Rumsfeld Admits No 9/11-Iraq Link - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

Corporate Pig · **Rumsfeld Admits No 9/11-Iraq Link -** 09-18-03

Well whatdo-ya-know, there is no Iraq-Al Qaida link, and the whole thing was "invented" by washington to further their agenda of going to War...

Quote:

Rumsfeld Admits No 9/11-Iraq Link

Printed on Wednesday, September 17, 2003
YellowTimes.Org
Refer: http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.p...thread&order=0

CHICAGO (NFTF.org) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld admitted yesterday that there was no reason to believe that Saddam Hussein had any role in the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Despite the fact that in a recent poll 70 percent of Americans now believe that Saddam Hussein assisted in the September 11 attacks, Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon news conference, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."

It is not clear why well over a majority of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein had a part in the September 11 attacks. Power and Interest News Report analyst Matthew Riemer believes "that this widely held misbelief is a direct result of the speeches and statements made by various members of the Bush administration including the president himself, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Colin Powell."

Or for a better story, read this article posted by UPI;

Quote:

White House 'delayed 9-11 report'

By Shaun Waterman
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor
Published 7/25/2003 8:11 PM
Refer: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...3-064812-9491r

WASHINGTON, July 25 (UPI) -- A member of the independent commission set up to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has accused the Bush administration of deliberately delaying publication of an earlier congressional inquiry into the attacks.

Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., told United Press International that the White House did not want the report made public before launching military action in Iraq. He said the administration feared publication might undermine the administration's case for war, which was based in part on the allegation that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had supported Osama bin Laden -- and the attendant possibility that Iraq might supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction.

"The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war," said Cleland. "There's no connection, and that's been confirmed by some of bin Laden's terrorist followers ... What you've seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends."

Cleland accused the administration of deliberately delaying the report's release to avoid having its case for war undercut.

"The reason this report was delayed for so long -- deliberately opposed at first, then slow-walked after it was created -- is that the administration wanted to get the war in Iraq in and over ... before (it) came out," he said.

"Had this report come out in January like it should have done, we would have known these things before the war in Iraq, which would not have suited the administration."

The congressional inquiry, by members of both the House and Senate intelligence committees, was launched in February 2002 amid growing concerns that failures by U.S. intelligence had allowed 19 al-Qaida members to enter the United States, hijack four airliners and kill almost 3,000 people.

Although the committee completed its work at the end of last year, publication of the report has been delayed by what one committee staffer called "vigorous discussion" with administration officials over which parts of it could be declassified.

The 800-page report -- 50 pages of which were censored to protect still-classified information -- was published Thursday.

It is a litany of poor management, bad communication and flawed policy that enabled the 19 hijackers to carry out their deadly plan. Failures by the CIA, the FBI and the super-secret National Security Agency are catalogued.

Many of the censored pages concern the question of support for al-Qaida from foreign countries. Anonymous officials have told news organizations that much of the still-classified material concerns Saudi Arabia, and the question of whether Saudi officials -- perhaps acting as rogue agents -- assisted the 19 men, 15 of whom were Saudis.

Inquiry staff would not comment to UPI about the issue, but one did say that the section contained references to "more one country."

Prior to the report's publication, a person who had read it told UPI that it showed U.S. intelligence agencies had no evidence linking Iraq to the 9-11 attacks or to al-Qaida. In fact, the issue is not addressed in the declassified sections of the report.

One other person who has seen the classified version of the document told UPI subsequently that the Iraq issue is not addressed in the still-classified section, either. "They didn't ask that question," the person said.

So given that:
The story of Iraqi WMD's was a lie...
The story of Iraqi-Al Quaida link was a lie...

So why did the US go to War ?

Seperate:
For those interested, the 9-11 Report by the SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE is available as a PDF download from:

Refer: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/9...eport72403.pdf
[5.5MB download]

John Preston · 09-19-03

Heyyyyyy
Don't you know anything?!

