GOP lawmaker: Saddam linked to 9/11

[Bang]

Originally posted by Baculus

Thiebear and Bang - I also understand your prospectives, which I do not agree with as well. But, as Thiebear pointed out, it's America, and thankfully, for the time being, we can discuss these matters in a civil manner: "ANY suppression of that is dictatorish." Sadly enough, in some parts of the country, this has happened, which weaknes us all a little bit at a time. And this pertains to whether it's dissent against Bush and the War, or the use of God in a college paper.

While many won't necessarily agree with my stances, I hope you understand that I strive to be truthful in my opinions. And when I present information and links, it is my hope that I will at least provide a little bit of food for thought, since things aren't always what they appear on the surface.

Cool with me.

~Bang

[Larry]

Originally posted by Bufford

are you talking about the Denver Three?

Q: Denver Three?

That's John Elway, Terrell Davis, and . . . ?

[yank]

Sorry, late to the party.

From a bipartisan viewpoint, let's focus on the ruling http://www.husseinandterror.com/

from a Clinton-appointed New York-based judge which, obviously paraphrased stated:

"Thus, there is abundant and undeniable evidence that Saddam Hussein provided money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe, including those complicit in the 1993 WTC bombing and — according to a Clinton-appointed federal judge — the September 11 attacks."

Wow.

The invective of how stupid people are to believe there was a connection between the terrorist maven Sadaam and the 9-11 events is proven small, partisan and closed-minded by the ruling by the Clinton-appointed New York judge that said - yes indeed - Sadaam is CRIMINALLY LIABLE for 9-11.

Aiding and abetting - criminal. Same guilt as those who actually pull the trigger. Look it up.

Don't worry about the media. It's not relevent. They didn't create the bizarre terrorist boutique bazaar that Sadaam created.

Don't worry about the politicial parties. They're not relevant.

Look at the judiciary. Serious bona fides of credibile impartiality in the judge that ruled that Sadaam was legally implicated in the 9-11 massacre.

So the clear evidence of Sadaam's involvement 9-11 was connected with his proven possession and use of WMD in the past was used as justification for regime change. Not a big leap at all. The whole world including the French, Germans and Russians actually agreed with the connection.

OK so we didnt find the WMD. They were moved and gone by the time we got there.

But it is junior high school logic that says we lied about it. We just couldn't produce the evidence.

So what.

The UN - even in light of their obvious financial bias towards Sadaam - knew he had them and ruled as such.

They just didn't pull the trigger on the deal they approved in so many resolutions because of their ridiculous financial profits in the Oil for Food Scam.

They're now pissed because their golden egg is gone.

So what.

So Iraq is equally as guilty as Afghanistan in supporting the attacks on the US in 9-11. So says a Clinton-appointed judge.

The hypocricy of supporting the cleaning out of Osama and the Taliban in Afghanistan and not supporting the same in Iraq is, well, disingenuous, simple-minded and clearly partisan motivated.

Nobody wants war - especially the military. Anyone who thinks so is an idiot. Guess who dies in war - the military. If you claim to speak for the interests of those in the volunteer military don't.

You're not qualified.

We have Linda Blair look-alikes plotting, scheming, and spending incredible amounts of money to endanger anything not of their ilk.

Contrary to some misguided opinion the US does not do the same. Of all superpowers in history - and yes I am not ashamed to say that the US is the superpower right now - we are the most benign, most generous, most civilized ever.

But there was a cancer that unfortunately had to be extracted so that the world as a whole can continue to advance.

Anyone who doubts that Osama and Sadaam were cancers need not reply.

[Guest Gichin13]

Originally posted by yank

Sorry, late to the party.

From a bipartisan viewpoint, let's focus on the ruling http://www.husseinandterror.com/

from a Clinton-appointed New York-based judge which, obviously paraphrased stated:

"Thus, there is abundant and undeniable evidence that Saddam Hussein provided money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe, including those complicit in the 1993 WTC bombing and — according to a Clinton-appointed federal judge — the September 11 attacks."

