iraq and 9/11: for the record

Posted on by

“9/11 Panel Finds No Iraqi Collaboration,” By Dan Eggen (WaPo):

There is “no credible evidence” that Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, including the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackings, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the hijacking plot.

Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990s, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein’s secular government, and Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons, the panel’s report says.

The findings come in the wake of statements Monday by Vice President Cheney that Iraq had “long-established ties” with al Qaeda, and comments by President Bush yesterday backing up that assertion.

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: the Bush administration is stupid, incompetent, or dishonest. Or some combination of the three.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

One thought on “iraq and 9/11: for the record”

  1. “With 9/11 Report, Bush’s Political Thorn Grows More Stubborn”, by Richard W. Stevenson (NY Times):

    In questioning the extent of any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the commission weakened the already spotty scorecard on Mr. Bush’s justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein.

    Banned biological and chemical weapons: none yet found. Percentage of Iraqis who view American-led forces as liberators: 2, according to a poll commissioned last month by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Number of possible Al Qaeda associates known to have been in Iraq in recent years: one, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose links to the terrorist group and Mr. Hussein’s government remain sketchy…
    “The problem the administration has is that the predicates it laid down for the war have not played out,” said Warren B. Rudman, the former Republican senator from New Hampshire, who has extensive experience in assessing intelligence about terrorism. “That could spell political trouble for the president, there’s no question.”

    Hmmm. Ya think?

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *