just coming in - comission says that iran helped in 9/11 attacks

[freedomonk]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1504&e=1&u=/afp/20040717/pl_afp/us_attacks_iran

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The September 11 commission's report, due out Thursday, says Iran may have facilitated the 2001 attacks on the United States by providing eight to 10 al-Qaeda hijackers with safe passage to and from training camps in Afghanistan (news - web sites), US media reports said.

The commission's report says Iran at one point proposed collaborating with al-Qaeda on attacks against America, but bin Laden declined, saying he did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia, according to Time.

Iranian officials, Time said, issued "specific instructions to their border guards ... not to put stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda personnel and otherwise not harass them, and to facilitate their travel across the frontier."

"The new discovery about Iran's assistance to al-Qaeda," said Newsweek, "is among the most surprising new findings" in the 500-page report compiled by the non-partisan commission.


sooo...

what the hell does that mean? should we have attacked iran instead of iraq, since they support hezbolla and we always a bigger threat to us than saddam? and what should we do now, leave them be, try to impose sanctions and bomb their nuclear and wmd sites like we did with iraq, invade them....

[Cocoa]

1. what about Saudi Arabia?

what does the commission have to say about the country that most of the hijackers came from?

[TrueAmerican]

4. And who is following the money?

Look for the Saudi Money.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

39. They Bushes are up the asses of the SA royal family...

SA will never be blamed for anything!!
Duckie

[MidwestTransplant]

2. That's why we invaded them.

Oops, we invaded Iraq. Me and the rest of the sheeple always get them confused.

[charlyvi]

3. In other words,

We opened a can of ass-whoop on the wrong country?
Unbelievable.

[indepat]

6. Not really: wasn't Iraq the target from the get-go?

[charlyvi]

17. Only because Iraq supposedly had

ties with Al Qaeda/Sept 11. This turned out to be false, as we knew at the time. Now it turns out that Iran may have been tied with Al Qaeda and Sept 11; therefore, shrub blamed the WRONG country. See?

[indepat]

36. By golly, think I finally got it

[WLKjr]

5. WELL WELL

Here comes the next justification for going to another war......here goes the domino effect all over again. So who will be next? N. Korea?

I feel a draft comming sooner than we thought.

[Old and In the Way]

14. Why else did we build military bases in Iraq?

Iran and Syria were part 2 and 3 of the PNAC plan. They gave lip service to SA, too....but I think they'll respect the relationship between the House of Saud and the House of Bush.

[bloom]

40. that's what it sounds like to me, too....n/t

[drscm]

7. But, but, but Saddam was an evil man. eom

eom

[IronLionZion]

8. Iran would be harder to invade IMO

They support their government more, they are more fanatical, and there are more of them. And we now know they got nuclear assistance from our close ally, Pakistan.

The country I'm really scared of is North Korea. China is dangerous too, but North Korea is fucking insane!

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

20. I second this

Iran wouldn't be any cakewalk and we're already so stretched to the limits, troop and resource wise.......

And starting another war right before an election? VERY iffy, but it just might well be in the works for if he is elected. And they might start dropping little hints about it to appeal to their bigoted, "war gives me a hard-on" base.

[Lostnote03]

9. Whatta CoinciDunce???

.....where's the navy btw?

[Rose Siding]

10. I'd like to know the credibility of the sources

that provided that information to the commission, to put it mildly.

[freedomonk]

16. Newsweek

said the Iranian finding in the commission's report was based largely on a December 2001 memo discovered buried in the files of the US National Security Agency.

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10172901%5E1702,00.html

[KoKo]

27. That Newsweek whore Michael Issikoff and Hosenball? Blech (n/t)

[spanone]

35. Ahmed Chalabi perhaps?

[Cerridwen]

11. The bush regime is looking for a "popular" war

in time for the election?

Diversion

obfuscation

I want my country back!

[VolcanoJen]

12. Oh, and by the way, Blair admits no mass graves of 400,000 have been found

... in Iraq. Iran. Ira...? Something.

LBN Thread:
PM admits graves claim 'untrue' - The Observer

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. This Is Amazing

And given the fact that Bush has discredited the policy of preemption by attacking a nation that isn't an imminent threat I don't know what action we can take.

The damage Bush has done to the republic is incalculable. Hopefully a plurality or majority of Americans will see it this way in November.

[Straight Shooter]

15. And yet our bogus intel came from Chalabi, the two-faced Iranian spy

Talk about a shell game.