Wow.

The invective of how stupid people are to believe there was a connection between the terrorist maven Sadaam and the 9-11 events is proven small, partisan and closed-minded by the ruling by the Clinton-appointed New York judge that said - yes indeed - Sadaam is CRIMINALLY LIABLE for 9-11.

Aiding and abetting - criminal. Same guilt as those who actually pull the trigger. Look it up.

Don't worry about the media. It's not relevent. They didn't create the bizarre terrorist boutique bazaar that Sadaam created.

Don't worry about the politicial parties. They're not relevant.

Look at the judiciary. Serious bona fides of credibile impartiality in the judge that ruled that Sadaam was legally implicated in the 9-11 massacre.

You are way overstating the results of that case. The case resulted in a default judgment because no one defended it. While you can technically argue the plaintiff "proved" there was a connection, using this to bootstrap that a federal judge just agrees with these allegations is a pretty weak argument.

[yank]

Originally posted by Gichin13

You are way overstating the results of that case. The case resulted in a default judgment because no one defended it. While you can technically argue the plaintiff "proved" there was a connection, using this to bootstrap that a federal judge just agrees with these allegations is a pretty weak argument.

So the judge heard the evidence, judged it to be factually based - which it clearly was - and ruled accordingly.

So that's not good enough for the partisan chanting crowd.

Make up your own facts. Prove whatever you want to prove.

That's the appropriate way to do it.

I guess.

Let's spend the next 10 years in court saying as they said in the Holy Grail - "Let's not worry about who killed who."

When the abuse of the technical details of law suit one side -for instance Abu Ghraib and Gitmo - and the legitimate use of the law is cited and brushed off - credibility is left wanting.

I wasnt hiding behind the farce that this is a criminal prosecution issue.

I was only saying that the facts were proven in court to the satisfaction of an unbiased judge. Any other sort of interjection of legal basis for discounting the connection is, well, not only the real bootstrap but in fact a different b.s. altogether.

[Guest Gichin13]

Originally posted by yank

So the judge heard the evidence, judged it to be factually based - which it clearly was - and ruled accordingly.

So that's not good enough for the partisan chanting crowd.

Make up your own facts. Prove whatever you want to prove.

...

I was only saying that the facts were proven in court to the satisfaction of an unbiased judge. Any other sort of interjection of legal basis for discounting the connection is, well, not only the real bootstrap but in fact a different b.s. altogether.

Do you even know what a default judgment is? If not, perhaps you should not be jumping to conclusions without understanding the context. If you do not know the posture of the case and applicable impact of the court's findings, perhaps you should not be editorializing that "a Judge even agrees Saddam was connected to 9/11!!!"

I am not part of the "partisan chanting crowd", nor am I "making up my own facts". That would be you since you do not even understand the procedural posture of the case and what it means.

[Baculus]

Yank,

I read the link you provided. And while it discusses some details regarding Palestine (and shows pictures of checks written in arabic), it really doesn't have much information on 9-11. And considering the fact that we don't even really know who all the 9-11 bombers were, since some of the named ones turned up alive (Atta didn't, but we never had his body, of course), we cannot make a case for Saddam since there wasn't any evidence to make a case for....well, anyone. All the evidence at the scene of the crimes were hauled away (from the Pentagon, the WTC, and the PA crash site) and all efforts for an investigation, to determine who, what, and where, was stifled. And most of the intel dealing with 9-11 has been kept secretive by the Bush administration.

While some of the information on the page may lead a judge to decide Saddam was a thug and helped terrorists, I don't see how the judge's decision that Saddam was involved could have been reached. Do I believe it is possible Saddam relished 9-11? Yes. Do I think he was involved? Well, that has yet to be determined, I guess is the whole argument.

