It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fabricated Al-Qaeda Links?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   
A CIA report casts new doubt on links between Iraq and al Qaeda. Plus, tensions between FBI Director Bob Mueller and his predecessor, Louis Freeh.



A secret draft CIA report raises new questions about a principal argument used by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq: the claim that Saddam Hussein was "harboring" notorious terror leader Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi prior to the American invasion.

The allegation that Zarqawi had visited Baghdad in May 2002 with Saddam's sanction-purportedly for medical treatment-was once a centerpiece of the administration's arguments about Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell cited Zarqawi's alleged visit in his speech to the United Nations Security Council. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld referred obliquely to Zarqawi's purported trip as an example of "bulletproof" evidence that the administration had assembled linking Saddam's regime with Al Qaeda.

But like the uranium yellowcake claims-since determined to be fraudulent-that are at the heart of the CIA leak case, the administration's original allegations about Zarqawi's trip also seem to be melting away. An updated CIA re-examination of the issue recently concluded that Saddam's regime may not have given Zarqawi "safe haven" after all.

The new report is only the latest chink in the armor of the alleged Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. Last year, the September 11 Commission found there was no "collaborative" relationship between the Iraqi regime and Osama bin Laden; one high-level Al Qaeda commander-who had been cited by Powell as testifying to talks about chemical- and biological-warfare training-later recanted his claims. But the Pentagon and Cheney's office have been reluctant to abandon the case: in the months after U.S. and allied forces deposed Saddam, NEWSWEEK has learned, Iraqi informants approached U.S. intelligence personnel with what purported to be caches of documents proving that Saddam's dealings with Al Qaeda were extensive.

Current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials said that when officials at the Bush White House learned about the existence of documents linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, they became very excited and pressured intelligence agencies to work quickly to validate and decipher them. However, the CIA ultimately established that most key documents about the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection turned over were faked-just like the documents purporting to show Iraqi purchases of uranium.

Source:
MSNBC News

There you go, again:

NO Connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

The Documents are FAKED, just like the ones, saying that Saddam purchased Uranium.

So, let's check the list again:

Bush administration used 3 Main reasons for War in Iraq:

- Saddam has WMDs - a LIE

- Saddam has links with Al-Qaeda - a LIE

- Saddam will or does have a nuclear bomb - a LIE

Again People - you have been Lied to.

Over and Over and Over again...




posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   
You always have the real scoop. I am thankful that you are a part of this community and look for the truth


Sure. fabricated.

Keep up the good work. And thanks for being a true patriot.


[edit on 28-10-2005 by dgtempe]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
pressured intelligence agencies to work quickly to validate and decipher them.


Bush administration used 3 Main reasons for War in Iraq:

- Saddam has WMDs - a LIE

- Saddam has links with Al-Qaeda - a LIE

- Saddam will or does have a nuclear bomb - a LIE

Again People - you have been Lied to.

Over and Over and Over again...


Must we really go over this again? Relaying intelligence from a trusted source that is later proven false is NOT a lie, it's bad intelligence. All three of your "lies" are based on evidence that was thought to be legitimate at the time. Until you can prove that Bush KNEW he was relaying bad intelligence and did it anyway, your argument holds no water.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhelt100
Must we really go over this again? Relaying intelligence from a trusted source that is later proven false is NOT a lie, it's bad intelligence. All three of your "lies" are based on evidence that was thought to be legitimate at the time. Until you can prove that Bush KNEW he was relaying bad intelligence and did it anyway, your argument holds no water.

Yes we MUST.

And I think you should read it again also:

Current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials said that when officials at the Bush White House learned about the existence of documents linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, they became very excited and pressured intelligence agencies to work quickly to validate and decipher them. However, the CIA ultimately established that most key documents about the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection turned over were faked-just like the documents purporting to show Iraqi purchases of uranium.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Hey - there's more:

Italian Media Reveals U.S. Officials Met With Italian Intelligence Officials To Discuss Fake Documents Citing Niger Nuke Sales to Iraq



As the country waits to see whether indictments will be handed down to top White House officials in the CIA leak case, reports are breaking that Italian intelligence and Bush administration officials met in connection with the forged Niger documents that were used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. We get the latest from law professor Scott Horton and journalist Laura Rozen.

Read the Entire Transcript of the Questioning here:

Democracy Now!

Wow!

Stuff is stuff fyling from the White House these Days!



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
And I think you should read it again also:

Current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials said that when officials at the Bush White House learned about the existence of documents linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, they became very excited and pressured intelligence agencies to work quickly to validate and decipher them. However, the CIA ultimately established that most key documents about the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection turned over were faked-just like the documents purporting to show Iraqi purchases of uranium.


