Jump to content

US invasion of Iraq based on false report of Al-Qaeda's ties with Saddam


webfact

Recommended Posts

US Invasion of Iraq Based on False Report of Al-Qaeda’s Ties With Saddam

According to Senator Carl Levin, the declassified US intelligence has revealed that the Bush administration relied on a false report of Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 attacks alleged meeting with an Iraqi intelligence agent to justify the US' invasion of Iraq in 2003.

WASHINGTON, December 12 (Sputnik) – Declassified US intelligence has revealed that the Bush administration relied on a false report of al-Qaeda's alleged meeting with an Iraqi intelligence agent, to build a case for invading Iraq after the 9/11 attacks, Senator Carl Levin has announced.

"Levin will introduce a letter he received from CIA Director John Brennan, declassifying for the first time some details of a March 2003 CIA cable, warning the Bush administration against references to the allegation that Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, had met before the attacks in Prague, Czech Republic, with an Iraqi intelligence officer," a statement, released on the senator's website Thursday, said.

According to Levin, CIA field officers in the cable said there was not a single US counterterrorism or FBI expert who had said they had any evidence or even "knew" that Atta was in Prague in April, 2001.

In a Senate floor speech prepared for delivery and posted on Levin's website Thursday, the senator asks Brennan to declassify the entire cable to expose the Bush administration's campaign to "create an impression in the public mind that [iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] was in league with the al-Qaeda terrorists who attacked us on 9/11" in order to justify the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Full story: http://sputniknews.com/military/20141212/1015759673.html

-- Sputnik News 2014-12-12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how this could be news. I guess because it's no longer merely conjecture alone. I can't see how it will be a good thing... just make some more people angry because so many died as a result of what?

Edited by horsewell
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush had decided to take out Saddam long before 9/11. 9/11 was just the excuse. There's no surprise that a false report about Iraq's ties to the attack, and the entire WMD fiasco, was conjured up by the Bush-Cheney administration to justify the invasion.

My last post applies to you too, son.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-snip- because so many died as a result of what?

Because Tony Blair declared there were WMD's and the Australians went to war with him?

From the outset it looked like folly. At the time I was much less worldly but those in power that made those decisions for all the US allies should have known better. They should be personally held responsible. However, we let them do it and for all that has been done it hasn't made our world anymore safer.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam's intelligence services had contact with AQ, but AQ would have been the sworn enemy of a leader like Saddam, so any contact would have been about nothing substantial. Iraq was a Republic.

The decision was made and then the excuses were invented.

It's sad that so much good will was wasted. It might be a situation of crying wolf one too many times.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...relied on a false report of Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 attacks alleged meeting with an Iraqi intelligence agent to justify the US' invasion of Iraq in 2003."

Another false report.

Should read: Mohammad Atta, the alleged leader of the 9/11 attacks.

whistling.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry guys.

I really do not know why Americans still argumenting, reporting, and reading about all this, and ANYONE questions what is the TRUTH about 9/11.

If the START do not make sense......EVERYTHING that follows also do not make any sense.

Edited by umbanda
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...relied on a false report of Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 attacks alleged meeting with an Iraqi intelligence agent to justify the US' invasion of Iraq in 2003."

Another false report.

Should read: Mohammad Atta, the alleged leader of the 9/11 attacks.

whistling.gif

Atta, is that the guy whose passport they found miraculously intact lying atop the rubble at the WTC site?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The days, months and (yes) years following 9/11 had to have been frighteningly chaotic for the Bush White House. They had just experienced one of the worst attacks on US soil, and they had no idea if another was coming. It seems clear now that they overreached, but hindsight is obviously a luxury they didn't have at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is conveniently overlooked in all this flowery rhetoric is that the Bush-Cheney administration could not have taken the action they did without the broad approval of the Democratic Senate and House of Representatives.

At the time the vote was taken in 2002, there were only 49 Republican members of the Senate. Without at least one vote from either a Democrat or an Independent, the Iraq war Resolution would not have passed and the Iraq war would never have occurred.

A total of 29 Democrats voted for the resolution, and they were: (from link provided below)

Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA), Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).

Notice any prominent names on that list?

The Congressional members were fully briefed by the intelligence community prior to their votes. They didn't go into this blindly.

Sen. Levin voted against the resolution and now it is his "gotcha" moment and perhaps a little payback for his own Amendment to the Iraq War Resolution being defeated by a Senate vote of 75-24. He wanted the action to be approved by the UN.

This is all the dying swan song of the Reid controlled Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Typically you dont point out that these people were "lied to" by Bush administration and its cohorts. Difference today is most of those Dems know they were mislead and regret the vote.Of course most Republicans would have still voted for War even knowing the facts today. A certain Senator Obama voted against the resolution. Edited by kingalfred
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is conveniently overlooked in all this flowery rhetoric is that the Bush-Cheney administration could not have taken the action they did without the broad approval of the Democratic Senate and House of Representatives.

At the time the vote was taken in 2002, there were only 49 Republican members of the Senate. Without at least one vote from either a Democrat or an Independent, the Iraq war Resolution would not have passed and the Iraq war would never have occurred.

A total of 29 Democrats voted for the resolution, and they were: (from link provided below)

Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA), Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).

Notice any prominent names on that list?

The Congressional members were fully briefed by the intelligence community prior to their votes. They didn't go into this blindly.

Sen. Levin voted against the resolution and now it is his "gotcha" moment and perhaps a little payback for his own Amendment to the Iraq War Resolution being defeated by a Senate vote of 75-24. He wanted the action to be approved by the UN.

This is all the dying swan song of the Reid controlled Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Typically you dont point out that these people were "lied to" by Bush administration and its cohorts. Difference today is most of those Dems know they were mislead and regret the vote.Of course most Republicans would have still voted for War even knowing the facts today. A certain Senator Obama voted against the resolution.

A "certain Senator Obama" did NOT vote against the resolution.

He was not a member of Congress in 2001 or 2002.

He was either an Illinois State Senator or a community organizer at that time.

He had no vote at all.

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

Those Dems have been back pedaling ever since they made the vote. It has everything to do with getting reelected and nothing to do with the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.











×
×
  • Create New...