If you are going to ask questions about 9-11, then you should ask, "Who ordered the military stand down on the morning of 9-11?"

http://standdown.net/

[jpillian]

Baculus,

Please -- tell me you are not giving any credance whatsoever to that website. :no: :laugh: :insane:

[Baculus]

JPillian,

I haven't read the whole website, but it does present a timeline of events on 9-11 as well as discussing the lack of response from NORAD. But, no, I am going to "claim" every link they have on the page is "the truth of the matter."

Since you're in the military, JPillian, haven't you ever asked, "Where the heck was our military response for getting close to two hours?" on the morning of 9-11. That is the point of that particular page.

I don't want to delve too far into this because it'll take you deep into the rabbit hole. :-)

[mardi gras skin]

Originally posted by Baculus

I don't want to delve too far into this because it'll take you deep into the rabbit hole. :-)

There is no evidence linking Lewis Carroll with mind-altering drug use. Keep your hallucinations to yourself.

[Baculus]

There is no evidence linking Lewis Carroll with mind-altering drug use. Keep your hallucinations to yourself.

Are you sure about this?

On a related note, I came upon this page:

http://mag_alice.tripod.com/hooka.html

Girls and hookahs...Hmmm.

[jpillian]

Baculus -- Honestly, Sarge is the guy to ask about Air Force stuff.

However, after reading quite a bit of this guy's "outrage" on the response time by our Air National Guard folks that were "on alert" for Sept 11th -- he provides no evidence that there were any policies in place for this sort of contingency.

Certainly he provides links to a number of FAA documents; but all they are, in the end, are really training documents. They dictate NOTHING insofar as to a "standard response" to domestic hijackings as far as air intercepts go.

He makes a lot of very BROAD statements -- and throws in some links here in there to some very boring documents -- in the hope that someone will believe his "inside knowledge" of this event.

And of course he claims intimate knowledge that the President himself ordered our air assets to stand down and not intercept the hijacked jets. No proof -- how you would gain such proof if it really existed is beyond me -- but this seems to be the MO of this site.

My take on Stand Down?

:bsflag:

What I REALLY suspect is the bottomline of an extended response by NORAD: the Cold War is over; by Sept 11, it had been for a decade -- why in the he11 would the Air Force need to spend millions in O&M and training dollars to keep strategic air assets alert for CAP missions? The Ruskies aren't coming over the North Pole any time soon. What the he!! else are they going to be shooting down? Have they EVER shot down an aircraft in the US?

Well, as it turns out, they should have been ready to deal with the 4 hijacked airliners.

They weren't -- and to add to that, the whole situation was exceedingly fuzzy. Unfortunately, the FAA nor the DOD were on Osama's distro list when he gave his orders to hijack 4 planes in the US and fly them into buildings.

My guess is that any ensuing fudging of facts have to do with this fact; that domestic hijacked airliners just were not on NORAD or the USAF's radar screen (pun intended). And that afterwards, if there was ANY sort of coverups, it was probably due to the fact that everyone was a bit culpable -- because no one honestly saw 9/11 coming.

(with the exception of Tom Clancy, of course...)

Anyways, Baculus, you nearly always post good links -- I just think this guy is making up conspiracy theories as he goes. :2cents:

[SkinsD]

Originally posted by airborneskins

That's not what I am saying. We have a war to fight. If we went off of what the general public wants, There is a GREAT possibility that another 9/11 would happen. Nobody likes War. It is just a part of life. The President and his cabinet have a plan. We cannot make all of it general information. Do you realize that the Enemy watches our TV and reads our papers, to come up with ways to attack us? So do you want the enemy to be one step ahead of us? I do not. Why don't you stand behind your president for a change. And if you do not like it vote differently in 2008.

That is rediculous, blind support for ANY administration is incredibly foolish regardless of the circumstances. Obviously some things must be kept under wraps but to suggest noone voice an opinion because a war is going on is idiotic.

[Baculus]

Certainly he provides links to a number of FAA documents; but all they are, in the end, are really training documents. They dictate NOTHING insofar as to a "standard response" to domestic hijackings as far as air intercepts go.

