the 9/11 Commission concluded yesterday that there was no link between Al Qaeda and Irak, and no link between 9/11 and Irak.

Knowing that the 9/11 concluded this after months of investigation, research and deliberation, have they set a precedent to send men and women into harms way for no reason?

My point being that there are dictators and horrible, hideous leaders all over the world, so going after Irak for having a dictator cannot be a reason since Irak is not as big of a threat as North Korea or China.

Over 1,000 people are unjustifiably dead because of this war that was, according to the 9/11 Commission, started for reasons that bear no weight.

My question is now, is there a legal responsibility for those deaths? Or do governments enjoy immunity? Has this happened in years past?

Bush today disputed the findings of the 9/11 commission, saying

1) there was a high-level connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda; and

2) the administration never said there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11

Unmitigated chutzpah.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Could you cite your sources for this information.

Thanks

Senator Shelby did a similar dance on Hardball last night. Shelby is normally a bit less obtuse than he was last night, though. My wife, the Republican, asked "Why is he being so stupid?" To which I replied: "The facts are inconvenient."

I've never met a politician of any stripe who let the facts get in the way of his prejudices. Er, well, Truman might have been an exception.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

Among other statements from 9/11 commission staff statement No. 15 (this is the most succinct):

"Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Full text at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5224036/ (it's pretty long).

"Bush today disputed the findings ....."

Oh surprise, surprise. A case of cowboy adventurism me thinks.

Hey George, where are the WMD's? We're still waiting.

"Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq."

Those are two great sources to believe. Imagine a terrorist lying about his connections.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

I didn't want to cut and paste the whole statement, which is why I linked it. There's more in there than that. Suggest you read the entire thing before passing judgement on their work.

So there is a way to make terrorist believable?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Hmmmm. Sounds like a tough choice for Al Qaeda. Assuming there is a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda...

1. I'll admit the connection to Iraq and help the U.S. President's image and foster U.S. domestic support for the war; or

2. I'll deny the connection to Iraq and make the President look bad and further embroil the U.S. in a domestic squabble over whether they think they should be in Iraq.

I wonder which one they would choose?

Glad to see the 9/11 Commission is relying on rock solid evidence.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

"No credible evidence..." isn't good enough for you?

Why am I not surprised? :)

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

From CNN:

9/11 REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

No "credible evidence" that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda

9/11 attacks cost somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to execute, plus the cost of training the 19 hijackers in Afghanistan

Al Qaeda spent $30 million per year, according to the CIA

Largest expense was to Taliban at $10 million to $20 million per year

Most funds came from donations, with much money raised in Saudi Arabia

No evidence that any government gave money

Bin Laden's finances limited to $1 million a year from 1970 to 1994

Some money raised in U.S. likely used by al Qaeda

Al Qaeda's role in 1993 WTC attack uncertain

Bin Laden ordered USS Cole attack, two operatives confirmed

Al Qaeda had an unknown role in the 1996 Hezbollah-led attack that killed 19 U.S. airmen at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.

From what I understand the first bullet has to do with Iraq not collaborating with Al Qaeda specifically with 9/11. 9/11 was never a reason given for going to Iraq. Iraq had a terrorist dictator who needed to be pulled from power and thankfully it was done. The world is a safer place without Hussein and the threat of WMD's is less with him out of power.

You may or may not realize, but when you sign up for the Armed Services in the USA you're signing up to be a warrior and should expect to be put in harms way. Police officers as well as many other professions put themselves in harms way every day. It's part of the job and believe me...no commander takes that decision lightly. I don't know who you're referring to when you say "they" but to generalize the term to mean that our commanders are flippant with other peoples lives is asanine. I don't know what you do for a living and don't know if you've had to make decisions like this but if you haven't I'd hold judgement. These commanders have to answer to the families and friends who have died for duty they've sworn to uphold. These soldiers have taken an oath...an oath they don't take lightly.

The bi-partisan commission has been at work since late 2002. They have 80 some staff, have interviewed over 1,000 individuals from 10 countries, had a budget of $15 million, held ten days of public hearings to date, during which it received testimony from 110 federal, state, and local officials, and experts from the private sector, etc, etc, etc.

If you don't want to believe their report, don't.

"No credible evidence..." isn't good enough for you?



