The links in the Miniter article appear to be casual. I do not see any real support that Iraq gave bin Laden for any al Qaeda operation, like guns, money, tactical info, etc. In particular , I do not see a a direct 9-11 connection, the mythical conenction that the Bush Admin floated to the news in the fall of 2002. In the end, there may some Iraq and al Qeada connection, or even a Iraq 9-11 connection. But this link is not known as a fact in the build up to the Iraq War or until now in the post-war occupation. Finding a link would also not make right the invasion pretext wrong. The question also begs on why the WH has not used all of the examples that Miniter gave. They certainly were desparate for proving the link and unconcerned about dressing up bad intell. The only conclusions that I can draw is that either the WH is incompetent or Minter's examples were not even supporteed by any bad intell that the US had.
Nah, see. Fear will not lead to a lack of bombs, Nomar. The more fear and anger we create, the more people will be ready to strap bombs to themselves. Ever dealt with a grease fire?
The more people that strap bombs to themselves, the more innocent civilians we execute in their countries of origin.
Ah, a little detour into the world of circular argument: I shouldn't be able to cite the CIA or FBI for saying that they were wrong about Iraq intel because, after all, they were WRONG about Iraq intel. At most, I'm no more selective than you. And since my information hasn't been discredited, as most of yours has, I think its better than yours. Example: the crap about Salman Pak (and god knows what else in the report you cited) came from INC-Chalabi defectors: Here's the up to the minute assessment of their credibility: Don't you think if this lead panned out we would have heard something by now considering how desperate the Admin is and how much fire they're taking? What did they take the terrorist training camp and bury it in syria? Who has photos? How do you know? Can we see them? Who are the officers who ran the case? Why are they sticking by their story? This story has been debunked about as much as one possibly can debunk a story. Yes, it's the problem of proving a negative, but big deal. It's a junk story that is being intentionally floated by the VP to this very day. What crap. The main point, what, that you posted a lot of specious evidence from Powell that is otherwise unattributed? Yeah, you're right, once again I have failed to prove a negative to 100% certainty.
This strategy didn't work very well in the end for Darth Vader or Sauron or Pol Pot, but I guess we could give it a try.
Deckard: I'd like definitive proof, too, but I doubt we'll ever get it, just like we will never get definitive proof that Osama was behind 9-11. It will just have to suffice to say that available evidence points that way. For the record, I am not too sure how involved the connection was. A part of me thinks that they actually worked together on 9-11, and yet a part of me does not think that the ties were all that strong. I do think that we should be devoting a large part of our investigative resources on that one, though, something the admin does not appear to be doing. It is important to discover the extent of the links, IMO, if for no other reason than to see what kind of contacts Al Qaeda may have formed with other governments, ie, to see how they do things. SF: They were wrong about some of it, and they were right about some of it - the last part is the part that you ignore. To you, they were only right about those parts that support your aerguments, and wrong about everything else. No matter whether they were right about it. Salman Pak "discredited"? Guess what Einstein, they moved the 707 from the field before the war. We had satintel photos of the friggen thing right before the war, and when we got there it was gone. That was not "discredited", the crime scene was altered. And BTW, we did discover elements of terrorist training infrastructure at the site after the war, as well as documents pertaining to the activities going on there. It was a terror training camp, it had just been largely emptied out before we got there. In case you didn't notice, the former regime went to great lengths to cover up its crimes in the event of invasion. That much is clear. Also BTW, it was commented upon. You either ignored or missed it. The Czechs claimed they had photos. They said so. They showed them on TV for everyone to see when the story broke. I don't know their friggen names, intelligence officers seldom advertise their identities. And this story has not ever in any way been debunked. To debunk something, you must prove it false; it has only been said that we cannot corroborate it. After we said as much, the Czechs backed off the claim at the political level, but the actual intel workers never have. And it does not surprise me that you think it is a "junk story". Every piece of evidence that distracts from your argument is a "junk story", just as the piece I presented here. Which you have yet to actually address, I remind you. Would you care to get back to the point and address it? Oh, that's right, it's 'specious'...
Czechs Retract Iraq Terror Link NewsMax Wires Monday, Oct. 21, 2002 PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Czech intelligence officials have knocked down one of the few clear links between al-Qaeda terrorists and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, UPI has learned. Senior Czech intelligence officials have told their American counterparts that they now have "no confidence" in their earlier report of direct meetings in Prague between Mohammed Atta, leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers and an Iraqi diplomat stationed in Prague who has since been expelled for "activities inconsistent with his diplomatic status." "Quite simply, we think the source for this story may have invented the meeting that he reported. We can find no corroborative evidence for the meeting and the source has real credibility problems," a high-ranking source close to Czech intelligence told UPI Sunday. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...20/102425.shtml ? Yeah, I guess not. Until we get an on camera interview with a Czech guy in a trench coat in dark glasses, the story lives! You're right, I failed to disprove your compendium of unverified third hand statements that may have come from INC sources or god knows where, at most I was able to proivide sources from our own government that are highly skeptical and inconclusive. Shame on me.
Well, Sam, at least we can agree that you contributed nothing to the discussion. I don't think that you even read the article that is the topic of this thread. Had you actually read it you would not keep saying that these reports are"unverified third hand statements that may have come from INC sources or god knows where". In most cases the author says where the reports come from, and they didn't come from the INC. In fact, none of the pieces of evidence here came from the INC. Why don't you actually read it? And then dispute it? That would be a more effective debating technique than just assuming and guessing, I think. Oh, and trying to change the subject.