Thanks for responding, JPillian. And perhaps, as you are wrote, Sarge may be able to shed a little light on some of these subjects. I'm not going to delve into the conspiracy side of "who was responsible for 9-11," but I am more interested in the particular details of "What happened to the military?" Politics aside, I would think that even the most anti-war person on the morning of 9-11 would expect the military to respond to the hijacked planes.

Incidentally, I don’t buy into everything at so-called conspiracy websites. For example, I am not going to buy into the grand Zionist conspiracy theories, or such stuff, especially if they mention known frauds such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

From what I've always read, it is standard for NORAD and the Air Force to intercept planes, civilian and military. This has happened a number of times over years and is standard procedure and happens every year. Keep in mind that "intercept" and "shoot down" are not the same thing. If these flights were deviating from their courses, then based upon previous civilian flight deviations that led to military intercept responses, it’s surprising to have seen the lack of air response to these flight deviations. I have also read the FAA documentation that advises pilots how to respond if they are intercepted by a military flight. It must be standard enough procedure that they have training manuals and standard responses for civilian pilots in such situations.

This article discusses the issue:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/

Also, Andrews Air Force base is right across the river from D.C., and has a compliment of fighters whose role is to provide air cover for Washington D.C. and the surrounding area. (At least this is what the website said two years ago or so when I first read it. It now has a new website.) I have no idea why none of these planes were scrambled, and that is the question many folks have had, among others. Incidentally, I think the D.C. National Guard is based out of Andrews.

Reportedly, these are the squadrons at Andrews, or were at the time of 9-11.

Andrews Air Force Base is a huge installation. It hosts two 'combat-ready' squadrons:

* The 121st Fighter Squadron (FS-121) of the 113th Fighter Wing (FW-113), equipped with F-16 fighters;

* The 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA-321) of the 49th Marine Air Group, Detachment A (MAG-49 Det-A), equipped with

F/A-18 fighters.

Now, of course this doesn't mean that pilots were lurking around on duty, but when I read of other airbases, there do seem to be pilots on the ready in case of a need for a scrambled flight. I may have a wrong idea of the air force, but I have always assumed that if you are a military jet fighter pilot and at work, you are ready to fly at a moment's notice if you are on your shift. I could be completely wrong, of course.

The Soviet Threat may still be gone, but we still have a military response, including fighters that can be scrambled. As an example:

http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1299/home2.htm

(I have no idea how old this article may be, but it's after the demise of the U.S.S.R.)

One detail that tends to be overlooked and forgotten is the fact that NORAD and the USAF was on heightened alert that morning due to a coincidental military exercise that was happening on 9-11. This was known as Vigilant Guardian.

This exercise has been verified, by such sources as this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/vigilant-guardian.htm

And in spite of Bush and Rice’s assertions that nobody would have “dreamed” of someone to use planes as a weapons, that’s not true. As reported in this CNN article, NORAD had actually had exercises with this scenario. It also shows the preparedness for hijackings that were practiced:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/19/norad.exercise/index.html

According to reports from various sources, the day of 9-11 involved exercises of planes being used as weapons. Crazily enough, T.V. mirrors real life, as an episode of “The Lone Gunman” that aired in early 2001 portrayed U.S. agent zealots attempting to crash a remote controlled jet airliner into the WTC.

http://www.davidcogswell.com/MediaRoulette/LoneGunmen.html

There are other details I could touch upon, such as the inconstancies between NORAD’s reports and the FAA, but this response has already gone for longer then I intended. Plus some of this I’ve discussed in previous topics, and if often becomes a polarizing issue, which isn’t my intent. There are tons of 9-11 web pages – some good, some bad. I think, if one examines this issue, you probably have to read different stories to wade through all of the information available.

Probably, for me, the most disturbing part of all this is, with all of the evident failures in communication and responses, no one at all seemed to have been punished, nor was anyone held accountable for such a poor display of national, domestic defense.

