You folks sound like William O. Beeman. What do you think of his article from early last year? http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Anthropology/publications/General_Powell.htm Al Qaeda-Iraq Connection Tenuous at Best Commentary, William O. Beeman, Pacific News Service, Feb 06, 2003 In his Feb. 5 presentation to the United Nations, Secretary of State Colin Powell repeated the assertion that Saddam Hussein has connections to the terror group al Qaeda. Despite the rhetoric, writes PNS contributor William O. Beeman, no hard evidence has been revealed. The Bush administration wants above all to prove a connection between the al Qaeda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein. Secretary of State Colin Powell tried to do just that in his argument before the United Nations on Feb. 5. Despite his claim that his words were based on "solid sources," Powell's argument was specious and based on deceptive rhetoric. Powell stated, "Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, a collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants." He further claimed, "When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq." Proving the link between al-Zarqawi and the Iraqi regime has thus far been impossible for the American intelligence community, as reported widely in the U.S. and foreign press. Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian of Palestinian descent, is a shadowy figure who has recently been associated with the assassination last October of Laurence Foley, an American diplomatic officer in Jordan. Al-Zarqawi is likely associated with al Qaeda. He did visit Iraq, but only to be hospitalized in Baghdad for wounds suffered in Afghanistan in the fighting after Sept. 11, 2001, when thousands lost their lives on U.S. soil during attacks on the World Trade Center and Washington, D.C. But thus far, no information has been revealed that would show that al-Zarqawi ever met with Iraqi officials. The idea that al-Zarqawi runs a "terrorist network" of his own or that he is the No. 3 figure in al Qaeda is hyperbole. There is no information available that shows that he is anything other than a foot soldier in connection with known al Qaeda operatives. The administration hypothesis is essentially "proof by proximity." They claim that al-Zarqawi had a group with whom he was operating, and that group could not be functioning in Baghdad without the complicity of Saddam Hussein's government. Washington officials also acknowledge that al-Zarqawi had support from a member of the Qatari Royal family, Abdul Karim al-Thani, who hosted him in Qatar. However, Washington officials do not claim that, as with Iraq, these facts show that the Qatari court is also connected to al Qaeda -- particularly since the United States depends on Qatar to provide staging support for the U.S. Central Command. Even if al-Zarqawi had been in touch with Iraqi officials, the idea that he is operating a terrorist training center in Northern Iraq is completely unproved. The training center does exist, and it does have connections to al Qaeda, but it is run by a dissident Kurdish Islamic militant group, Ansar al-Islam. This group is utterly opposed to the Iraqi regime and has no connection to it. Thus, all the pieces in Powell's accusation -- al-Zarqawi, al-Ansar al-Islam, al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime -- do exist. But the crucial connection between Saddam and al-Zarqawi is based on supposition, and all the rhetoric in the world cannot create a true link between them. It is worth asking why the White House is so desperate to link al Qaeda to Saddam that they would resort to deception and lies. The reason may lie in the slipping U.S. support for the projected Iraqi war. When examined carefully, the Iraqi violations of U.N. resolution 1441 seem to amount to scurrying around to hide questionable vehicles, along with a few furtive phone calls wondering if inspectors will find something questionable in the facilities under scrutiny. The violations are so petty, so weak that it is hard to imagine sending 200,000 troops into Iraq to correct them. Revenge is a powerful motivator, however. Americans are desperate to punish someone for the horrible Sept. 11 tragedy. In their grief, they are primed to believe any tenuous accusation. A recent poll shows that more than 80 percent believe that Saddam was responsible. However, the international community has been more measured in its judgment and more skeptical. The arrogance of the Bush White House should now be well known to most thinking Americans, but it is disappointing that one of our most trusted public officials would go before the United Nations and essentially lie about a matter so essential as this connection. Moreover, the Bush administration must be truly contemptuous of the world body, since the U.N. delegates could have read about the tenuousness of the al-Zarqawi connection in newspapers just days before Powell addressed them.
If this were truthful or meaningful, this would have been plastered everywhere. This would have been paraded at the UN by Powell and W would have mentioned it every chance he got in the media. This would have been the ultimate justifaction for war. Silence speaks volumes...no connection. EDIT: Just saw prior post. I guess Powell did parade it at the UN...but as we can see...a loose connection at best. Not enough to wage war on an entire nation. No connection.