We just found in Iraq papers that are ten years old and pertain to billing of housing for a guy who was part of the WTC bombing in 1993!

THAT'S WHY!

Yeah...sure..

o_o

Sixgun_Symphony · 09-19-03

Al Qaida are not the only Islamic terrorist gang.

There is Hamas, Hezboullah, and others. Saddam has been supporting Hamas, and is especially noted for donating $25,000 dollars to the families of the suicide bombers in Israel.

This is a war against Islamic terrorism, so its more than just Al Qaida. Hopefully soon we will be going into Syria, Iran, and Libya too.

Sixgun_Symphony · 09-19-03

BTW,

What you guys got against the war in Afghanistan and Iraq?

These militant muslims have been attacking US for decades. (Iran hostage crisis, Achille Lauro, Beruit bombing, and et cetera)

Groups like Hamas, Hezboullah, Al Qaida recieve offical support from alot of mid eastern states like Libya, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. In my mind, the US invasions of the middle east are twenty years overdue.

John Preston · 09-20-03

Laden's main purpose for doing what he did was to get America INTO the Middle East.
Doesn't that make you wonder..? When all that wonderful oil is there..and Bush likes his oil.

Also, attacking Afghanistan and Iraq due to the actions of a few people is like attacking England if an English man runs around shooting people in America.
It doesn't work right.

The ends do NOT justify the means, because if they did then what is to stop anyone from doing something horrible in order to "fix" the world?

Sixgun_Symphony · 09-20-03

We know the "Arab Street", it needs to be punished.

People like Osama bin Ladin did not come out of a vacuum. This is a resurgent Islam. Remember that Islam came out of the desert and conquered the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of southern Europe before the First Crusade got started.

Oil? Now that we control the oil in Iraq, we now have some leverage on the oil shieks. We can hurt their profits by flooding the market with cheap oil. It's like grabbing them by the short hairs.

Another advantage is that all the Islamic religious fanatics are now coming into Iraq for Jihad. That means we get an opportunity to kill these guys.

The war is on. You may want to cut and run, but 911 should have shown you that the war will come to you. Better that we fight these guys on their homelands rather than our homelands.

John Preston · 09-20-03

Yeah....one thing.
Who are the terrorists?

Whoever America says are terrorists?
Then what's to stop them from just calling everyone in the Middle East terrorists and blowing them all up with big arse bombs?
Like Iran and SA are afraid of.
And with America threatening Syria(or some such..stupid countries I never learned the names to), it seems that it's turning into a nice big bully who'll beat up whoever it sees just because it can.

Sixgun_Symphony · 09-20-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Preston

...or some such..stupid countries I never learned the names to...

Some such countries you never learned the names of eh?

Then you really don't knpw what you are talking about, do you?

thefinalw0rd · 09-20-03

Iran, Syria, and Libya? And haven't we been talking about how our resources are stretched too thin as it is? And where do the vast amounts of money that an invasion of those 3 nations would cost come from? The surplus is gone, the taxes are lower, but spending is skyrocketing. This is lunacy.

Meantime, like Spike Lee said, more Americans care about JLo and Affleck than they do the Iraq war...

Sixgun_Symphony · 09-20-03

Check out the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The economy has been picking up since the tax cuts went into effect. Thus tax revenues will increase.

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/glance.htm

You say our forces are sprea thin? Then lets drop the 'peacekeeping' missions in the Balkan's, Liberia, and other little hotspots which do not affect US security. There was some comments about our 'butting in" to the affairs of other nations, so by all means let us drop these multilateral "peacekeeping" missions which are done for the interests of the UN rather than for our own national interests.
For that matter we can pull our troops out of South Korea too. South Korea has a modern million man army, they can protect themselves. North Korea's nukes can still be taken out by our stealth bombers if/when it becomes necessary for US to do so.

Corporate Pig · 09-21-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sixgun_Symphony

Check out the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The economy has been picking up since the tax cuts went into effect. Thus tax revenues will increase.

