Yes, I know…it’s The View. Kinda like scratching fingernails on a chalkboard but Michelle Malkin did an OUTSTANDING job of getting her point across and leaving the 3 stooges dumbfounded today:
3 Aug
Michelle Malkin Pummels Point Home On The View
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Baracks Broken Promises, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Culture of Corruption, Liberal Idiots, MSM Bias, Politics, POWER GRAB!, Socialism, Videos. Bookmark the permalink.
Monday, August 3rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm | 44 views
- Share:
@GaffaUK
Tell me you’re joking. Aren’t you? Wilkapedia is not a fact verified information database. Wilkipedia entries are written by anonymous web-heads and are sometimes chock full of inaccuracies, wrong data, bias and even outright fabrications, and this is ESPECIALLY true for any Wilkapedia entry of a political nature. If you are relying on Wilkapedia for your research in political discussions you might as well be doing all your fact finding by going to a seance.
@GaffaUK #49:
Gaffa,
Curt said he was reminded of the great conversation/debate Scott and James had. Their conversation ranged through a number of issues. You can always sift and skim, you know?
Let me help you out, into why FA’s entries are superior to wikipedia’s and any media article you’ll find out there (these will be specific, so you won’t whine about having so much reading material to sift through for specifics):
Pentagon Report confirms Saddam’s Regime supported al Qaida. Excerpt:
McClatchy reported the “findings” as “no smoking gun” and other such misleading conclusions on what the Iraqi Perspectives Project determined in regards to “operational” Saddam-al Qaeda links. The reporter, however, was leaked some supposed bullet points and reported without ever bothering to read the actual 1600 page report (something which Scott and I think Mata actually ended up doing).
Scott recommended looking at the exclusive summary and key judgment section, and that alone contradicts the MSM, in how they characterized the study. Scott comments:
The distinctions that differentiates one Islamic terror group from another are not always clear-cut. The boundaries can get easily blurred, with Islamic holy warriors melting in from one terror cell to the next. You have Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which is Zawahiri’s previous group, Ansar al-Islam (a group that belongs to Osama bin Laden), Jemaah Islamiyah, and abu Sayyaf, which is essentially al Qaeda in the Philippines, for instance.
Saddam’s Files, They Show Terror Plots, But Raise New Questions About Some Media Claims
Mark Eichenlaub:
Gaffa:
That bit of surveying is outdated, now so please don’t say it. Thanks to media distortions on the topic and propagating the myth of “no ties”, I challenge that most people have been made dumber on the issue, and less informed.
I did a post which might explain why 70% of Americans connected Saddam to the events of 9/11, when Bush never made any such statement. Part of it is media reports during the 90′s that made such connections; another part is media misrepresentation and distortions in quoting Bush officials.
When McClatchy preemptively (mis)”reported” on the Iraqi Perspectives Project before the release of its executive summary, what did the rest of the media outlets do? Cite and parrot McClatchy, thereby perpetuating the distorted and flawed reporting. It actually prompted the USJFCOM to release all five volumes.
No Ties Between Saddam and Al Queda Network of Terrorist Groups:
More reading and clicking:
I apologize if that wasn’t succinct enough for you. It’s an unfortunate circumstantial fact of life that becoming better informed sometimes requires some extensive reading, don’t you know?
Of course, if you want us to be really “succinct”, how about this:
There were ties between Saddam’s regime and the al Qaeda network.
Succinct enough for you?
Bush never said Saddam had a hand in orchestrating the events of 9/11, but there are connections between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Can you understand why the first half and the second half of that sentence, isn’t a contradiction? That they are two different arguments put forth, with the first one being a strawman?
@Wordsmith:
The “blunder from down under” wants microwave education and knowledge.