Note the word "ultimately" meaning much later and after the "lie" had already occured. Thanks for making my point.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 04:45 AM
link   
So you belive your "president" and you stand behind every word that he said? It is funny to watch you people use the words "bad intelligence" instead of a Lie. What do you mean Bad Intelligence?

Is there ANY Intelligence whatsoever in the current administration?




posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
So you belive your "president" and you stand behind every word that he said? It is funny to watch you people use the words "bad intelligence" instead of a Lie. What do you mean Bad Intelligence?

Is there ANY Intelligence whatsoever in the current administration?



The snowball just gets bigger and bigger, how big does it have to get untill the majority of the americans say: NO MORE! ??

The outcome of the Wilson(CIA operative cover blown) case could well be a good start for a litlle revolution



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhelt100

Originally posted by Souljah
pressured intelligence agencies to work quickly to validate and decipher them.


Bush administration used 3 Main reasons for War in Iraq:

- Saddam has WMDs - a LIE

- Saddam has links with Al-Qaeda - a LIE

- Saddam will or does have a nuclear bomb - a LIE

Again People - you have been Lied to.

Over and Over and Over again...


Must we really go over this again? Relaying intelligence from a trusted source that is later proven false is NOT a lie, it's bad intelligence. All three of your "lies" are based on evidence that was thought to be legitimate at the time. Until you can prove that Bush KNEW he was relaying bad intelligence and did it anyway, your argument holds no water.


I knew he was relaying bad intelligence when he opened his mouth. The fact of the matter is that Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq because Saddam tried to kill his dad. When 9/11 happened the first thing that came to his mind is that were going to go war with saddam.

Get over it people. All this back and fourth is pointless. I have accepted the fact that Bush doesn’t care about black people. lol No seriously he had this on his agenda from the start. And 19 Saudi's gave him the perfect excuse. Why don't we invade them!?!?!?


Originally posted by Souljah
So you belive your "president" and you stand behind every word that he said? It is funny to watch you people use the words "bad intelligence" instead of a Lie. What do you mean Bad Intelligence?

Is there ANY Intelligence whatsoever in the current administration?



Good one lol


[edit on 31-10-2005 by DaTruth]



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
So you belive your "president" and you stand behind every word that he said? It is funny to watch you people use the words "bad intelligence" instead of a Lie. What do you mean Bad Intelligence?

Is there ANY Intelligence whatsoever in the current administration?



I believe that my PRESIDENT (despite your use of quotes, he is the President, when you get that through your thick head please continue reading) told what he believed the truth to be at that time. The definition of the word lie is "a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false." When a person is told something from a trusted source and relays it as truth to other, it is not a lie by definition. In order for it to be a lie, he has to KNOW that what he is saying is not true.

Now, my definition of bad intelligence is when a person receives information from a trusted source that is believed to be the truth and it is found at a later time to be false.

You should also note that your example regarding nukes wasn't bad intelligence or a lie, they did find evidence of a nuclear program and an Iraqi scientist that admitted to it. There is a book written by the scientist I believe and even a thread somewhere on ATS regarding this.

As for your last sentence, grow up. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that 90% of the administration had higher IQs than you or I.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
In order for Souljah's theory that Bush purposely lied about Iraq's posession of WMD prior to the invasion, then that would mean that not only were the intelligence agencies of the United States lying, but also those of Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., who all believed that Saddam was in posession of WMD. We know for a fact that some of those governments outright opposed the invasion of Iraq. So despite the fact that they opposed the invasion, they still chose to lie about Iraq's WMD? It just doesn't make any sense.

Not to mention the fact that Bush would obviously have to realize when he lied that once the invasion was over and done with there would be no WMD found in Iraq. What did he think would happen then, that everyone would forget his major reason for the invasion? Even if he is the moron you make him out to be, obviously one of the dozens or hundreds of people surrounding him would have realized this.

And if Bush knowingly lied about the WMD, why wouldn't we plant them in Iraq so as not to come off looking like liars to the world? If Bush has this grand scheme which most of you believe he does to invade other countries like Syria and Iran next, wouldn't he need the support of those he just lied to? Of course he would!

You also refuse to acknowledge the frightening possibility that Saddam's WMD were shipped out of Iraq prior to the invasion. You know, all that time we wasted going through diplomatic channels to passify you guys even though it ultimately meant absolutely nothing to you? God help us all if it turns out that Iraq did have WMD, and in the time we wasted pleading our case to the bribed governments who objected to the invasion, the WMD were shipped out to a neighboring state sponsor of terrorism like Iran or Syria. God help us all.