Its interesting that the IMF is saying differently,...
but then, thats because I expect the government is using those "creative" accounting techniques which were the trademark for;
Aurthur Anderson, Enron & Worldcom - or have you already forgotten about those Six?

Admittidly, while I do see the IMF as a corrupt and disgusting organization, I would also be taking note of their warning.

Quote:

IMF warns trade gap could bring down dollar

Charlotte Denny and Larry Elliott
Friday September 19, 2003
The Guardian.
Refer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,38...110878,00.html

The International Monetary Fund yesterday warned that the colossal United States trade deficit was a noose around the neck of the economy, emphasising that the once mighty dollar could collapse at any moment.

Arguing that the world's big economies were already too dependent on the willingness of American consumers to live beyond their means, the IMF said the US could not continue to run a current account deficit of 5% of GDP.

The IMF's chief economist Kenneth Rogoff said that it was just a matter of time before the gap closed, tipping the dollar into a potentially steep fall.

"If we were looking at a poor developing country, the world gives them just enough rope to hang themselves. A country like the United States, they give them enough rope to tie the noose around their neck several times. But it does happen in the end," he said.

In its twice yearly report on the world economy, the Fund warns that even a controlled slide in the dollar's value is likely to slow US growth and unless other countries picked up the slack, the global economy would suffer.

Mr Rogoff said the collapse of world trade talks last weekend in Cancun could spell disaster for a global economy already too dependent on unbalanced growth in the US. Describing the breakdown as a "tragedy", he said global poverty would rise if protectionism took root in the world's biggest economies.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and heightened geopolitical tensions worldwide after the September 11 attacks on the US would "unquestionably" hold back growth in the decades ahead, Mr Rogoff told reporters.

but then again,.. maybe the cracks were starting to appear back in 1999 and earlier, but no one was listening...

by way of this, I am refering to the appearance of Mark Weisbrot from the Centre for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), before the US Trade Deficit Review Committee on November 15, 1999...

Quote:

CPER

Testimony of Mark Weisbrot to the United States Trade Deficit Review Commission, November 15, 1999

Refer: http://www.cepr.net/globalization/tr..._testimony.htm

The U.S. trade deficit, through August of this year, has increased by about 58 percent over the same period last year. For 1999 we can expect a deficit of about $250 billion in goods and services. About 80 percent of this deficit is with Asia.

A trade deficit of this size, currently running at about 2.8% of GDP, is not sustainable over the long term. Before turning to the causes of this problem, and possible solutions, it is worth addressing briefly some of the more common explanations.

well, well...
In 1999, the CEPR was warning about a trade deficit level of 2.8% of GDP, and that it was not "sustainable in the long term",..
So Bush and Co, turn it into a 5% of GDP deficit...
wow... thats really helping America for the future.

and if anyone's interested, the standard accounting identity(formula), from the US national income accounts, is:

Quote:

S - I = (G-T) + (X-M)

where;
S = private savings
I = gross private domestic investment

G = government purchases of goods and services
T = taxes

M = imports of goods and services
X = exports of goods and services

Refer: Centre for Economic and Policy Research (CPER)
http://www.cepr.net/globalization/tr..._testimony.htm

[/quote]

Corporate Pig · 09-21-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sixgun_Symphony

You say our forces are sprea thin? Then lets drop the 'peacekeeping' missions in the Balkan's, Liberia, and other little hotspots which do not affect US security. There was some comments about our 'butting in" to the affairs of other nations, so by all means let us drop these multilateral "peacekeeping" missions which are done for the interests of the UN rather than for our own national interests.
For that matter we can pull our troops out of South Korea too. South Korea has a modern million man army, they can protect themselves. North Korea's nukes can still be taken out by our stealth bombers if/when it becomes necessary for US to do so.

Of course while reducing the amount of Military conflicts the US is involved with, will help the economic situation a bit,..

why not reduce aid to Israel ?
Its only running at about $3 Billion per Year - not including loans or interest.

