Wow basso, are you suggesting that if libs are not to pursue Karl Rove/Robert Novak in the Plame leak case(s) you are willing to dismiss this flimsy Al Qaeda-Saddam Mother-of-All-Connections? I am not sure libs will agree on this. And probably neocons won't give it up either.
Honestly, that's way too much to read... but quick question: Did the 9/11 Commission have any/all of this information? Presuming they did, I think it is telling that they looked all this evidence, along with all the other evidence they had, and concluded that there was no evidence of any Iraq-AQ connection.
I think the writer's contention is that a lot of this info came about after the 911 report. You know, detainee torture confessions, private love letters from Saddam to AQ, that sort of thing.
I've only had a chance to read a little of this and skim the rest and I will say it is interesting and worth discussing. While we all know where Basso's coming from and Basso's penchant for bombarding with posts I don't think this is worth dismissing totally out of hand. I'll try to get back with more substantive comments when I have a chance.
I haven't read the articles.... having said that there is the possibility that the evidence wasn't discovered when the 9/11 commission did their work and is only now comming to light as more pieces come to the surface. Just because we didn't know there was a link between Iraq and al Queda doesn't mean there wasn't one. Clearly the intelligence wasn't very good. However, as I said earlier, I don't think the administration can say "See! I told you so!". If there were links that are just coming to light then the administration just got lucky. Once again, I'm leaving the door open to the idea that the administration knew about the links but couldn't talk about them to protect sources or some other security reason.
I don't know about this. If Colin Powell had the temerity of demonstrating Saddam's WMD with a centrifuge tube in front of UN without worrying too much about the safety of the sources (didn't US know Saddam was at least as brutal as Al Qaeda??), would the Administration forgo the opportunity of linking Saddam with Al Qaeda, for fear of losing sources, to creat a stronger case for the War? I say hell NO.
I have read alot of this before. Some points to note. 1. There has been Iraq intelligence work with Pakistani intelligence with CIA and most other intelligence in middle east. CIA has assets in most middle east countries. No surprise. 2. These connections with Al Queda are not anything new any more than all the CIA work with Al Queda. 3. These investigations have taken place post 9/11. The articles make it clear most of this intelligence is being brought to the surface after the fall of Bagdad. 4. None of this was used as justification for the invasion of Iraq. 5. One of the things here is that nobody is going to dig too deep because you don't want to get to the CIA depth of things. At least if you want to stay alive in America. 6. The 9-11 Commission was a joke and even if they had this information they weren't going to use it. If Bush wanted to use the Iraq Intelligence ties to Al Queda, he would have. There is a reason he has left it on the fringe. I don't know what it is, but one thing I think American citizens must understand is our Intelligence Community is brilliant and the best and most powerful in the world. STOP believing we bumble things. Just understand- Nobody gets to New York City and the Pentagon without inside help. And they don't even have to know they are being 'allowed' to execute their plans. Does anyone know anything about five conflicting war game exercises that were going on the morning of 9-11 that had FAA and Norad 'scrambled' and confused?
as you said, you haven't read it. as the article makes clear, much of this info arose subsequent to the commission's report. moreover, the report itself never made clear there was never an expectation it would be the final word on the subject. invest the time, read the article. it's eye-opening, particularly the stuff about how little the CIA had invested in iraqi terrorist activities prior to 2002. as one CIA official said, "i can count the number of HUMINT agents in iraq working on terrorists on one hand...and still pick my nose..."
U.S. government "Summary of Evidence" for an Iraqi member of al Qaeda detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Not buying it.
Then it's irrelevant. Water under the bridge. You acknowledge yourself that W didn't have this info when he waged war. He still hasn't found WMD. W is still a lier.
This is what I love about this country in recent years... "This puts forth a point of view that differs from my own. Therefore I shall not read it and start diverting attention from it by being 'clever.'" Both sides do it, and it simply warms my heart.
By using "also" you acknowledge this "mother of all connections" is, in fact, irrelevant. Great. We can lock this thread now. Everybody wrap it up, basso just admitted the point of his thread is irrelevant.
God, how much would a solid, established, verifiable link help? Like, suppose for example that we could prove that some nation once funded, supported, and supplied arms/intel to Saddam Hussein while at the same time funding, supporting, and supplying arms/intel to Osama Bin Laden? Now that would be the mother of all connections... Oh, ...wait...
easy to say that today. We were funding mujahadeen in Afghanistan because we were threatned by the Soviets. Seemed a logical & necessary alliance at the time (we're not all geniuses). Saddam is not stupid, far from it. Managing to play on our fears of the Soviets & the Iranian revolution, he got support from the US. Of course, we had a lot to gain as well.... ..... he who controls the spice