krosfyah, some of this info was apart of Powell's speech to the UN security council on February 5th, 2003. Richard Coffman - The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection: A Mortal Threat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- February 10, 2003 "What I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder." (Secretary of State Colin Powell addressing the UN Security Council, February 5, 2003) This was the least expected, but most momentous part of Secretary Colin Powell's remarkable presentation to the Security Council. What Secretary Powell laid out was compelling and unambiguous in its substance and chilling in its meaning. The intimate connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda constitutes a direct and mortal threat of mass casualty terrorism to the American homeland. This nexus marries Al Qaeda's extensive and dangerous terror network -- some of which is embedded in the U.S. -- and Iraq's know-how in producing and using mass casualty producing chemical and biological agents. Both Iraq and Al Qaeda have a recent history of attacking U.S. interests, in the case of Al Qaeda with devastating results. For its part, Iraq attempted to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush in Kuwait after he left office, and Secretary Powell revealed Iraq's role in the Al Qaeda assassination of U.S. diplomat James Foley in Amman, Jordan in October 2002. This relationship did not come about by accident. Both Al Qaeda and Iraq sought out one another beginning almost a decade ago when Osama bin Ladin was based in Khartoum, Sudan. They agreed at that time that they would forge a mutually beneficial relationship, and that Al Qaeda would not support terrorism against secular Iraq. According to Secretary Powell, the two sides met secretly at least eight times, Iraq using its intelligence service to maintain the clandestinity of the arrangement. Saddam Hussein became more interested in Al Qaeda after it launched attacks against U.S. embassies in East Africa in late 1998 and against the USS Cole in 2000. With the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan playing a liaison role, Iraqis maintained contact with bin Ladin in his Afghan base providing, among other things, training in document forgery. As early as 1997, Al Qaeda sought Iraqi help in obtaining chemical and biological agents for terrorist operations. When the U.S. ousted the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda sought refuge elsewhere, Al Qaeda operative Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi established an explosives and poisons training camp in northeastern Iraq. Although this camp is located outside the part of Iraq controlled by Saddam Hussein, he exercises control through an Iraqi agent who is positioned near the top of the radical group that controls this area of Iraq. This agent offered Al Qaeda safe haven in this area in 2000, which many Al Qaeda operatives later accepted after being swept out of Afghanistan by U.S. forces. Al Zarqawi's facility is training operatives to produce and use the deadly ricin toxin, among other agents. At least nine operatives trained by Al Zarqawi have traveled to Europe to conduct attacks. By U.S. count, at least 116 operatives connected to Al Zarqawi's network have been apprehended in Spain, France, Italy and the UK. In some cases, arresting authorities uncovered explosive devices and evidence of work on producing toxins. At the time in 2002 Al Zarqawi was receiving medical treatment in Baghdad for Afghan wounds, over 20 radical extremists established a base of operations in Baghdad. This base remains in direct contact with Al Zarqawi and for more than eight months has been coordinating movements of operatives, funds and equipment through Iraq and beyond. The assassin captured after the murder of U.S. diplomat Foley told Jordanian authorities that his cell received funds and weapons from the Al Zarqawi organization in Iraq. It is clear from Secretary Powell's presentation that Al Qaeda has now established a functioning liaison and support base in Baghdad and a training facility in northeastern Iraq from which it can plan, prepare and conduct terrorist operations in the Middle East, Europe and beyond. Before Secretary Powell's speech, the Al Qaeda-Iraq connection was considered the most tenuous of the Administration's bill of particulars against Iraq. It was reported to be the subject of disagreement and bureaucratic skirmishing between so-called hawks in the Defense Department and National Security Council Staff on one side and the more skeptical FBI and CIA on the other. Despite the Powell presentation, there surprisingly remain doubters and skeptics regarding the Al Qaeda-Iraq nexus. While some are in full throat with their doubts, those at risk -- the U.S. and its allies -- cannot afford to become distracted and indulge in academic debate about this threat, and they shouldn't. First, Secretary Powell made clear at the outset of his Security Council presentation that he was not revealing all information in U.S. possession, obviously to protect the most sensitive and active sources of intelligence and methods of collection. Second, no responsible U.S. administration could ignore this material given the plausibility of the evidence, the credibility of the sources and, most important, the potentially dire consequences of not dealing with this mortal threat to America. http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Coffman_021103,00.html
Did anybody see Gary Sinise on Scarborough Country last night? He's been to Iraq and is singing praises about what the US military is accomplishing in Iraq. And he is distressed at the lopsided news which heavily accentuates the negative. OperationIraqiChildren.org
Hmmm...is this where RM95 comes in and says he is going to tattle on you for a threat? Why not use a glowstick instead of your shoe? Mulder- I'm glad you find your own opinion "informed"...and if you need others on a BBS to stroke your ego and and back you up when you make what you deem to be a good point, then you are probably more insecure than I first thought. You see, I don;t really care if you disagree with me. If something i say is wrong, then I move on. I don't think my opinion, in this case, is wrong. It may be warped in comparison to yours, but I don't care. It's mine. I never said you were "uninformed" or cut you down for having a difference of opinion (other than to rebut yours or anyone else's verbal attacks because we disagree). On the contrary, I think you are extremely informed....as are FBlade, Cohen, Macbeth...and so on... Probably...no make that definitely... a helluva lot more politically informed than I am. As a result, you won't see me calling you an idiot (other than the usual "i know you are but what am I" type of comeback). I know you aren't an idiot. I know that the others I mentioned (and then some) aren't idiots either. As a matter of fact, I'd have to say that the level of intelligence demonstrated in some of these posts/threads etc is very high. All you have to do is read some of the posts on this board (or any other debate thread on here) and you will see some unbelievably intelligent editorials. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but it doesn't make them idiotic or irrelevant. Maybe that's the biggest difference between you and I.
