CNN, Guardian: Bin Laden, iRaq party like it's 1999

Thanks for that blast from the past. Of course we know now that Bin Laden and Iraq did not make any agreement, and the offer, if it existed, was never put into action.

The offer was for Bin Laden to move to Iraq. However, he was still in AFghanistan 2 years later. So I guess the 9/11 commission had it right. There were contacts but no operational relationship.

It's also been pointed out, that Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden has had far greater government relationships with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Congressmen Russ Feingold pointed out that Al-Qaeda had more ties with Charles Taylor's Liberia than he did with Saddam's Iraq.

But still offers that were years old and never agreed to are used to provide justification for a war.

 

Could your reply be any more biased?

 

biased towards facts? I don't get it. I was merely talking about recent history and the events that happened and didn't happen. When somone uses two year old, never acted upon, offers as a means to justify something, then I don't see anything biased in pointing out the actual events as they happened or didn't happen.

 

The fact that they even met to discuss this shows a degree of collaboration, and a like minded goal of terror against the United States. Plus the full extent of their contact is not even fully known. Their links could indeed go much deeper than that. Look at all the Al-Queda activity in Iraq currently. Most of the hostage taking and coordinated bombings and attacks in Iraq today are not being done by Iraqis, they are being done by foreign Al-Queda operatives.

The Bush haters like yourself obviously live in your own world far away from reality.

 

Huh? I know you're very convinced of your position, which is fine, but your statement is odd. A meeting = a meeting. That's all.

We met with bin Laden many times. We met with Saddam many times. Were we plotting terror against ourselves?

Bush recently had dinner with Clinton. Are they "collaborating?" I think not.

During WWII, the *Pope* had a couple of meeting with Hitler. Were they *collaborating*? Let's hope to hell not.

Look, all I'm saying is we only have proof of a meeting. The *bipartisan* 9/11 commission, which supposedly had all the evidence that the administration was willing to give it (which supposedly should have been everything they knew), has said there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship. Are you saying the *bipartisan* commission "hates Bush?"

All people who disagree with you do not "hate Bush" or "hate America" or really hate anything at all. They simply have a different point of view. It's all good.

 

Aces, how does a meeting show collaboration? When the Soviets and the U.S. met or even made proposals about nuclear arms, was Reagan collaborating with communism?

You can make personal comments about me and the world I live in if you wish, and I'll concentrate on the issues being discussed in this thread. In order to debate those issues with you, I want to understand the logic(or lack of logic) being used.

 

I hate oatmeal...

where ya been bobby boy?

 

Serious question.

Please take off your partisan hats for a moment.

Was the commission's 'no collaborative effort' conclusion pretty narrow in scope -- ie relating just to 9/11, or to targeted US attacks? Or was it an all encompassing -- meaning no-links.

I think it's quite possible to conclude that there was no collaborative effort regarding 9/11, or no collaborative effort to attack the US, yet still have potential ties related to terrorism. And i think you should be looking at the purpose and context of meetings before suggesting that if any two parties meet, then it must be the same as if any other groups meet.

And I'm not suggesting those ties (if any) were enough to warrant the invasion -- just trying to decypher the spin.

 

I have a connection with my neighbor. We sometimes nod hello at each other. Hmn. I guess I never thought about it. Maybe we could start a crime syndicate together?

Nothing like tenuous connections to justify invasion of a country with thousands of its civilians dead and now even more of a potential breeding ground for terrorists.

I don't condone any of Iraq's atrocities. I just don't ignore our own.

 

Fair enough, bnb (as usual ). We should probably all wait for the final, official report instead of extrapolating from these interim reports.

That said, my understanding of the interim report is that there was an absolute statement of "no evidence of a collaborative relationship," meaning 9/11, or buying bombs, or drinking beer and watching football. My reading of it in context was that no evidence showed collaboration of any kind, though there was certainly communication.

The Washington Post did have a nice column last weekend about the word "relationship," saying that whatever your perspective it was sad to again have a presidency playing semantic gymnastics with the word. Arguably, such games are more dire for the march to war than for messing with interns, but whatever. The spin game is oddly familiar.

 

There you go, bnb.

Suffice it to say that, at least for basso and myself, we remove partisan hats to reveal... (*gasp*) (*woman's scream!*) ...

surgically implanted partisan toupees!

 

basso, I'm just kidding both of us here. You have bnb's sensible request, followed by our two apparently sensible posts which, after reading volumes of materials and attempting to look at facts plainly... come to completely different conclusions! We're in too deep I guess.

i just thought it looked funny.

 

I found it rather odd, that Saddam, who, truth be told, really wasn't that swell a guy, would have absolutely no links with a known terrorist movement operating in his neighbourhood.

Though i'm not really surprised those links appear to be substancially less that the administration certainly implied.

And, since we've taken off our hats, and are chatting so amicably, i'll confess my primary motivation in clicking this thread.



Stinkin' Styx forum ?????

what was that about????

 

If you are seriously stepping to MR_ROBOTO, this will get ugly fast.

Don't bring a hirsuit midget to a robot fight, sucka.

 

I see it's futile.

There is no common ground.



...a raaaaasbeeeeerrrrrrry beret...

so...heard any good trade rumours lately????

 

Other than the occasional wartime mistake by the coalition forces (bad intel, misfired weapon, etc), most of the vast majority of civilians killed have been by either the Iraqis or the foreign terorists in Iraq. The U.S and the coalition have been remarkable in the lengths they go to try to avoid civilian casualties..