Edit: As an additional note, here is a list of some of the FAA procedures for standard intercepts:

http://www.standdown.net/FAAstandardinterceptprocedures.htm

[yank]

Originally posted by Baculus

Yank,

I read the link you provided. And while it discusses some details regarding Palestine (and shows pictures of checks written in arabic), it really doesn't have much information on 9-11. And considering the fact that we don't even really know who all the 9-11 bombers were, since some of the named ones turned up alive (Atta didn't, but we never had his body, of course), we cannot make a case for Saddam since there wasn't any evidence to make a case for....well, anyone. All the evidence at the scene of the crimes were hauled away (from the Pentagon, the WTC, and the PA crash site) and all efforts for an investigation, to determine who, what, and where, was stifled. And most of the intel dealing with 9-11 has been kept secretive by the Bush administration.

While some of the information on the page may lead a judge to decide Saddam was a thug and helped terrorists, I don't see how the judge's decision that Saddam was involved could have been reached. Do I believe it is possible Saddam relished 9-11? Yes. Do I think he was involved? Well, that has yet to be determined, I guess is the whole argument.

If you are going to ask questions about 9-11, then you should ask, "Who ordered the military stand down on the morning of 9-11?"

http://standdown.net/

Bottom line was Sadaam a threat in light of the attacks of 9-11. This is what Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Senate Intelligence Committe member, said on the floor of the U.S. Senate on October 10, 2002. His speech announced his support for the resolution authorizing the Iraq war.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated.

The revisionism in the current outrage and protest is sheer hypocracy.

[Baculus]

It isn't revisionism if facts and details are still being revealed and explored. Also, if you want to look at revisionism, you have to look at the administration as well. Such as Rumsfeld saying Iraq is an immediate threat, then denying he ever said it. (That was embarrasing when he was shown footage of him saying just exactly that.) Or Rice and Powell saying Iraq is contained, then deciding that it wasn't the case. Or Bush on the 2000 campaign trail that America shoudn't be involved in nation building. (Incidentally, when Bush said that America should have humility, and not arrogance, in its foreign policy was one of the reasons why I *almost* voted for Bush in 2000.)

I am not the biggest fan of the Rockefellers, either, just as a personal note. I don't have much faith in many Democrat leaders, so don't think this is just a partisan issue. Clinton didn't exactly do a bangup job of things.

[yank]

Originally posted by Baculus

It isn't revisionism if facts and details are still being revealed and explored. Also, if you want to look at revisionism, you have to look at the administration as well. Such as Rumsfeld saying Iraq is an immediate threat, then denying he ever said it. (That was embarrasing when he was shown footage of him saying just exactly that.) Or Rice and Powell saying Iraq is contained, then deciding that it wasn't the case. Or Bush on the 2000 campaign trail that America shoudn't be involved in nation building. (Incidentally, when Bush said that America should have humility, and not arrogance, in its foreign policy was one of the reasons why I *almost* voted for Bush in 2000.)

I am not the biggest fan of the Rockefellers, either, just as a personal note. I don't have much faith in many Democrat leaders, so don't think this is just a partisan issue. Clinton didn't exactly do a bangup job of things.

The point is just about EVERYONE including Republicans, Democrats, British, Germans, French, Russians - believed the intelligence they had that Iraq had WMD and believed that they were the epitome of state-sponsored terrorism.

The data from all intelligence sources - not just the US by any means - supported the same conclusion.

The main disagreement at the time was whether to do anything about it.

As we have found out the Europeans had billions invested in keeping the status quo.

So we went alone. We were attacked by our terrorist enemies and we did - and are doing - what we had to do.

Now the evidence hasnt been found supporting the conclusion. Could be many reasons for that - unreliable intelligence for one, or they were moved out of Iraq for another.

There was due dilligence, corroboration by many other intelligence soruces and plain evidence of past use of WMD and clear evidence of support of terrorism.

But this constant nyah, nyah, nyah, Monday morning quarterbacking gotcha game is not productive.