The arrogant stupidity of the current administration extends beyond the boundaries of the universe. They were warned about Chalabi, but he told them what they wanted to hear.

I'm sure none of them want to hear what we've got to say :mad:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. If This Is True This Is A Serious Development

Bush has made a hash out of our foreign policy and he's too ignorant to realize it...

[RainDog]

21. yes, Chalabi, Perle and Wolfowitz and Huntington's man

was working as a mole for Iran, feeding the US information to get us to invade Iraq...

and now we are supposed to believe...from what sources...vetted by whom...based upon what?...

that this same country was behind 9-11?

...while, at the same time, Pakistan, whose ISI was FIGHTING WITH THE TALIBAN AGAINST US in Afganistan in 2001, is now a "special friend," and Saudi Arabia, one of whose prince's, according to Gerald Posner, was the contact person for an Al Qaeda detainee???

...and we're supposed to blame Iran?

Let's see, Iran wanted us to get rid of Saddam, and we obliged.

So who wants us to get rid of the govt in Iran?

And the amazing thing is that so many American are willing to give up their sons and daughters to be killed for wars that have NOTHING to do with insuring America's safety, but certainly do make Cheney and Perle rich, and certainly do maintain dictatorships in the ME, and sure do help to increase recruits for Al Qaeda.

The way to fight terrorism is through police action and REAL intelligence, not wars that kill civilians.

[charlyvi]

24. Once again it amazes me

How smart people can be sooooo stupid.

[freedomonk]

19. when i was reading clarke's book

i remember he says that one of the famous terrorist attacks that happened last decade was by hezbolla and was directly sponsored by iran, clinton was ready to attack iran head on but the intelligence was shaky, and when they finally figured everything out too much time has passed for the attack to have worldwide credibility, i just don't remember what particular terrorist act he was talking about, may be the truck bomb in the barracks in saudi arabia.

so basically iran has pretty much directly attacked us once before.

i say go to the un, impose sanctions, and bomb all its nuclear facilities. if they attack us again, we'll do something more, if not, we'll just leave them contained as we did with iraq before.

[Cleita]

22. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

Okay so there was no connection between Saddam and Osama and there weren't WMD's in Iraq, but hey we found them next door in Iran. Duoh, I don't think so.

[LibertyorDeath]

23. You know where this heading????

All Roads Lead To Paris :)







Sure what ever then Syria & North Korea must have been in on it some how

[IronLionZion]

25. But you know who was MOST in on it?

FRANCE! Those treasonous sissies! Let's go get em!

[MasonJar]

26. Once again this alone should bring Bush down, but nothing

seems to phase his supporters. It is incomprehensible. Or it is Faux and Limpball.

[Connie_Corleone]

28. Iran??

"Iran? I thought you said Iraq!! Ooops!!"- George W. Bush

[Killarney]

29. doh!

Iran, Iraq what's the difference right?

UGH! MORONIC ADMINISTRATION.

We already know that Iran's nuclear program or capacity is better than Iraq's ever was (nonexistent) and now this. Shrub invaded the wrong country.

What's he going to do now?

[Jose Diablo]

30. Actually what I remember

was news reports about candle light vigils in Tehran after 911 and Iran very sympathetic.

Not discounting todays news, but I don't beleive it. Not after that WMD bullshit about Iraq this admin fed us.

[freedomonk]

31. rumor is

iranians are very friendly to usa, just like russians were, it's the regime that is the problem. hopefully we can facilitate its collapse without having to invade them, if there is one thing that reagan taught us is that the war can be won without a shot fired.

[opihimoimoi]

32. Those Iranian Mullahs got Bush as a Fool and a Sucker. Got him

to what they wanted for years...get Saddam... Yup, America did the dirty work for Iran.

We were such fools to have Bush in the White House. He is such a DOLT.

[Stephanie]

33. And the neo-cons gave our secrets to Chalabi who gave them to Iran

Don't you feel safer?

[freedomonk]

34. didn't you hear bush?

AMERICA IS SAFER

[leesa]

37. Just shameless. There is Faaaaaar more evidence that the Bush

Crime Family was involved in 9-11. Mountains of evidence but we don't wish to look at that. Got oil to steal in Iran.

[Laughing Mirror]

38. The United States facilitated the 2001 attacks on the United States

By allowing the hijackers into the the country, providing "safe passage," and training the hijackers on our soil to fly the planes into the buildings.

If the US must now blame Iran providing safe passage, how can the US not blame itself?