In closing, I think the biggest faulty intelligence is your's! Even a fool can see the endless reasons why the Bush administration would not lie about WMD without honestly believing that they were there, just as countless other countries believed. But you'd prefer to take the word of a madman who is responsible for more Muslim deaths in the last 50 years than any other person. A man who kept Nazi-like records of every single action and torture taken by his government, yet for some reason forgot to record the alleged destruction of his WMD's- something he surely would have known would be asked for in the future by the world community. Why would Saddam destroy his WMD without having any proof to show he even did it? But what on Earth am I doing wasting my time trying to reason with you, Souljah. As much as you're wrong I still like you. I'm sure we could be good friends if we didn't live thousands of miles apart. But you already have your mind made up and only wish to read and research that which you feel supports your already made-up mind. You hate America and everything we stand for, and you ignore everything good that we do and have done for the world throughout history.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Lie or bad intelligence? That is the question.

Well, what do you call it when the Iraq war was planned....



2 Years Before 9/11

HOUSTON -- Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade·.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."

www.commondreams.org...


No convinced? Ok, then we'll up the anti and go to the BBC who is more moderate so there can be no 'source' debate...



Within Weeks of taking office early 2001

...there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".

"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.

Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Still not happy? Need a good ol' American source? OK, they are even more conservative but none the less...



Bush Began to Plan War Three Months After 9/11

Beginning in late December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he and administration spokesmen insisted they were pursuing a diplomatic solution, according to a new book on the origins of the war.

www.washingtonpost.com...


So it's safe to say that it's been on Bush's mind for quiet awhile.
The PNAC'ers wanted a 9/11 to continue their ideals of an America domination, Bush wanted a war to look 'strong' - both got their wish. Selling the wars to the public were manufactured on evidence which was weak at best, false most of the time - evidence like that is collected daily in reams and not acted upon because it's nothing important unless it's molded to fit an agenda.

If you can't work out that they knew the picture that the puzzle was going to make before they started putting the pieces together to show the public, then your living in a fantasy world and for the rest of us, it's amazing to watch how many times you'll let yourself be slapped before saying stop.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Rasputin13

I can Imagine that this Bite is Hard to Swallow for you and people like you. I realize that, these are some Serious Accusations upon your current administration. But, why are there so many Scandals then? Why do we have to listen every day about the Vice-president Dick Cheney and special advisor Karl Rove? Why so many Secrets in the administration? Whats up with that? First, right after 9-11, the Big, Bad Guy was Osama - now where is that Guy? He does not play a Major role anymore? OK - so, under the cover of the "Hunt 4 Osama" Story, the US Bombards Afganistan into Stone Age, and makes it even more Poor then before. Bush installs his own little puppet goverment, with Hamid Karzai in charge - a former consultant for Unocal, a part of Chevron Company - and OH! Behold! - the Pipeline across Afganisan is constructed within Weeks.

So, I ask you again - how come the Bush did not Attacked or Threatened Saudi Arabia, after all the majority of Hijackers were Suadi, and Osama is a Saudi - but somehow, they Managed to connect them with Afgansitan and Iraq. The TRUTH is that Bush administration turns a Blind Eye on the FACT that Saudi Arabia is also a terrorist sponsor state, just because the House of Bush has strong business connections with the House of Saud - a relationship that is worth nearly 2 Billion Dollars.

But,

There is Al-Qaeda in Afganistan.

There is Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

There is Al-Qaeda in Syria.

There is Al-Qaeda in Iran.

Facts are, that Bush had plans to Invade Iraq even Before 9-11, and that he had Plans to Privatise Iraqi Oil even before all the World knew what Al-Qaeda is. There were not WMD's - there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq - there was no Nuclear Boms in Iraq - there is just OIL, and that is a GREAT Reason for a "Regime Change". The only WMD's around here are Weapons of Mass Deception, used by the current US Administration.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis


2 Years Before 9/11


The first article you presented, for me, is the only one that is potentially damaging. If, in fact, Bush said these things, it would be hard to defend them. But...

There is absolutely no proof, regardless of the source you present, the ultimate source is Mickey Herskowitz. He has absolutely no proof as notes were all taken from him when he was fired. So, you're willing to take the word of an ex-employee who was fired and out quite a bit of money (half of the take according to your article) as truth. The difference here is that you don't like Bush, you're willing to assume guilt without proof. I support Bush, so I require proof, not just word of a fired employee who's out a huge chunk of cash. If Mr. Herskowitz had perhaps an audio tape with Bush saying this and it was authenticated, I would be the first to say string him up.

The second article you listed is ridiculous. I know this is a conspiracy discussion board...but come on, this is crazy. Plans, within plans, within plans...one dropped for another, then for another, then for another...none of which ever happened. Sounds REAL likely. All we need here is NWO collaboration and maybe alien involvement and it'd be the ultimate conspiracy theory.

I see no problem at all with the third one, even if it is true. The left is all over Bush when he doesn't plan something to their satisfaction. But, advance planning of a possible attack on Iraq...that's bad. Of course, we should wait until the minute it's decided to attack, form an attack plan and charge in on this 12 hr old attack plan, sounds real intelligent. I would bet that the government also has plans on the ready to defend Taiwan in case of Chinese attack, invade north korea if necessary, etc....is that warmongering too? or is it proper planning in advance?

