[i]"Mr. Tenet expresses puzzlement that, since 2001, Al Qaeda has not sent

Sounded to me like the Bush Administration wanted the CIA to find connections with Hussein and the terrorists, and with Hussein and WMD. When you're looking for evidence for something, you'll find it, because you won't give up until you do. That's what makes for poor decisions. Not bad intel, bad use of it. Just my opinion.

the connections to islamic terrorist are there and not disputable, as for WMD they did have some, just not the stockpiles worldwide 'intelligence' thought they had.

It also has nothing to do with Bush trying to "trick" the public, it goes back to the 90's 'intelligence'....there is a reason we made "Regime Change in Iraq" Official policy of the US in 1998 and a Reason Iraq was labeled a "State Sponsor of Terror" by the State Department throughout the 90's.

just listen to Dan Rather who is lying about all of this now in his famous interview on David Letterman just days after 9/11 and what he thought. This video is hard to find because CBS/Letterman/elites are trying to cover it up and have removed the video from the internet, you can download it here however:
http://www.nyjtimes.com/cover/terror/nf.htm

scroll down....from transcript of the emotional rather...

Quote:Dan: Well, David, I think we've talked about this before....... when we strike the President wants to make sure it's an effective strike, and with what we're dealing with here, which is not one man, it's a hydra-headed operation that's in 55 countries around the world.

Now, granted, the focus is on, and we should understand, not just Afghanistan-- Afghanistan, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Now, the first strike has to be a very effective strike, and I think the answer to your question is, one, we want to make sure that the first strike actually accomplishes something.

and the real kicker

Quote:Dan: We now know that Saddam Hussein, we mentioned, you know, if he isn't connected to this, he's connected to any other things. He's part of this "hate America" thing.

You have to understand that Saddam Hussein is somebody I have sat this close, eye to eye. When his feet hit the floor every morning, he dreams of leading a victorious Arab army into Jerusalem, and he sees himself as the new Saladin.


And his hate is deep for us. I don't even like to use the word "hate," but, you know, this is what we're dealing with, and we have to wake up.

It's a new... It's a new place now, and we're headed to a new place,

this was well before the 'selling' of the iraq war and had to do with his journalist experience in the 1990's....

Tenet didn't come up with that scenario. If you want to blame somebody blame Tom Clancy. The Teeth of the Tiger came out in 2003. From the publisher's summary... "as Islamic terrorists cut a deal with Colombian drug smugglers, sneak into the U.S. and move toward their killing-field objectives, four shopping malls in mid-America."

In my opinion, terrorists killing people in malls all across small-town America is much more terrifying than one big attack like 9/11 because it makes you think "it could happen to me."

By the way, Clancy also predicted someone flying a 747 topped off with jet fuel into the Capitol building in his 1995 book Debt of Honor.

GGniner Wrote:the connections to islamic terrorist are there and not disputable, as for WMD they did have some, just not the stockpiles worldwide 'intelligence' thought they had.

It also has nothing to do with Bush trying to "trick" the public, it goes back to the 90's 'intelligence'....there is a reason we made "Regime Change in Iraq" Official policy of the US in 1998 and a Reason Iraq was labeled a "State Sponsor of Terror" by the State Department throughout the 90's.

just listen to Dan Rather who is lying about all of this now in his famous interview on David Letterman just days after 9/11 and what he thought. This video is hard to find because CBS/Letterman/elites are trying to cover it up and have removed the video from the internet, you can download it here however:
http://www.nyjtimes.com/cover/terror/nf.htm

scroll down....from transcript of the emotional rather...

Quote:Dan: Well, David, I think we've talked about this before....... when we strike the President wants to make sure it's an effective strike, and with what we're dealing with here, which is not one man, it's a hydra-headed operation that's in 55 countries around the world.

Now, granted, the focus is on, and we should understand, not just Afghanistan-- Afghanistan, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Now, the first strike has to be a very effective strike, and I think the answer to your question is, one, we want to make sure that the first strike actually accomplishes something.

and the real kicker

Quote:Dan: We now know that Saddam Hussein, we mentioned, you know, if he isn't connected to this, he's connected to any other things. He's part of this "hate America" thing.