why is condemning murder necessarily the same thing as aligning themselves with america. i'm not aligned with the prisoners who were abused and mistreated...but i can sure as hell tell you that what was done to them was unjust. some things are more important than politics or even self-preservation...particularly when you're a leader to a religion being hijacked by violence.
Geesh, can you guys take it outside or something. We don't want to read your bickering. Lets stay on topic.
It's perception. I agree with your principle. But life is complicated and human nature cannot be dismissed. It isn't about right vs. wrong. It's perception. If these guys (moderate Muslims) do or say anything that is "perceived" as alignment w/ America, then they themselves become targets. If you are amist an angry mob and you fear for your life, would would stand up and ask the rioters to not break that window? Why would you? Their attention isn't directed at you. Most people would remain silent until the danger is clear. Self preservation. Plus, as somebody else stated, there are 1.5 billion Muslims. It ain't going anywhere. Their religion isn't in danger despite America's perception.
i get the impression you're arguing just to argue now. it's not merely about perception when you're a man who has devoted his life to a faith that others have hijacked. it's absolutely about right and wrong when you believe they're using your god's name to justify beheading people....singing praise to that god while they do it. their religion is in danger of being casted as something it isn't. and religion, itself, is about the search for truth...this is particularly so of Islam and Christianity. it bothers the hell out of me when people take my Lord's name to justify all kinds of bullcrap...but when people start running planes into buildings, blowing up school buses and beheading people in my Lord's name, it's freaking on. this should be even more pronounced in the theocracies of the middle east, where the government and its forces are literal extensions of the mosque.
I believe most of our military are doing a lot of good things there. I support them. They are doing a tough job, that has been made been made even tougher by the abuses at AG prison, and elsewhere.
What can you expect from the Islamic extremists? They are psychos. Remember "the silence of lamb". However, the behaviours of US soldiers are more outrageous to me. The government turned common people into psychos.
I hate doing it. Sometimes the people that bother you the most will make a post worth responding to, even if you disagree. As much as NJRocket has ticked me off, he's not as bad as that Uncle_Tim character, who was calling mrpaige a traitor (and other, similar stuff) and said similar things about MadMax, if memory serves. I've been "ignoring" him, although I haven't put him on an ignore list yet. Sometimes posting here can get extremely frustrating. The far-right clique has gotten so bad that they will attack conservative posters of long standing in the vicious fashion they usually reserve for the liberals here. It can get hard to have a decent discussion.
Ahh, the "things in Iraq are just fine" argument....these got played out last summer before the insurgency took a turn for the worse in November and exploded in April. Things are not fine, and I don't think Sinise is going back anytime soon. This is confirmed not just by current events but by the numerous surveys indicating that things aren't going well, and Iraqis don't like us. Denial about this is the kind of thing that gets people killed.
I think a middle line has to be drawn in both those arguments. Things are definitely not fine in some regions, but in others, things are doing splendid. It really must be surveyed region by region.
Did I say that there were no dangers in Iraq? We are doing a hell of a lot of good that goes unnoticed, unreported and unappreciated. Sorry if that disappoints you...
The only region that I know of that is not in rebellion is the North. The rest of the T-E valley seems to be a mess, all the way down to Basra where British troops have recently come under attack from the rebels. And bagdad is and remains a mess, while troops in MOsul have been regularly attacked. Other than Kirkuk in the Kurdish areas, I don't know of any calm places. Giddyup: it appears Sinise was there in July. Most people who have been their since have stated that not only has it changed in that violence and chaos have increased, but that even ordinary Iraqis now exude a palpable sense of distaste for Americans in particular. Finally, like has been said many times, perception is what matters. So what if we are doing good? If 80 plus percent of Iraqis see us as occupiers who should go away, and significant majorities think that we are acting dishonorably and doing more harm than good, then it really doesn't make much difference at all whether or not we are doing good. If we are simply in it to do good for moral reasons, then we might as well do good in a place where it weill be appreciated and we won't get as many people killed doing it.