After typing in saddam hussein al qaeda connection in the FA search function I found a wealth of info. Such as:
This by Scott, same as what Word posted, but always read the comments, there’s always more:
No Ties Between Saddam and Al Queda Network of Terrorist Groups
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/03/16/no-ties-between-saddam-and-al-queda-network-of-terrorist-groups/#more-4207
This by ChrisG, might be a bit too much info for Gaff to take in in one sitting:
Why Iraq
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/10/26/why-iraq/
Every time I go into the archives I wind up spending a lot of time, bookmark a lot of stuff to return to and always, always find things I’ve never seen before such as the following from one of Curt’s past posts:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/06/the-truth-on-the-iraqal-qaeda/
All the above is not even a drop in the bucket when considering all the work and research the FA team has done about Iraq, every one of the writers on this blog has contributed a wealth of accurate, well studied information. We can’t even say they forget more than we will ever know, because they don’t forget, ever. It’s extremely foolish to go up against them.
Gaffa, save yourself a boat load of trouble and FIRST go read the Iraqi Perspectives report that I linked. Go first to the horses mouth, and get the skinny on Saddam’s extensive relationships with the various jihad movements for over a decade before we arrived in 2003.
*Then* you can pick and choose amongst the plethora of posts done discussing the report. But if you don’t read the report first, you are at a mental disadvantage.
@MataHarley
So taking a look at that Iraq Perspectives – and only 5% relates directly to Al Qaeda.
Page 15
Page 18
Page 34
Page 61 onwards
So nothing in there particuarly surprises me nor goes against what I currently believe – in that Saddam wasn’t behind 9/11 and that there may be ties with Al Qaeda (which I have said before) – they were primarily enemies and the ties were certainly not “very strong” ones as Neil states. If the ties were very strong then no doubt there would of been regular contact at the highest levels between Al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime, Saddam would of no doubt known and actively helped with 9/11. Instead we have what seems the majority of evidence – in regards to the small proportion relating to Al Qaeda – is of Saddam gathering intel on the various terrorist groups, some affiliated with Al Qaeda – particualarly when their goals coincide. Bush & Cheney spent a lot of time and money desperately trying to find a smoking gun of an impilicit and operational relationship between the two. As this report clearly states – they found no smoking gun. I suggest the US invades Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan & Egypt and spent more billions and go through millions of their internal documents – I’m sure they will find more than a handful of direct connections to Al Qaeda than they have here!
In fact – I wonder if everyone on here outrightly condemns countries sponsoring terrorism against other countries?
Gaffa, take a look at reality. AQ is not the definition of the “bad guy enemy” since it is an undefinable entitly. You might as well say all doctors are the AMA, or the AMA is all doctors.
AQ is an ever morphing association of jihad terrorists groups who “join”, break away, rename themselves, regroup, etc. Your problem is you don’t know who and what AQ actually is… but then, that could be the media’s fault for miseducation. This common misconception is why I always get annoyed that everyone thinks AQ is the target enemy. If they’d just look around and pay attention, they’d figure out that other jihad movements like Hezbollah (Shia) work in concert with AQ Sunnis against common enemies.
As for the strange bedfellows of terrorism, as I said you should read Ray Robison’s Both in One Trench. You might learn about AQ as a concept and “a base” instead of thinking of it as some exclusive terrorists boys’ club.
I suppose now you will claim that Zawahiri… because he hadn’t merged EIJ with Bin Laden’s group of merry thugs… doesn’t count as an AQ contact on a technicality, right?” You wouldn’t be alone… they do that all the time with Zarqawi too.
The question you should ask yourself is, did Zarqawi and Zawahiri change their belief systems to join the AQ network? Or was it a shared concept of waging jihad all along?
Fact is, they all shared the same foundation for jihad and a strict Islamic law ruled caliphate. They didn’t need to pay dues to the AQ association, or have badges. They had shared goals, shared contacts and shared missions. They battle today to fight a common enemy and, when that’s successful, they fight amongst themselves for the top dog position.
And the Iraqi Perspectives report is to concentrate on Saddam’s relationship si the jihad movement in general… the comrades in arms of terrorism. Not AQ.
Pg 206-208, Saddam’s Ties to Al Queda, by Scott Malensek.