You have to understand that Saddam Hussein is somebody I have sat this close, eye to eye. When his feet hit the floor every morning, he dreams of leading a victorious Arab army into Jerusalem, and he sees himself as the new Saladin.


And his hate is deep for us. I don't even like to use the word "hate," but, you know, this is what we're dealing with, and we have to wake up.

It's a new... It's a new place now, and we're headed to a new place,

this was well before the 'selling' of the iraq war and had to do with his journalist experience in the 1990's....

We knew Hussein was a threat to his neighbors. My point was that he was not a threat to us. He was still in control of his country, the sanctions were backfiring, he could still build new palaces and do whatever he wanted. If he did something to attack us, he had to know it would be the end for him. He was brutal, but not dumb. Would getting rid of Hussein be a good thing? Probably, but shouldn't have been an early priority, and it also assumes you can replace Hussein with something better.

By the way, Bin Laden hated Hussein too. And if Hussein had any intelligence (and he wouldn't have stayed in power so long if he didn't) he wouldn't have trusted Al Qaeda with any weapons that could have been used against him. Hussein did support Palestinian terrorists against the Israelis. Did he support al Qaeda?

NIU007 Wrote:Sounded to me like the Bush Administration wanted the CIA to find connections with Hussein and the terrorists, and with Hussein and WMD. When you're looking for evidence for something, you'll find it, because you won't give up until you do. That's what makes for poor decisions. Not bad intel, bad use of it. Just my opinion.

Part of the problem was that the documentation and inventories from the UN Inspectors differed greatly from the declaration filed by Iraq in December 2002. The issue is what happened to all these weapons--mainly nerve agents. Of course, the US contended that Saddam still had them.

These weapons have yet to be accounted for. Did they go to Syria? Did someone pour them down a hole in the desert? Did they ever exist in the first place?

Intlligence was used to "fill the gaps" in this puzzle. Obviously the raw intelligence was incorrect. Now if the raw intelligence was false and planted by the Iranians, that would explain many things.

NIU007 Wrote:By the way, Bin Laden hated Hussein too. And if Hussein had any intelligence (and he wouldn't have stayed in power so long if he didn't) he wouldn't have trusted Al Qaeda with any weapons that could have been used against him. Hussein did support Palestinian terrorists against the Israelis. Did he support al Qaeda?

I think so: http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/....binladen/

Quote:Saddam Hussein offered asylum

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities.

http://www.karipearls.com/pearl-of-allah.html

Quote:Osama bin Laden tried to purchase the world's largest pearl, the Pearl of Allah, as a gift to Saddam Hussein "to unite the Arab cultures," and Hussein was prepared to accept, according to the pearl's owner.

Victor Barbish, who owns 66 percent of the pearl on behalf of his daughter, told WorldNetDaily he received an offer in 1999 from individuals who said they were "from bin Laden's group" to purchase the pearl of allah for $60 million to give to Hussein as an overture of unity between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government.

there is a long list if connections like this, just 2 that popped to my head right off. The problem with these terrorist groups, is the State Sponsor's of them are using them as their defacto armies. Saddam did it(see 93 WTC bombing) and who knows what else, it gives the plausable deniability and makes a free country have a hard time dealing with it because public has to support actions, which bin laden judged that we didn't have the will power to really fight them...........like I said there is a reason why the Government under both Clinton and Bush felt Saddam had to be removed, and Dan Rather on 9/16/01 for that matter....since then its been polticized like hell by shameless opportunist.

I tend to beleive the government for better or worse on issues like this, since they have access to not only what we do but classified info and our spies.

meanwhile, news of a Top Al-Qaeda capo(and former Iraqi Baathist and army) being captured is released...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007...da_le.html

[quote]Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi was captured by the CIA as he was attempting to travel back to his native country, Iraq. He was going to Iraq, officials say, to

[quote="GGniner"]meanwhile, news of a Top Al-Qaeda capo(and former Iraqi Baathist and army) being captured is released...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007...da_le.html

[quote]Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi was captured by the CIA as he was attempting to travel back to his native country, Iraq. He was going to Iraq, officials say, to