And Israel already has the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza, and only represents 0.001% of the worlds population, while the Aid they receive represents approx 1 third of total US aid.

Even further,.. while receiving approx 1 third of the total US aid budget, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world, enjoying a higher per capita income than even Saudia Arabia.

Any thoughts on this, then Six?

John Preston · 09-24-03

America's spending over 100 billion dollars on this middle east crap in like..half a year's time.
1 billion dollars a YEAR goes to schools for the whole US.

Doesn't that seem..wrong?

Corporate Pig · 09-24-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Preston

America's spending over 100 billion dollars on this middle east crap in like..half a year's time.
1 billion dollars a YEAR goes to schools for the whole US.

Doesn't that seem..wrong?

Not to people like Sixgun and dogg9, who see education as a "Commodity" for Sale. Things such as free education and healthcare, are apparently Socialist agenda's.

It would explain though why I believe, that neither have post-graduate level educations, such as a Degree or doctorate.
They couldn't afford it... espically when thinking the likes of Harvard or Yale.

I guess that it also explains why neither will ever be getting a pay packet like good 'ol bill Gates.

dgg9 · 09-24-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corporate Pig

Not to people like Sixgun and dogg9, who see education as a "Commodity" for Sale. Things such as free education and healthcare, are apparently Socialist agenda's.

Nothing is ever free. It's paid for, one way or another. The question is: does the consumer decide, or does the unaccountable federal bureaucrat decide? Pointing out the obvious is a painful necessity when dealing with Marxist economic illiterates.

Quote:

It would explain though why I believe, that neither have post-graduate level educations, such as a Degree or doctorate.
They couldn't afford it... espically when thinking the likes of Harvard or Yale.

I guess that it also explains why neither will ever be getting a pay packet like good 'ol bill Gates.

Bill Gates was a college DROPOUT. Oops...that sound you hear is your argument circling the drain.

John Preston · 09-24-03

At the moment the US isn't offering any actual money to anyone, except extremely minimal.
They're spending it all on the actions in the Middle East.

And a bunch of the money is unaccounted for(so says a guy in the government who deals with money).
About, I think it was 3 billion.
Each month.

And yeah CP, Gates was a drop out.
Even I knew that....

Oh wait, I didn't remember.

Corporate Pig · 09-24-03

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgg9

Bill Gates was a college DROPOUT. Oops...that sound you hear is your argument circling the drain.

Yes we all know that he dropped out of Harvard (mmm.. there's that name again), but quite possibly this had to do with he was enrolled in a Law degree as Harvard wasn't offering Computer Science degree's..

Quote:

When Bill went to college the two friends still stayed close. During the summer Bill and Allen went to work fixing computers again. They made about $20,000 over the summer. Bill Gates didn?t want to start a company until he was out of college. Bill Gates attended Harvard but Harvard, didn?t give any degrees in computer science at the time so Bill enrolled in pre-law. Bill was more interested in computers than in law. He spent most of his time in the computer room. He would often fall asleep in class from spending all night in the computer room. They got another job next to the school and they did very well. Bill and his friend Paul were thinking about starting their own computer company, but Bill knew that he would have to quit college if they did. By now, a company made the first personal computer called the Altair. It wasn?t very powerful or fast, but it was the first computer to be used by one person. With this idea, Bill and his friend knew that if they didn?t start a company now, they would fall behind. They quickly adapted the Harvard computer to act like an Altair. So they began writing programs for the Altair.

Refer: http://atdplogs.soe.berkeley.edu/~alabuy/gates.html

While he may have dropped out, which I knew of, I was more referring to the point he had originally been enrolled in Pre-law at Harvard.

which, I suspect was only made available to him, as he was born with a 'silver spoon up his arse', from a affluent family.

As for myself,
Computer Science at Swinburne University of Technology.
Refer: http://www.it.swin.edu.au/default.php

So have you completed Post Graduate level education dogg9 ?