Probe rules out Iraq-9/11 links
The commission investigating the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US has found no “credible evidence” that Iraq helped al-Qaeda carry them out.
The statement was published before the bipartisan commission began the final two-day public session.
It contradicts Monday’s remarks by the US vice-president about Saddam Hussein “long-established ties” with al-Qaeda.
Iraq’s alleged links with al-Qaeda were part of the justification the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq.
The 11 September attacks killed nearly 3,000 people after members of Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network flew hijacked planes into New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
A final report on the commission’s findings is due on 28 July.
But preliminary statements published by the commission on a range of issues are building up into a complex picture of missed opportunities and some of it does not make pleasant reading for the Bush administration, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus.
Bin Laden spurned
The statement entitled Overview of the Enemy has been prepared by commission staff and contains “initial findings to present to the public on the nature of the enemy that carried out the 11 September attacks”.
Outlining the roots of al-Qaeda and its activities, it said Osama Bin Laden had explored the possibility of co-operation with Iraq, despite his opposition to Saddam Hussein’s secular regime.
It said a senior Iraqi intelligence officer had met Bin Laden in 1994 to hear his requests for space to establish training camps and assistance in procuring weapons.
“There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,” the statement says.
It adds: “Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaeda and Iraq.
“We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States.”
But it concludes that al-Qaeda remains a threat as it attempts to launch “chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attacks”.
“Regardless of the tactic, al-Qaeda is actively striving to attack the United States and inflict mass casualties,” the reports ends.
Report’s other findings:
Late 1980s: al-Qaeda founded; early 1990s: centralised organisation following Bin Laden’s orders.
Bin Laden did not fund al-Qaeda through a personal fortune – it relied on a fundraising network.
There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al-Qaeda before the 11 September attacks.
Bin Laden assisted Somali warlords fighting the Americans.
No “credible evidence” that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the US.
Bin Laden role in WTC attacks in 1993 and a failed plot to blow up commercial aircraft in 1994 in Manila, Philippines are “uncertain”.
1996: In Afghanistan, Bin Laden makes public his war against the US.
Bin Laden cemented ties with the Taleban with Pakistani support.
Early 1998: al-Qaeda merges with Ayman Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
The 1998 attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania “were planned, directed, and executed by al-Qaeda, under the direct supervision of Bin Laden and his chief aides”.
Bin Laden remained willing to provide support to attacks initiated by more independent actors.
Al-Qaeda’s funding has “decreased significantly”, and the organisation is “far more decentralised”, now that Bin Laden has lost his Afghan base.
Al-Qaeda remains extremely interested in conducting chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attacks.
Closing circle
This is the 12th time the commission has heard from witnesses in public.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States said Wednesday’s session would hear from several of the federal government’s top law enforcement and intelligence experts on al-Qaeda and the 11 September plot.
The Commission has to ask some important questions about that day
Lee Hamilton
Commission vice-chairman
On Thursday, top military and civilian aviation officials – including General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – will testify about their agencies’ responses to the attacks.
In this final session, commissioners will be attempting to fill in the gaps in the timeline of events before and after the attacks, says the BBC’s Daniel Lak in Washington.
Mr Myers’ appearance on Thursday will be his second before the commission.
“The commission has to ask some important questions about that day,” said vice-chairman Lee Hamilton.
Among some of the commission’s preliminary findings, is a report that the hijackers may have planned their attack for some months earlier than September, but postponed it after one of them was unable to take part.
In April, commission members spoke in private to President George W Bush and Mr Cheney.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm
Published: 2004/06/16 16:11:49 GMT
© BBC MMIV
Flood.™
By: pluto77189 - 21st June 2004 at 19:04
Fair enough. However , you can’t solve each kind of problem with a war.
I agree that we should all be ashamed with those nasty genocides in Rwanda, Kosovo , Sudan etc…
This drives me to think that the UN DO need some armes forces in order to be able to rush everytime a genocide is pending somewhere.
Hwever the best way to solve those kinds of problems is to get rid of the poverty on this planet.
I read last week that with 150 billion $ , we could erase all the 3rd world debt.
Isn’t it the amount of money that GWB requested to the congress this year for Irak and Afghanistan? It makes me wonder…. Maybe I’m dreaming :rolleyes:
simply forgiving debt and providing massive social welfare to the rest of the world will solve nothing. Just like people who say that if the US killed all it’s cows and pigs, they cold feed the rest of the world’s starving with the corn used to feed the cows and pigs… And then what? Their kids go hungry, so we have twice as many starving as we did before.
