Iraq’s Links To 9/11

(via Sonnabend from Voice of the Pacific)

Iraq’s coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.

Noooooo! You have got to be kidding me. Iraq could have links to 9/11 terrorists? How will the libtards spin this?

6 Comments

FIAR

1

How will the libtards spin this?

By ignoring it.
October 25th, 2006 at 6:50 am
D. Bunker

2

This memo was declared to be a fake three years ago. After all that work on the page, your investigative journalism skills are slipping.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Wild Bill

3

No you are wrong FIAR! They will say it is fake.

D. Bunker, did you miss this part?

Ironically, even the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi, which has been vocal in claiming ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime,

So the document might be a fake but could al-Qaeda still have links to Saddam?
October 25th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Scrapiron

4

Too many documents point to Saddam’s involvement in 9-11 for all of them to be fake and for a fact he ordered attacks on American interest around the world a couple of months priot to 9-11. Nothing matters to the brain dead liberals unless GWB did it. Them are some sick puppies.
October 25th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
thomas

5

“Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq’s ruling seven-man Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine.”

Good enough for me. Who needs such trivial information like how and where. I’m an idiot so I believe it. No questions asked.
October 26th, 2006 at 9:20 am
D. Bunker

6

If you want to listen to Chalabi, go right ahead. You might as well, if you’re just going to leave this post uncorrected for the equally gullible.

Although bin Laden considered the Ba’ath Party to be infidels, I’m sure Al Qaeda operatives would have loved to have set up a stronghold in Iraq. Enemy of my enemy, etc. There were fleeting contacts, which you may call “links.” And Saddam did not have a problem with terrorism. And our 1998 policy of regime change should have been followed up by some saber-rattling, at the least.

But we went to war after 9/11 to punish collaborators of the attacks. There is no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Then we went after Iraq for WMDs after listening, just like you do, to charlatans like Chalabi. Bush was going in there no matter what, and his administration heard what they wanted to hear, and only what they wanted to hear, to justify the invasion.

It was irresponsible and a permanent stain on humanity. The deliberation before launching a war is sacred–there is no decision more fraught than that in which a nation consciously takes life on a mass scale. The Bush administration found it a trifle and compromised this country’s well-earned moral standing. And now we’re impotent to make peace and spread freedom in the world. It will be a long time before we can play that role again, and there aren’t any other nations in the world worthy of the role. That’s what we’ve squandered.

I don’t expect a response, by the way. This site, with its falsehoods, juvenile name-calling, preening, and vindictive “investigations” is obviously much more about you than it is about America’s role in the world. Congratulations on all the attention you’ve been getting, and enjoy it while it lasts.
October 30th, 2006 at 7:14 pm