911 Commission - "Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Laden in Baghdad"

[Funkyzeit mit Bruno]

From page 134 of the 911 Commission report published yesterday:

[Richard A. Clarke] wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.”...If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually impossible” to find him.

Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad,Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight.

It seems Saddam wanted to add Osama to the list of terrorists to which he gave sanctuary.

 

[Funkyzeit mit Bruno]

Here is a link to the full report in pdf format. http://www2.nationalreview.com/document/911Report.pdf

This is from the National Review site, which I'm sure some people will view with suspicion. I will post other sources when I find them.

 

[wvrevy]

I'd like Bill Gates to come over to my house some time and explain to me why my Windows keeps crashing....Does that mean that I have a relationship with him ?



You're reaching. What part of "no collaborative relationship" are you having trouble with ?

 

[jrydberg]

Are you going public with your relationship with Bill Gates, wvrevy? Who knew!

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Are you going public with your relationship with Bill Gates, wvrevy? Who knew!

I would like to categorically deny that any collaborative relationship exists between Uncle Bill...er...Mr. Gates...and myself

Sorry, I just find this ravenous need of some to link two things that can't be linked to be idiotic in the extreme. There IS no link between Saddam and al Queda. Period. Yes, he may have made overtures, but that doesn't mean a friggin' thing unless they were answered, which anybody that knows ANYTHING about the situation and doesn't have an axe to grind will tell you would NEVER happen. Al Queda are a bunch of religious fanatics...anybody that thinks they'd associate themselves with the most secular government in the region just doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

[jrydberg]

I think you hit it just about right, wvrevy. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of collaboration between the two. There are small bits and pieces of evidence suggesting there might've been some interest at some point. That's it. Nothing more.

Al Qaeda stands for things that are vastly different from Saddam's Baathist regime. The only thing they really had in common was their enemy.

 

[wvrevy]

It's also interesting to note that in the entire executive summary of the report - 31 pages of text detailing what lead up to 9/11, what has been done to combat terrorism since, and what needs to be done in the future, not a single mention of the words "Iraq" or "Saddam" exists. Not one.

I also found this quote to be particularly telling:

The problem is that al Qaeda represents an ideological movement, not a finite group of people. It initiates and inspires, even if it no longer directs. In this way it has transformed itself into a decentralized force. Bin Ladin may be limited in his ability to organize major attacks from his hideouts.Yet killing or capturing him, while extremely important, would not end terror. His message of inspiration to a new generation of terrorists would continue.

 

[Disney Doll]

Well, I guess we're each entitled to our opinions, but, quite frankly, I think that both Saddam and Osama would put aside their differenecs in a minute if they thought they could screw the USA.

 

[Funkyzeit mit Bruno]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I'd like Bill Gates to come over to my house some time and explain to me why my Windows keeps crashing....Does that mean that I have a relationship with him ?



You're reaching. What part of "no collaborative relationship" are you having trouble with ?

If you want to talk to Bill Gates, there is a safe bet you have a desire to discuss the IT industry. If somebody wants to meet Osama, what do you think the purpose of that meeting would be? Probably terrorism. Saddam's Iraq DID have high-level meetings with al qaeda. Saddam himself wanted to give sanctuary to Osama, as he had done for other terrorists (including at least one who perpetrated an attack against America on US soil). Why wait to see if Saddam and Osama become best friends? It wasn't like Saddam was neutral towards the USA. He was in a shooting war with the USA in fact.

A declared enemy of the US with a history of supporting terrorists is meeting with, and wants to give safe haven to history's worst terrorist? And that declared enemy is seeking uranium? I say neutralize that declared enemy. Why wait?

By the way, the final report of the Commission qualifies their previous statement that there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship", which they used in one of their preliminary reports. They are now stating there was no evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship". Should we have waited to see if one developed? Before 9/11 the answer would have been yes. After 9/11 we know that if a collaborative operational relationship ever did develop, we wouldn't first learn about it in government commission report 3 years after the fact. We would first learn about it one morning when a mushroom cloud rises over Manhattan.

 

[bcvillastwo]

There IS no link between Saddam and al Queda. Period. Yes, he may have made overtures, but that doesn't mean a friggin' thing unless they were answered, which anybody that knows ANYTHING about the situation and doesn't have an axe to grind will tell you would NEVER happen.

Good gravy, with the divergence of opinion out there on this particular issue I certainly would not make this bet in Las Vegas.

Actually, I read the Executive Summary of the 9/11 report and I was pleasantly surprised. I felt the executive summary was remarkably well balanced from the start to the finish. I didn't see the Clinton or Bush administrations gettnig a black eye nor did I see Congress, the CIA, the FBI or anyone else getting a black eye. Sure, the commissioners could look back in hindsight at each one of these groups and see that things that were missed but they seem to be suggesting that they were reasonable mistakes or simply things that were overlooked.

Perhaps I am being Pollyanna like here but after all of the comments in the press over the last few months I expected to see something a lot more hard hitting and critical. I shows you not to believe everything you read in the press.

It also shows that it's important to read these things yourself and form your own conclusions. Oh, and don't take things out of context, or use selected quotes to make your point when clearly the quote is taken out of context.

I particulary like the fact that on p. 9 under the category of General Findings that they acknowledge that, "We write with the benefit and handicap of hindsight. We are mindful of the danger of being unjust to men and women who made choices in conditions of uncertainty and in circumstances over which they often had little control." Yes it goes on to talk about "failures" but in four broad areas (1) imagination, (2) policy, (4) capabilities, and (4) management. Nowhere for either administration do they suggest that there was grose negligence.

I appears that our government made some honest mistakes, omissions, and over looking of some things that we can all look back on and ask, "How did they miss this?" but we can only do so in hindsight as the Commissioners plainly say.

I will read the entire report, but usually the Executive Summary lays out the critical points and the body merely lays out additional details.

How about some intellectual honesty rather than the same old partisan spin?

 

[Galahad]

I'd like Bill Gates to come over to my house some time and explain to me why my Windows keeps crashing

I can answer that. It's the way you're holding your mouth.....