9/11 Commission Report: Going to change anything?

And also tedious.

Really? How many body bags are coming home up there? How many amputees? How many families are affected by the loss or long-term absence of one or more of its members? How much money is your country spending on this war? In what way do you claim your country is being affected at all? Do you have any basis for that claim?

And do you take **David Simmons’ ** own background into account when you tell him that with a straight face? Do you have any idea who he is and what he’s done, any at all?

Oh, the things you claim to be “facts” certainly are being argued, as they always are. Don’t flatter yourself that critical analysis of them is directed at you personally and not at their basic bullshitness, the primary source of the tedium here.

I didn’t mean the consquences of fighting the war. I meant the consequences of the aftermath or the result of leaving Saddam in place. As I said, I lobbied my own government to take part in the war, which is all I can do.

And I know who David Simmons is, and I have the utmost respect for his service and his experience. But messages on a message board stand by themselves. No one gets a pass on the internet because of who they are, how old they are, or anything else. He dive-bombed the threat with a one-line comment aimed at me, and I responded as the comment deserved.

You guys just can’t manage to separate the personal from the content of messages. Leave the posters and their histories OUT of discussions. The beauty of the internet is that you can actually do that.

[tangent] Man, they have a flair for the dramatic, don’t they? The opening reads like a made for TV movie. [/tanget]

I agree.

However, I find it exceedingly tedious that someone with little stake in the matter stands on the sidelines and cheers on and tries to defend the indefensible actions that got the US into Iraq. And that eagerness to defent GW’s acctions on the seeming basis that if the US doesn’t do it " … the consequences of war or lack thereof will be felt by my country as much as yours."

Yes, it was a one liner that didn’t add to the debate. However it would really be tedious to just repeat what so many others have pointed out about your claims. Having it said once is enough, don’t you think?

As far as the consequences to Canada of leaving Saddam in place, what were they? Was there a clear and present danger to Canada? Hell, there wasn’t even a clear and present danger to the US.

The 9/11 commission report does not in any way absolve anyone from criticism over the events of that day. Nor does it support in any way the technique of GW et al of running into a single paragraph statements about WMD, 9/11, and contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam representative. This to me is a blatant ploy to make them seem like all one subject, ergo, Saddam had a hand in the WTC destruction. It worked to quite an extent, and you are still at it.

You say that all you can do is lobby your government to join in. Why don’t you just do that and stop there?

Okay, let’s look at that, then, even though the aftermath necessarily includes all the consequences of all the things I listed earlier. How much of the labor of enforcing the embargos and the no-fly zones was your country doing? How much of the “aftermath” is affecting you, or do you expect to? In what way was Saddam targeting, or going to target, Canada as well as the US? What reasons might he have had? How about Al Qaeda, you know, the guys who *did * attack us? Where did Canada stand on their target priority list? Oh, wait, the 9/11 group used Montreal as a base.

I asked earlier what consequences your country is facing at all. You have not begun to address that, so here’s your chance to either support or withdraw it, or to let us all add it to the bin labeled “More Tedious Bullshit”.

Us” guys?

This reference specifically describes the ‘leaders or representatives’ as belonging to terrorist organizations that were ‘still independent.’
It does not mention Hussein at all.
Furthermore there’s not even an implication in this section that Hussein was involved as it mentions Iraq only as a location (as opposed to as a government) in connection with these independent organizations. If it were referencing the countries in the list as governments (as opposed to as merely locales) then that would mean that it was saying that these dozen countries’ governments are/were in league with aQ. Shirley, you’re not saying that you think that the US government has determined that all of these governments (Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia in particular) were all in league with aQ, are you?

On this basis, I’ll have to ask for help to see this as supporting the idea of ‘significant contacts between Saddam and al-Qaida’ given most definitions of ‘significant’ I can imagine.
How are you defining ‘significant when you use it in this phrase- ‘significant contacts between Saddam and al-Qaida’?

Intersting phrase in quotes. Which “opponents of the war” exactly are you quoting?
Given that Ansar does not equal UbL nor does it equal aQ, and that there’s no evidence that “Iraq responded to this request” of UbL’s it’s hard to see this as an example of “significant contacts between Saddam and al-Qaida”. (But again, this predicated on the meaning of ‘significant’.)
Nor, does it even demonstrate evidence of Hussein providing assistance in some manner outside of “terrorist attacks carried out by al-Qaida.”

As noted, Ubl was actively “supporting activities against Saddam.” Even after he agreed to stop supporting these activities, “at least for a time”, UbL continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. Note also that these were multiple, independent groups.
That Hussein “tolerated” and “may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy” may’ve been the result of Hussein being unable to wipe out Ansar as he may have preferred. He does have an impressive track record of taking unkindly to armed opposition groups who have engaged in “activities against Saddam.” It may have been the rational position of someone who wished he could crush both the Kurds and Ansar, but realized that he could do neither. Such a pperson may have decided to prolong the fighting between them (and thus cause them to expend further resources) by not attacking and maybe even helping the underdog.

A more careful reading shows that rather than UbL being ‘willing to stop helping ansar attack the regime in order to get’ ‘a relationship with Saddam’, Turabi ‘brokered’ the agreement “to protect his own ties with Iraq.” Turabi does not equal UbL.

