The Al queda connection>>>

Sunday, June 1, 2003 4:01 p.m. EDT
Wolfowitz Bombshell: Saddam Behind 9/11 Attacks and OKC Bombing

Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, said by some to be the architect of America's war on Iraq, reportedly suspects that Saddam Hussein played a significant role in the three worst terrorist attacks ever on the U.S. - the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Discussing his soon-to-be-released Vanity Fair interview with the top Pentagon official, Sam Tanenhaus told WABC Radio's Monica Crowley on Saturday: "Wolfowitz states that there's a very strong connection, he's convinced, between Saddam and the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. This is a very controversial idea and yet Wolfowitz embraces it and has for quite some time."

The Vanity Fair writer added, "Also I was told by a source very close to him that Wolfowitz entertains the possibility that Saddam was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995."

While a media firestorm has erupted over Wolfowitz's comments suggesting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction played a smaller role in the decision to go to war than previously thought, Tanenhaus said the press has missed the real news in his report.

"[There are] allegations he made or that others close to him have made that, to me, are much more startling," the author told WABC's Crowley. "That's what I thought was going to be the news [coming out of this interview]."

In a transcript on the interview released by the Pentagon, Wolfowitz also indicates that he suspects Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Asked why Iraq was at the top of the U.S.'s list when it came to taking action in the war on terror, Wolfowitz told Tanenhaus that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction played a role, but then added:

"Plus the fact, which seems to go unremarked in most places, that Saddam Hussein was the only international figure other than Osama bin Laden who praised the attacks of September 11."

Discussing the secretary's comments on MSNBC on Friday, Tanenhaus said that the reason Saddam's role in 9/11 never became the centerpiece of the Bush administration's rationale for war was because there was no consensus on the issue.

"The secretary himself has said both in his interview with me and at other times, particularly in the interview with me, that there were sharp disagreement about, for instance, Saddam's involvement in other acts of terrorism," Tanenhaus explained. He cited the "World Trade Center in '93 and in 2001, September 11, and other connections with al Qaeda."

President Bush's supporters have been mystified over why the administration never spotlighted the claims of two Iraqi defectors, who, two months after the 9/11 attacks, detailed to U.S. intelligence evidence linking Saddam to training in 9/11-style airline hijacking operations.

Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer awarded the families of two World Trade Center victims $104 million based on evidence linking the 9/11 attacks to Salman Pak, a terrorist training camp located 25 miles south of Baghdad.

Read more on this subject in related

"suspects" is a flimsy word, especially when referring to the men on the hill.

Radio - have you ever posted a reply that is more than your usual 1 or 2 sentences?

I'm sure you know that Suddam never had anything to do with any attack on the U.S. and that it was probably the U.S. that attacked it's self on 911 and continues to purposly put it's own people in terror.

Your living in a movie DUDE

Intersting laugh, Patriot. I'm guessing that's from NewsMax right?

As I posted in this thread three days ago, Wolfowitz also makes this very interesting comment regarding the fraud of Saddam's WMD used to dupe the American and British people into supporting the war in Iraq:

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

Full story (sorry, it's at a real news site) is here.

Wolfowitz might well have information to which I do not have access which draws a connection between HUssein and the WTC bombings in '93 or '01 -- he should have better info on that kind of thing; he is the fvcking second-ranking man in the DoD and I am a currency trader. But in the event that such information exists, why the hell won't the idiots running this farce bring it out? Lord knows they are losing credibility fast enough to spell serious trouble for themselves. There is no political, military, or other advantage in keeping that info secret, now that Hussein has been ousted and whatever threat level he might have represented has been ameliorated.


Phaedrus

The UN even thought that Iraq was loaded with wmd's. What the hell do you think they voted on 15-0 back in Nov.? They voted on immediate disarmament of Iraq, that included a whole laundry list of wmd's....As far as Newsmax goes, you show me one article that is factual untrue that they have printed.
The whole point is mute.The US was perfectley leagal in going to war to enforce 17 resolutions that the spineless frauds at the UN failed to do.

LOL, all perfectly legal. That makes it ok.

It's legal for Mrs. Phaedrus to get an abortion, but I bet you don't think it's *right*

"We train young men to drop fire on women and children, but they can't write the word 'fvck' on their airplanes because it's 'obscene.'"

Colonel Kurtz
Apocalypse Now


Odd quote, but it seems to fit.