[Baculus]

But this constant nyah, nyah, nyah, Monday morning quarterbacking gotcha game is not productive.

For many people, this isn't about just monday morning quarterbacking. (Which, incidentally, many Republicans have done, laying the blame on 9-11 on a previous administration.) No matter how much administration supporters may deny, the full story just....ain't...right. And this is outside the scope of just intelligence on Hussein and whether he was seen as a threat or contained.

One thing we may have to consider, too, whether or not the intel, during all those years, was really that accurate.

If an administration, such as Bush's, operates in secrecy. Of course you are going to have second-guessing and probes into the heart of the matter. You can brush off investigations into past events as mere Monday Morning QBing, but that's just closing your ears to other possibilities.

I think at this point, Yank, we need to agree to disagree. I don't think we are going to convince each other either way.

[Larry]

Originally posted by yank

The point is just about EVERYONE including Republicans, Democrats, British, Germans, French, Russians - believed the intelligence they had that Iraq had WMD and believed that they were the epitome of state-sponsored terrorism.

The data from all intelligence sources - not just the US by any means - supported the same conclusion.

True. (Although, if the Britts, say, really thought Saddam was a threat, then how come the Head of their Secret Service claimed that Bush was falsely making that claim?)

The main disagreement at the time was whether to do anything about it.

True

As we have found out the Europeans had billions invested in keeping the status quo.

True. (Just as we had billions of reasons to, if you will, "re-negotaite" all of those contracts. Just pointing out that it's a bit of a double standard, claiming that billions in oil contracts going to the French, means the French were motivated by money, whereas billions in contracts which were going to non-US companies, but are now going to US companies, had absolutly nothing to do with the decisions.)

So we went alone. We were attacked by our terrorist enemies and we did - and are doing - what we had to do.

False. (IMO).

We were attacked by our terrorist enemies, and we did what we wanted to do all along.

[yank]

Originally posted by Baculus

One thing we may have to consider, too, whether or not the intel, during all those years, was really that accurate.

If an administration, such as Bush's, operates in secrecy. Of course you are going to have second-guessing and probes into the heart of the matter. You can brush off investigations into past events as mere Monday Morning QBing, but that's just closing your ears to other possibilities.

I think at this point, Yank, we need to agree to disagree. I don't think we are going to convince each other either way.

I agree we need to agree to disagree :laugh:

One more thing and I'm out. Any attempt to tie the failures of intelligence to Bush's operation in secrecy is a canard. He was in office less than 8 months. The failures of intelligence relating to 9-11 are left rightly at the doorstep of his predecessor and his cohorts in Congress beginning in the 70s.

OK, now I'm out. Enjoyed it and see ya next time.

[Baculus]

One more thing and I'm out. Any attempt to tie the failures of intelligence to Bush's operation in secrecy is a canard. He was in office less than 8 months. The failures of intelligence relating to 9-11 are left rightly at the doorstep of his predecessor and his cohorts in Congress beginning in the 70s.

That's not true. It does not matter if he was in for 8 months, during that time he was still responsible for listening to events that were happening, and he and his administration did little. (Or did a lot, depending upon the conspiracy theory.) You are trying to absolve the president of responsibility; that seems to be the order of the day when it comes to Bush. In fact, I have never seen a president that seems to be absolved of any responsibility as much as Bush. "9-11?" Bad intel. "WMDs?" Bad intel. Occupation failures? Bad intel. Sheesh. And that is just a VERY short list. What is he, a child that doesn't accept any responsibility for failure?

Shouldn't you believe that our leaders are responsible for their decisions? Doesn't the buck stop at the presidency?

Sorry, but 9-11 happened on Bush's watch. Responsibility lies on his head, just like it did on Reagan's head when he pulled the marines out of Lebanon. If Clinton is going to be blamed for not going harder after Bin Laden, the Bush most certainly will receive blame for being the President when 9-11 happened. No free pass can be given to Bush.

See ya next time, Yank.