Evidence of what exactly?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Which bastard?

---

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

Yes the head of the commission was on The Daily Show calling President Bush stupid. The commission is nothing but a bunch of political hacks from both sides.

No I don't believe them because during testimonies they chose to lecture, grand stand and try to catch people with half questions and double speak.

The whole thing was a sham put on by the congress that is full of spineless cowards who did have the guts to run the investigation themselves and run the possibility of pissing people off.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Your generals and officers may care about your well-being, because many of them have been there, but history has proven that there always have been (and thus, always will be) political leaders who view their armies as just another tool to wrest more power and/or subjugate their own populations.

*edited because the first post somehow didn't include my text.

9/11 Commission. At least, I read that they concluded no connection between 9/11 and Irak, and Al Qaeda and Irak. Does this answer your question? I have no quotes from anyone, just recalling what I read yesterday.

Thanks, I read a synopsis of the report. You're right..I never thought there to be a connection between 9/11 and Iraq anyway. 9/11 wasn't a justification for the invasion anyway.

It seems like you wouldn't accept the truth even if God came down from the heavens and said, "Look, man, there was no link between Saddam and al Qaeda, and nor were there weapons of mass destruction. Get it through your head." Bush supporters always find some way to deny reality -- to insist that their story is true -- despite what empirical evidence otherwise says.

This kind of denial is just an extension of what Paul O'Neill found in the White House. Facts -- or the truth -- don't matter. All that matters is upholding ideologically held beliefs and never letting empirical evidence challenge your assumptions.

Of course he wouldn't believe it if God told him. He doesn't believe God exists.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

Bush today disputed the findings of the 9/11 commission, saying

<<1) there was a high-level connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda; and

2) the administration never said there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11 >>



I think the point here is that althought there may have been "contact" between the two, there was never any common ground, shared opinion or dedision to act. The secular Iraqi government hated the fanatical religious Al Queda people and vice versa. To claim that there was connection when in fact there was perhaps a conversation ending in nothing is a complete, total, dishonest, disingenous, fabricated, bullshit, absolute, intentional, distorted version of the facts.

The fact that Michael Moore may have met Rush Limbaugh at some point does not establish that they have a "connection".

---

don't just do something..... sit there

Governor Kean has been very circumspect in his comments. I find it hard to believe he'd be so openly truthful about Bush. :)

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

Congratulations, Ken. Now you know what it's like to have the ground shift beneath your feet.

Witness:

As the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, Bush begins by arguing that Saddam has rebuilt his WMD capability. Subsequently, no weapons are found, anywhere in the country, David Kay even says there are not, as well as Hans Blix. Okay, onto plan B - invading Iraq is part of the "war on terror", despite no meaningful interaction between Saddam and Al Qaeda (the only person who asserted this was Chalabi's brother, and we now see how reliable he is). When questioned directly, Bush admits no connection, but that doesn't stop him from peppering literally every speech he makes with liberal references to Al Qaeda and Saddam, as a not-so-smooth way of making Americans associate the two. Well, the 9/11 Commission debunked that effectively (they said Atta could not have allegedly met with Iraqi agents in Prague, as previously asserted, based on his ATM and cellphone records). Okay, onto Plan C - it was all done to free the Iraqi people. Well gee, given that Wolfowitz himself stated that that was not enough of a reason, and that Bush himself had railed against this type of military use in his campaign against that great nation-builder Al Gore, we can safely say that this is bullshit as well.

So then what was the reason? Don't know really. I suspect it was just this overweening view that we should change the map of the world, simply because we can, and based on our strength and money, the rest of the world will simply fall in line, sooner or later. And without the oil, we wouldn't be giving a shit, certainly, or else we'd be invading half of Sub-Saharan Africa as well.

It reminds of me of Whitewater - you begin a hunt for Clinton with Whitewater. After $70 million, it turns out nothing. So Plan B - start investigating sexual harassment charges. Then onto Plan C - perjury charges, which finally stick. Whatever gets the job done, right?

The problem is that in neither of these cases, the American people would have assented had they known the real and obvious agenda. They put up enough smoke about "principles" and "freedom" and the lemmings follow. They even have the audacity to evoke Goebbel's "Big Lie" theory to attack their critics, knowing that nobody will remember their gall when all the dust settles.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"