Phaedrus

Perfectly legal to falsify evidence and present it to the UN and the U.S. public to rally support for a war.

In the New York Post, the Heritage Foundation's Peter Brookes weighs in with some perspective on the phony controversy over "deception" regarding weapons of mass destruction:

So what might have happened to the WMD that U.S. and British intelligence believed was in Iraq before the war? It could be pretty simple.

Hussein's henchmen may have believed that if they destroyed or buried the weapons deep underground just before inspectors arrived and kept the means of production (e.g., mobile bioweapons labs) out of sight, they could convince the international community that Saddam was a changed man. . . .

Notice how you don't see any of the governments that opposed the use of force saying: "I told you so." That's because no one disagreed that Saddam had an arsenal of WMD. In fact, in the fall of last year, the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously that Baghdad had WMD and must disarm. The disagreements with Paris and Berlin came over how to disarm Saddam of his WMD, not whether he had it. . . .
Another reason we may not have found the WMD yet: We may be victims of our own success in the pre-conflict psychological warfare phase of the campaign. The Pentagon made it so crystal clear through radio broadcasts and leaflet drops that any use of WMD by Iraqi forces would result in war crimes or severe punishment. Chances are, no one is dumb enough to come forward now and admit he had anything to do with WMD.

Brookes is confident the mystery will eventually be solved. When it does, will those now clucking about the absence of weapons acknowledge they were wrong? Don't count on it.

379...Way to watch my back!
Great post!

no problem and yet ........no response from those who mention "false evidence"

ger379, responses seem a very pointless thing to most far-right positions, as there is seldom any true discussion of ideas, especially ones which contradict cherished notions.

If it turns out that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, I will not be suprised. If it turns out that Saddam had any substantial amountof WMD, or any apparatus for delivering them in such a manner that would threaten US interests, I would be very, very suprised.

I would consdier any evidence presented by the US as not being empiraclly valid due to the obvious conflict-of-interest issue. In any other case, say dealing with corporate corruption, no one would accept evidence presented by, say, Enron, that exonerated them from wrongdoing. Why this is held any differently when applied to a class of people with a history of lying so endemic that it is taken as a granted fact of life -- politicians -- is beyond me.

The US had no business invading Iraq. Iraq has never and never will present a legitimate threat to American interests.

George W. Bush is one of the greatest traitors that the United States of America has ever known, for the dual blows of the USA-PATRIOT legislation he introduced, and his horrific stance on pre-emptive strike policy, both of which run directly counter to the ideals on which our country is based. They are the bedrock upon which Bush or a future president could create a true imperium, and should be eliminated immediately, and Bush removed from office as a person unfit to lead and lacking of any meritable moral structure.

I am certain that this does not trouble him, as America remembers it's greatest traitors very fondly, and will no doubt lionise him for destroying our liberty and pressing American imperialism on the rest of the world.


Phaedrus

"The US had no business invading Iraq. Iraq has never and never will present a legitimate threat to American interests."

I have to disagree here phaedrus, the us did not have any business invading iraq, but u.s. business (fortune 500) had every business of advancing their financial interests this way. Maybe the people will not get anything out of it, but the leaders and the filthy rich do. And they are willing to spend any amount of the u.s. taxpayers money in terms of military costs to protect their money in such regions.

JackDee - Dude you are killing me. Do us all a favor and get on some Iraqi websites and tell everyone there that you were against getting rid Saddam.

You Libs kill me!

The Lib Motto "It's not what you can do for your country, it's what can your country do for you."


KMAN

Believe the tripe that comes out of the mainstream media and you've already done something for your country, you've believed its government.

I'm I missing something here.

The assistant secretary of defense:

"reportedly suspects that Saddam Hussein played a significant role"

"there's a very strong connection"

"source very close to him that Wolfowitz entertains the possibility that Saddam was involved"

"Tanenhaus said that the reason Saddam's role in 9/11 never became the centerpiece of the Bush administration's rationale for war was because there was no consensus on the issue"

"The secretary himself has said both in his interview with me and at other times, particularly in the interview with me, that there were sharp disagreement about, for instance, Saddam's involvement in other acts of terrorism"

Just the wording used sounds so weak. As if they are leaving a back door open.

GCR, they have to -- they're politicians. That's hardly an exclusively American phenomenon.


Phaedrus