Taking from the rich countries and giving to the poor ones will not “fix” the problem of poverty. It doesn’t do it in the US, and it won’t do it in the third world. the problem is getting these countres to be self sufficient. They can try as hard as they want, but with an evil dictatorship, or rampant militias, they will go nowhere.
Oil for food, the UN food shipments to Somalia… Money given to evil men does nothing for the people.
In MY opinion, investing billions of dollars in Iraq(by ridding it of a dictatorship) will do more for ending poverty than any other investment in the country.
In countries with governments that are not corrupt–or should I say LESS corrupt–investment in their well-being can be done differently. Investment is the key. Good will is fine, but without something to gain nobody’s going to INVEST–including the people of the country itself.
You will not end poverty without the cooperation of those living in it. If they simply take hand outs to get by–you’re just going to keep feeding them. If they want to learn how to survive without hand outs, they will.
By: Hand87_5 - 21st June 2004 at 16:50
Fair enough. However , you can’t solve each kind of problem with a war.
I agree that we should all be ashamed with those nasty genocides in Rwanda, Kosovo , Sudan etc…
This drives me to think that the UN DO need some armes forces in order to be able to rush everytime a genocide is pending somewhere.
Hwever the best way to solve those kinds of problems is to get rid of the poverty on this planet.
I read last week that with 150 billion $ , we could erase all the 3rd world debt.
Isn’t it the amount of money that GWB requested to the congress this year for Irak and Afghanistan? It makes me wonder…. Maybe I’m dreaming :rolleyes:
By: pluto77189 - 21st June 2004 at 16:35
I don’t buy this. If the US administration was so active in searching evidences, why did Rumsfeld and Cheney deploy that much energy to to rid of Blix and the inspectors? It doesn’t make any sense!
I give Bush the credit that he followed what he said , since he always claimed , even during the campain that he would solve the Iraqi problem.You know what Pluto? I can bet here whatever you want that history will tell the truth to American people. In one year , 10 years , 30 years , who knows , people involved are gonna tell the truth. I can bet that American people will discovered who between GWB or Clinton disgraced the most the office.
I agree. that is something only history will prove…
The problem faced by a president is as follows:
No human should be given that amount of power, it is beyond the scope of any one
man.
As such, he has to decide when to take action–and when to NOT take action.
Bush has decided in several cases, to confront a problem, and deal with it, instead of
ignoring it.
In Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan and Rwada, clinton encountered several problems.
He chose to NOT follow through in these situations, leading to all kinds of genocide
and future problems. He stated he did not know Rwanda was going to turn out the
way it did. A few months ago, documents revealed that he knew ECACTLY what
was going to happen, but did nothing because he didn’t want to get invloved–a
million died.
Imagine havign the power to do something about a situation, and having to basivcally
decide who was to remain in oppression, and who was going to live, and die?
To have to send out americans to die to accomplish something.
Then look at why it was done. Iraq’s future will decide the way Bush will be viewed.
By: Nermal - 20th June 2004 at 17:34
Arthur
There are pictures of European leaders visiting Saddam. Why not post them as well? A little balance never hurt.
Sauron
Ooooh? Can I assume that the not-Saddam bloke might be…American?:D
Thats awful!;) – Nermal
By: Hand87_5 - 20th June 2004 at 17:23
Arthur
There are pictures of European leaders visiting Saddam. Why not post them as well? A little balance never hurt.
Sauron
Fair enough.
However let’s not be hypocrite. We are talking about business here. Everyone slept with Saddam. He was sitting on a big matress of $$$.A lot of countries sold him , weapons and technology.
By: Sauron - 20th June 2004 at 17:12
Arthur
There are pictures of European leaders visiting Saddam. Why not post them as well? A little balance never hurt.
Sauron
By: Nermal - 20th June 2004 at 15:15
awww….that picture brought happiness to my heart.
Now if we could only identify the unmoustachioed face for the anti-terror people – Nermal
By: escuincle - 20th June 2004 at 04:02
Agree with Escuincle. Shake hands, and make up!
awww….that picture brought happiness to my heart. It reminded me of an old luv song. Come on everyone and join me by singing.
(escuincle singing)
Stand by your man
Give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely
Stand by your man
And tell the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man
By: Hand87_5 - 19th June 2004 at 09:56
Well, I think it is fairly obvious that Powell presented that evidence because he believed it to be true. We had lots of intelligence that reinforced it. There were IRaqi men at a site(just about to be inspected by th eUN) who mentioned “Nerve Agents”.
If Colin Powell and Bush were mistaken, and presented the evidence with the belief that it WAS TRUE, then it’s no lie at all. At the worst, they made a mistake.
Only if they KNEW it to be false intelligence would it be a lie.