A more careful reading notes that there’s no mention of Ansar being a “common tool.” The indications given instead indicate that Ansar was an independent entity who received varying degrees of tolerance and/or support from UbL and SH. If you’ll recall, the verbiage used to describe Hussein’s relationship with Ansar was “tolerated” and ”may even have helped. ‘Tolerated’ gives no indication of use of Ansar by Hussein. ‘May even’, oddly enough, indicates that SH may not have helped AaI. This means that the relationship between SH and AaI was not a clear cut one as between weilder and tool. It indicates that rather than being directed by SH (as a weilder directs the actions of a tool), that AaI was amply capable carrying out its activities without help (let alone direction) from SH.
So, I’d have to say that the use of the word ‘tool’ to describe Ansar in relation to either UbL or SH is not supported by the section of the report that you’ve quoted.

Well, that is a possible explanantion…
I don’t think that what has been presented precludes many other possibilities though.

First, when the report used the phrase “collaborative operational relationship,” it did not mean “a joint Iraqi-al-Qaida military operation such as the 9/11 attacks.” The report used the phrasing “cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States” to describe “a joint Iraqi-al-Qaida military operation such as the 9/11 attacks.”
In opposition to the characterization you’ve offered, the report makes a distinction between “a collaborative operational relationship” and cooperation “developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.”
You appear to be attempting to conflate the two things that report clearly treats as separate.

Second, note that history of declined offers is not a strong indicator of “drawing closer.”

Surely, Sam Stone needs no reminder about how Clinton’s Sudanese, pharmaceutical venture at Shifa turned out, does he?

Here’s and excerpt from the source cited for this, Patrick Fitzgerald testimony, June 16, 2004-

And what, one might ask, what does the staff statement say?

This may be related to why “that language” was dropped from the indictment.

Where else could he go? The fact that UbL didn’t accept offers of asylum is evidence (though not proof) that UbL had reasons for not accepting the offers.
Perhaps the establishment of bases was a pre-condition for UbL to come to Iraq. Perhaps SH was willing to allow UbL into Iraq if he’d behave, but wasn’t willing to have UbL running around Iraq with an armed posse.
I find this language even more troubling- “[Our ally in the WoT] ‘Pak[istan’s] intel[ligence service] is in bed with’ Bin Ladin”

Perhaps Iraq was a likely destination even though Iraq had no complicity in, control over, or authorization of specific terrorist attacks carried out by al-Qaeda.

The best evidence we have for this a third-hand account from a ‘foreign government service.’
This also comes from page 485 the same note #55:

I’d guess that this’d make it hard to give a good estimate of the reliability of a source…

Do I detect a note of sarcasm in that last sentence? Are you trying to suggest that when my sister-in-laws hairdresser says he knows a guy who can prove that John Kerry is a Fonda mind-control robot, this may not be solidly verifiable? Don’t be mucking about with the rules of evidence, lad!

If I may indulge a slight hi-jack? What if Bill Clinton were to perform a mea culpa from the high board? The report outlines instances of possible/probably failure on the parts of both the Clinton and the Bush admins.

What if Clinton were to “do a Clarke”, and apologise for his failure to fully protect the American people? How might Bush react? Bush regards admitting error like Superman craves a bowl of kryptonite for breakfast. But if Bill manfully accepts his portion of blame, what can Bush do but the same? And if he admits to such failure, how can he then claim to be the best choice for our safety and protection? After all, Bill ain’t running.

Do it, Bill! Bite it, and bite it hard, loud, and publicly. Do it for us, do it for the Party, do it because its true, and do it 'cause it will give Karl Rove a 20 megaton anxiety attack. You owe us this much, you horn-dog.

Good idea and it has been done. At a WWII memorial at a Military Cemetary some years ago with veterans in attendance, Gen. Lucien Truscott, while making a speech, turned his back on the dignitaries and faced the cemetary markers and the assembled vets and tearfully apologised for the mistakes he had made that cost people their lives and severe injuries.

He’d say “See, I told you it was Clinton’s fault!”

Then someone would mention that the report also covers his failures.

Bush would respond with some chummy non sequitur like “Well, I don’t read reports, that’s boring. But I’m a strong leader and I mean what I say,” and Condi would say, “Report? I didn’t get any report. What I got was merely a set of conclusions with explanations, the result of an investigation in written form.”

Right, in terms of naked politics, anything that distracts attention from Bush is a negative for the Democrats. For now, Kerry has to stay statesmanlike and a bit vague, and Clinton has to shut up. It’s working, isn’t it?

But I do agree Clinton should do something like that - on or shortly after November 3. Bush never will - he can’t admit he’s made *any * mistakes.

To read the banter on this board, one would think that eith GW Bush or Bill Clinton had to be solely responsible for 9/11. In reality, the problems run MUCH deeper than either of those guys. American intelligence has been piss poor for a LONG time. It was piss poor when Bubba and Dubyah were governors, and it was piss poor when they were chasing girls in college.
The CIA had hordes of agents and listening posts in place in the Soviet Union, and they still grossly overestimated the size of the Soviet economy every year. They had a vast presence in the Shah’s Iran, and still had absolutely no idea that Shiite fundamentalism was on the rise, or that it posed a threat to the Shah.

There are many reasons for this that must be addressed. Ideally, this would be addressed on a bipartisan, rational level… but I suppose it’s more fun for liberals to embrace the Michael Moore thesis, and for right wingers to blame Sandy Berger.

Clinton tripled the FBI’s anti-terrorism budget.

Bush cut terrorism funding from the FBI.

Clinton was osessed with stopping Osama Bin Laden.

John Ashcroft didn’t want to hear about terrorism before 9/11.

You don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to look at the data and go “hmmmmmmmm…”