|
herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/8/2006 1:02:32 PM)
|
Re: Iraq seeking significant quantities of uranium
http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleID.18837/article_detail.asp
Urban Legend: The President and his administration intentionally misled the country into war with Iraq—and the “16 words” that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union are the best proof of it. In the words of Senator Ted Kennedy, “The gross abuse of intelligence was on full display in the President’s State of the Union…when he spoke the now infamous 16 words: ‘The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’… As we all now know, that allegation was false….”
Reality: On July 14, 2004—after a nearly half-year investigation—a special panel reported to the British Parliament that British intelligence had indeed concluded that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium from Africa. The Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by Lord Butler, summarized: “It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium…. The statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.”
In the U.S., the Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq revealed that the CIA considered it important that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.” The Select Committee on Intelligence also noted that the CIA reviewed and cleared the President’s State of the Union address....
Re: Relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda
http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleID.18837/article_detail.asp
Urban Legend: There were no links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.
Reality: The 9/11 Commission Report indicates that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in late 1994 or early 1995 and that contacts continued after bin Laden relocated in Afghanistan. Iraq harbored senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda associate. CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (in a 10/7/02 letter), “We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade.” Senator Hillary Clinton stated on October 10, 2002 that Saddam “has given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.” The Clinton administration tied Iraq to al-Qaeda back in 1998, arguing that Saddam Hussein had provided technical assistance in the construction of an al-Qaeda chemical plant in Sudan….
Re: Saddam trying to reconstitute his WMD programs.
http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleID.18837/article_detail.asp
Urban Legend: Saddam Hussein posed no threat. In the words of former Senator Max Cleland, “Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs, no ties to al-Qaeda. We now know that.”
Reality: Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, said in Senate testimony: “I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein…. I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought…. After 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt…. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country.”
Dr. Kay’s report noted that, “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.” He concluded, “Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction…. Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to restart CW [chemical weapons] production.”
Re: Intelligence was good, sound Intelligence
http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleID.18837/article_detail.asp
On July 14, 2004—after a nearly half-year investigation—a special panel reported to the British Parliament that British intelligence had indeed concluded that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium from Africa. The Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by Lord Butler, summarized: “It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium…. The statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.”
In the U.S., the Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq revealed that the CIA considered it important that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.” The Select Committee on Intelligence also noted that the CIA reviewed and cleared the President’s State of the Union address....
Re: mustard and sarin gas
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
quote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq — A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent (search) recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday.
Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas (search) was also recently discovered.
Re: Outsourcing forces out of Afghanistan, going into Iraq, lost Bin Laden
According to the special forces unit that was going after Bin Laden, his trail went cold late 2002. Intelligence had him OUTSIDE of Afghanistan. Now, once we have that scenario, it would not matter if we had 2 million scouring the Afghan country side. Would not do us any good if Bin Laden is OUTSIDE of Afghanistan.
Re: Bush statement about Bin Laden.
Taken out of context. Taken in with everything else that he has stated, both that day as well as throughout his carrying out the war on terrorism, he was showing that he was not afraid of Bin Laden. The man was busy on the run - or in hiding. He was - and still is - losing his officers. Saying that he was not “worried” about Bin Laden is NOT saying that he is “NOT” going to continue going after him.
Re: Richard Ben Veniste questioning Dr. Rice
The title of that report indicated that Bin Laden intended to attack the US
What both Ben Veniste and Dr. Rice know was that the body of the report gave no SPECIFICS of a FUTURE attack. It was a rehash of what Al-Qaeda had done in the PAST. When Dr. Rice tried to point that out, Richard Veniste tried to dodge it. He knew what he was doing. And the criminally biased media ate up on it.
If anything, that report reflected a lapse in editorial judgement.
Re: Pattern of suspicious activity.
Throughout the 90’s, our military installations increased their threat levels as a result of terrorist warnings. Many of these warnings turned out to not happen. Many of the chatter that we received, then as well as now, indicate attacks that never happened. What we did in the first months of the Bush presidency was a continuation of what we’ve been doing throughout the 90’s.
Re: Threats about attacks within specific U.S. Cities.
We did not receive specific threats, threats indicating that specific targets in specific cities would be attacked. Most of the chatter indicated attacks outside of our borders. Again, with things like this preceding attacks that we’ve had in the 90’s, we carried out the SOP that we’ve carried out throughout the 90’s.
Re: Threats from the air.
Now this one is blatantly misleading.
They left out one key fact. In the mid 90’s, the Filipinos exposed a planned terrorist attack on U.S. citizens. It was dubbed “Project Bojinka”. Stage one called for assassinating the President and the Pope. Stage two called for blowing up airliners over the ocean. Stage three called for slamming airplanes into the CIA head quarters and the pentagon.
President Clinton received an intel report reporting this fact. He reviewed it and made comments.
Nothing of substance was done. But again, who would have imagined that people would have used airplanes as missiles?
RE: Surface to air missiles and snipers, “unusual security measures”.
Did you read the fine print?
Some of the things printed on the same page:
“Warning about future attacks in the U.S. may not be a bad thing. But left unchecked, public fear taken to an extreme could immobilzie citizens and lead America into to many fights abroad.
The United States and its allies in the War on Terrorism must defuse the wide spread image of Al-Qaeda as…”
The bold print was stand alone, “Snipers and surface to air missiles on the roof”. OK. It may have been the president. It may have been someone else. But the FINE PRINT indicates that this paper was written AFTER the 9/11 attacks. It gives no indications about when the missiles were placed on the roof.
Re: “Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died abourd the 4 hijacked aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill” - Newsweek Sept 13, 2001.
Again, this does not specify exactly what “specific” information was available. And yes, an investigation was held and nothing was found. Keep in mind that if there was something that was serious, the Democrats would have been all over it - like the Foley case.
Re: On the connection between 9/11 and Iraq
http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleID.18837/article_detail.asp
Urban Legend: President Bush and his administration wrongly tried to link Iraq and Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks. “President Bush should apologize to the American people” for this “plainly dishonest” effort, insists a New York Times editorial.
Reality: Neither President Bush nor any member of his foreign policy team has ever said Iraq was linked to the attacks of September 11. On September 17, 2003, for example, in response to a question from a reporter, President Bush said: “No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11.”
Re: On the meeting between Atta and Iraqi intelligence officers.
Czechoslovakia stands by the fact that the Iraqis met with Atta in their country.
Re: On post war Iraq creating Al-Qaeda links.
Urban Legend: There were no links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.
Reality: The 9/11 Commission Report indicates that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in late 1994 or early 1995 and that contacts continued after bin Laden relocated in Afghanistan. Iraq harbored senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda associate. CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (in a 10/7/02 letter), “We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade.” Senator Hillary Clinton stated on October 10, 2002 that Saddam “has given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.” The Clinton administration tied Iraq to al-Qaeda back in 1998, arguing that Saddam Hussein had provided technical assistance in the construction of an al-Qaeda chemical plant in Sudan….
Those links were there BEFORE the invasion.
|
|
|
|
