' had reasonable belief that 'my' help would not be used in the commission of a crime.

You have gone to great lengths to point to the alleged connection between Iraq and Al Qaida. It reasonable to believe then that Iraq had a hand in some sort of support in 9/11.

 

[Ecomike]

I'll ask you again, please point out where somebody with standing has stated that Saddam had a direct involvement in 9/11?

That is not the same question you asked before. This is what you asked before!

"In regards to your cites that there is no evidence of a "direct connection between Saddam's Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist organization", please point out where somebody with standing has stated otherwise."

"In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.""

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/kerry.powell.iraq/index.html

 

[ehall]

You have gone to great lengths to point to the alleged connection between Iraq and Al Qaida. It reasonable to believe then that Iraq had a hand in some sort of support in 9/11.

If that were the case everybody would say it. Instead we have a minority who raise the strawman over and over and over for the sole apparent reason that they like to knock it over.

 

[ehall]

That is not the same question you asked before. This is what you asked before!

"In regards to your cites that there is no evidence of a "direct connection between Saddam's Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist organization", please point out where somebody with standing has stated otherwise."

I was referring to an ongoing operational relationship between Saddam and AQ proper. I don't believe anybody with standing ever said there was that kind of relationship either, much less coordinated involvement with 9/11.

Instead I was specifically addressing your claim (which you have not yet rescinded) that "there has never been any connection betwen terrorists (meaning AlQuida!!!) an Saddam, in fact the terrorists hated Saddam as much we did" and that Bush made it all up.

"In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.""

He was making the point that Iraq is the "geographic" center of the terrorists who attacked us, which seems a fair point given that it is almost equidistant between Afghanistan and Egypt albeit closer to Saudi Arabia. The argument there is if you are going to bring democratic reforms, might as well pick the place in the middle.

 

[buschwhaked]

I was referring to an ongoing operational relationship between Saddam and AQ proper. I don't believe anybody with standing ever said there was that kind of relationship either, much less coordinated involvement with 9/11.

Ok, I said I wouldn't get back into this, but support of AQ means you are involved with 9/11 to almost every American. That was one of the main selling points of the war. He did make a case for it, and it was a lie. Here is a list of quotes he and Dicky stated both before and after the invasion.

George W. Bush

2002

"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"I think they're both equally important, and they're both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We've got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm." - President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint." - President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002) - BushOnIraq.gov

"He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates." - Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

2003

"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 develop their own." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

"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 planes -- 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." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003) - Whitehouse.gov

Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations." - President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other." President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003) -BushOnIraq.com

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more." - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed." - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) - BushOnIraq.com


Dick Cheney

2002

"In Afghanistan we found confirmation that bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network were seriously interested in nuclear and radiological weapons, and in biological and chemical agents. We are especially concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction." - Vice President Delivers Remarks to the National Academy of Home Builders, White House (6/6/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

"There is also a grave danger that al Qaeda or other terrorists will join with outlaw regimes that have these weapons to attack their common enemy, the United States of America. That is why confronting the threat posed by Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror." - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

2003

"His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us." - Vice President's Remarks at 30th Political Action Conference, White House (1/30/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard because of his past track record and because we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons. . . We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"I have argued in the past, and would again, if we had been able to pre-empt the attacks of 9/11 would we have done it? And I think absolutely. We have to be prepared now to take the kind of bold action that's being contemplated with respect to Iraq in order to ensure that we don't get hit with a devastating attack when the terrorists' organization gets married up with a rogue state that's willing to provide it with the kinds of deadly capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed and used over the years." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"(Since September 11) We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"And the reason we had to do Iraq, if you hark back and think about that link between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was the place where we were most fearful that that was most likely to occur, because in Iraq we've had a government -- not only was it one of the worst dictatorships in modern times, but had oftentimes hosted terrorists in the past . . . but also an established relationship with the al Qaeda organization . . . ." - Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim Gerlach, White House (10/3/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"(I)f we had not paid any attention to the fact that al Qaeda was being hosted in Northeastern Iraq, part of poisons network producing ricin and cyanide that was intended to be used in attacks both in Europe, as well as in North Africa and ignored it, we would have been derelict in our duties and responsibilities." - Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim Gerlach, White House (10/3/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"He cultivated ties to terror, hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, making payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He also had an established relationship with al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs." - Remarks by Vice President Dick Cheney at the Heritage Foundation, White House (10/10/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. He cultivated ties to terror -- hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, and making payments to the families of suicide bombers. He also had an established relationship with Al Qaida -- providing training to Al Qaida members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs. He built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." - Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at the James A. Baker, III, Institute for Public Policy, White House (10/18/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

2004

"We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions." - Transcript of interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11." - Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." - Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, White House (1/14/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." - Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to Veterans at the Arizona Wing Museum, White House (1/15/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Dick Cheney, Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004) - BushOnIraq.com


From the White House website, Bush's comments about Saddam Hussein
(Campaign speeches only. For period of October 10 - November 04.)

OCT 28 Remarks by the President at New Mexico Welcome
"This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda."

OCT 28 Remarks by the President in Colorado Welcome
"He's got connections with al Qaeda."

OCT 31 Remarks by the President at South Dakota Welcome
"This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks."

NOV 01 Remarks by the President at New Hampshire Welcome
"We know he's got ties with al Qaeda."

NOV 02 Remarks by the President in Florida Welcome
"We know that he's had connections with al Qaeda."

NOV 02 Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome
"He's had connections with shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda."

NOV 02 Remarks by the President at Tennessee Welcome
"We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like al Qaeda."

NOV 03 Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome
"This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda."

NOV 04 Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome
"This is a man who has had al Qaeda connections."

NOV 04 Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome
"He's had contacts with al Qaeda."

NOV 04 Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome
"This is a man who has got connections with al Qaeda."

Plus this speculation:

OCT 14 Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome
"... we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind."

NOV 03 Remarks by the President in South Dakota Welcome
"And, not only that, he is -- would like nothing better than to hook-up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come and do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action. "

NOV 03 Remarks by the President at Illinois Welcome
"He is a man who would likely -- he is a man who would likely team up with al Qaeda. He could provide the arsenal for one of these shadowy terrorist networks. He would love to use somebody else to attack us, and not leave fingerprints behind. "