I love the way people spout the lack of Iraq/AlQaeda links...remember this?


(CBS) A federal judge Wednesday ordered Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and others to pay early $104 million to the families of two Sept. 11 victims, saying there is evidence – though meager - that Iraq had a hand in the terrorist attacks.
Source:Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked
I don't recall this ever being overturned. This was the judgement of a liberal Clinton appointee too.

[edit on 2-11-2005 by rhelt100]



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
And I think you should read it again also:

Current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials said that when officials at the Bush White House learned about the existence of documents linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, they became very excited and pressured intelligence agencies to work quickly to validate and decipher them. However, the CIA ultimately established that most key documents about the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection turned over were faked-just like the documents purporting to show Iraqi purchases of uranium.

CIA who?
CIA is a joke.
Lets take this to the sources: Iraqi documentation for starters:
Try these on for size, Souljah:
New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida
Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
CNSNews.com Publishes Iraqi Intelligence Docs
Saddam Was Tied to Terror
The Connection
Ties between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime
The Iraq -- Al Qaeda Connections
Saddam met Osama in Iraq: Report
Connect the Dots . . .Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden
Case Closed: Saddam and Osama Connection

Have a good read, Souljah.





seekerof

[edit on 21-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
You always have the real scoop. I am thankful that you are a part of this community and look for the truth


Keep up the good work. And thanks for being a true patriot.


[edit on 28-10-2005 by dgtempe]


You took the worlds right out of my mouth. Just about every day I log in I am suprised (yet not suprised if you get what I mean) but yet so thankfull for Souljah's posts!


Thanks so much for this post, this stuff is just flying out of the white house these days. I wonder if its just White House Aides with guilty concioncess or if they have finally realised this has all gone too far.

Keep up the great work!

[edit on 22-11-2005 by ekul08]



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhelt100

I believe that my PRESIDENT (despite your use of quotes, he is the President, when you get that through your thick head please continue reading) told what he believed the truth to be at that time.


I'm interested in what you mean by this statement?
Are you saying because he is the "president" we should all shut up and take him at face value?
You do know how he became president right? Through a LIE. Or a whole series of them starting waaay back before your time probably.
You see there has NEVER been a period in time when the government was not lieing to you. To think otherwise is very nieave.

I would be far more shocked if someone posted that the president (whomever they are) told us the whole truth and nothing but!

We are lied to constantly...If the truth came out they'd be putting up gallows in DC.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
CIA who?
CIA is a joke.
Lets take this to the sources: Iraqi documentation for starters:
Try these on for size, Souljah:

Very Interesting Night Reading...
Here are some Sources for You as Well.
Try them on!

BBC: Al-Qaeda 'fake ID supplier' flees US
CNN: CIA can't authenticate alleged al Qaeda tape
Captured al-Qa'eda man was FBI spy
BBC: The Power of Nightmares: Baby it's Cold Outside
Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power
GUARDIAN: The making of the terror myth
Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?
Israeli agents accused of creating fake al-Qaeda cell
MSNBC: Dubious Link Between Atta and Saddam
Al-Qaeda and the Real Trinity of Terror
No Link Between Saddam & al Qaeda
Bin Laden tape Faked, Swiss Experts Say
Israel 'faked al-Qaeda presence'
ATSNN: WAR: Al Qaeda Claims U.S. Faked "Strategy Letter"
ATS: Operation Desert Fraud: More Fake al Qaeda
And Last but not Least:
FOX NEWS: Al Qaeda: Letter Is a U.S. Fake

Sorry Seeker, but IMHO Everything about Al-Qaeda is Faked. Al-Qaeda is a Mossad-CIA-MI5 joint Operations, designed to keep the Terror Threat Levels Up. Links above have shown us, how "REAL" the Al-Qaeda really is.

[edit on 22/11/05 by Souljah]



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Senser
The outcome of the Wilson(CIA operative cover blown) case
could well be a good start for a litlle revolution


Wilson's wife hadn't been undercover for at least 5 years -
that means that she legally wasn't an undercover operative.

PLUS - Wilson himself blabbed to all of DC that his wife was CIA.
If anyone should be in jail for outting a CIA agent, it's him.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
My professor worked in intelligence, he showed us a powerpoint presentation one day. I need to get a hold of it, he isnt here today, I guess he took off early for thanksgiving break, I still have to get that stuff for some 9/11 thread. Anyhow, in thes presentation, he showed us that Sadaam offered UBL asylum in Iraq, but bin Laden refused, not for hostile purposes, but because it was the first place in the ME the US would go. And he was right, interesting bit of info isnt it. Is there anyone who could host the powerpoint file for me when I get it?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join