Some of the intelligence on Iraq was probably wrong–it seems that we had too much faith in the Iraqi Exiles…
Some of it was accurate.
Even now, Putin has said that the Russian intelligence agencies gave the US evidence that Saddam was working to plan an attack IN THE US.
BEFORE the war in Iraq.Unless Bush KNEW the intelligence was inaccurate, he is no liar.
In fact, Bush could not have BEEN more honest. He has followed through on everything he has said. Even Clinton praised him for that. Take that back–nothing Clinton says has any merit…he has zero credibility…. disgraced the office of the president.
I don’t buy this. If the US administration was so active in searching evidences, why did Rumsfeld and Cheney deploy that much energy to to rid of Blix and the inspectors? It doesn’t make any sense!
I give Bush the credit that he followed what he said , since he always claimed , even during the campain that he would solve the Iraqi problem.
You know what Pluto? I can bet here whatever you want that history will tell the truth to American people. In one year , 10 years , 30 years , who knows , people involved are gonna tell the truth. I can bet that American people will discovered who between GWB or Clinton disgraced the most the office.
By: Arthur - 19th June 2004 at 09:40
Agree with Escuincle. Shake hands, and make up!
By: escuincle - 19th June 2004 at 05:41
cant we all just luv each other.
By: Sauron - 19th June 2004 at 01:58
What’s your point Flood?
Sauron
By: Flood - 19th June 2004 at 01:09
Possibly under the same criteria that Washington might hold for any meeting between bin Laden or al Qaeda and Saddam then various American government officials could also qualify for associating with terrorists. Oliver North or all those involved with the undercover supply of arms to Iraq, Iran, or the Mujahiddin and Taliban in Afghanistan, for example?
Flood.™
By: Sauron - 19th June 2004 at 00:43
It’s not news that there have been contacts and links between the two nor that Saddam supported terrorists. I doubt all the facts are known to any one as yet.
Sauron
By: google - 18th June 2004 at 23:18
Can anyone supply a video or audio of President Bush claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sep 11 attack?
Sauron
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/Iraq.Qaeda.link/
You are correct, Bush never said “Saddan was responsible for 9-11”, but he made statements like these which are obviously crafted to imply it:
‘We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who’ve had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm
Cheney makes Saddam-AlQ link.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/06/14/cheney.terrorism.ap/
Bush backs Cheney
By: Sauron - 18th June 2004 at 22:47
Can anyone supply a video or audio of President Bush claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sep 11 attack?
Sauron
By: Flood - 18th June 2004 at 22:05
Unless Bush KNEW the intelligence was inaccurate, he is no liar.
So what you are saying is that Bush was quite happy to drag his country to war on the basis of highly dubious intellogence? That might be even worse than admitting that he lied about its accuracy.
He is a liar: all politicians are – it all depends on them getting caught to determine how bad the lies are.
Flood.™
By: pluto77189 - 18th June 2004 at 15:41
You don’t consider the “evidences” presented by Powell as a liar ?
Well, I think it is fairly obvious that Powell presented that evidence because he believed it to be true. We had lots of intelligence that reinforced it. There were IRaqi men at a site(just about to be inspected by th eUN) who mentioned “Nerve Agents”.
If Colin Powell and Bush were mistaken, and presented the evidence with the belief that it WAS TRUE, then it’s no lie at all. At the worst, they made a mistake.
Only if they KNEW it to be false intelligence would it be a lie.
Some of the intelligence on Iraq was probably wrong–it seems that we had too much faith in the Iraqi Exiles…
Some of it was accurate.
Even now, Putin has said that the Russian intelligence agencies gave the US evidence that Saddam was working to plan an attack IN THE US.
BEFORE the war in Iraq.
Unless Bush KNEW the intelligence was inaccurate, he is no liar.
In fact, Bush could not have BEEN more honest. He has followed through on everything he has said. Even Clinton praised him for that. Take that back–nothing Clinton says has any merit…he has zero credibility…. disgraced the office of the president.
By: Hand87_5 - 18th June 2004 at 14:40
There is NO proof that Bush has lied about anything. I fanything he has spoken about intelligence that may(or may not be) less accurate than initially thought, but he has not lied.
Kerry has already been caught in more lies and flip flops and changes in idealogy than Clinton was. You should HEAR some of the things John Kerry has said, then hear what he says now—he is not fit for office.
EVERY single Democratic sign around my old campus has the words “get rid of Bush”–but NONE of them mention Kerry. The Liberals HATE GWB so much, saddam could run and they’d vote for him.
You don’t consider the “evidences” presented by Powell as a liar ?
Sign In
June 16, 2004 at 6:30 pm