INRE Wordsmith…
What he said…. LOL Yup, I said the same thing, but I’d say OBL’s words drive the point home to the deaf, dumb and blind.
@MataHarley
Whilst people have had trouble defining Al-Qaeda and it’s boundaries – it does exist. Not sure the doctor metaphor works. Not all doctors are American and not all American doctors are in the AMA but doctors is a recognised profession and AMA is a recognised group.
And Al-Qaeda is not a group which includes all those who want a jihad. It is a fundamentalist Sunni movement – and because they may occasionally work alongside Shia terrorist groups that doesn’t make such groups like Hezbollah a part of Al-Qaeda. As an organisation it’s certainly bad enough and defined enough for the US government to label it as a terrorist organisation. I have read Al Qaeda by Jason Burke some time ago but I planning to get the Looming Tower (I believe Curt praises this – and which I heard extracts on NPR) and possibly the book by Robison you recommend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#cite_note-36
As for having the same aims – well the US government and Bin Laden had the same aim in trying to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan – that doesn’t mean they can be tarred with the same brush. As for Zawahiri – yes I would count him as Al-Qaeda. He was there at the beginning and he merged his group in with Al-Qaeda. As for Zarqawi – also yes – but I believe he joined Al-Qaeda after the Iraq invasion.
My point being is that we have to be careful not to exaggerate any ties the Saddam regime had with Al-Qaeda and not to ignore the necessary provisos where it can be shown that they were hostile towards each other. I can understand the reasons for the Iraq War (although unlike the Afghanistan War – I don’t agree with them) but I don’t think 9/11 needs to be part of of that list. Sure the US was attacked but does that mean the US should strike out against all perceived threats? If that was the case then there would be simultaneous wars happening now against a dozen countries. And if the US followed the logical path of a War of Terror where it fought every global terror group and their affilates then the US would be fighting the very groups it itself has been involved in.
Rather I would think it would be smarter to act more surgically. The poison created by Al-Qaeda lies in other places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan & Egypt – supposed allies of the US. Could you imagine Saddam giving up parts of Iraq over to Al-Qaeda like nuclear armed Pakistan did recently in the Swat valley? I can’t help thinking that whilst the Iraq War may have transfered some Al-Qaeda fighters into Iraq – it also recruited many many more – whilst criminally the war in Afghanistan which was the real breeding ground of Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attack became a side-show to Iraq. I believe only fools would deny that there is absolutely no connection between Saddam and terrorist groups affilated with Al Qaeda and only fools would believe there existed a very strong tie between Saddam and Al Qaeda – certainly compared to other nations in the region.
Gaffa, I’ll say this one more time. The Iraqi Perspectives reports were about the Harmony/ISG documents that told the story of Saddam’s relationships with the various jihad movements… most of which were actively involved with AQ or OBL or Zawahiri (which as you quote from Lawrence, was formed as “a base” back in 1988). They were not focused on seeing if Saddam had a relationship with Osama, but to see if he had a working relationship with any terrorists that he may consider passing off weaponry, technology or money.
Again, all you can think about is “al qaeda”… and you still seem clueless as to just what AQ is.
@GaffaUK:
Zarqawi contacts and cooperation with AQ predate 9-11.
From a WaPo article:
Link to the story at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2004/09/27/AR2005040209346_2.html
According to Mary Ann Weaver, author of “Inventing al-Zarqawi,” Atlantic Monthly (July/August 2006), Zarqawi “joined forces” with al-Qaeda and the Taliban in 2001 after the U.S. began its invasion of Afghanistan. She claims he fought at Herat and Kandahar.
The U.S. contends that he fled to Iraq where he received medical treatment in 2002. I think you know the story from there but it does sound to me if Zarqawi was lured by the belief that the health care is always greener on the other side of the fence. Or maybe he just needed a safe haven and the waiting list in Canada was too long.
@MataHarley
Yes I agree – you directed me to this to specifically show the relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Which is actually pretty sparse compared to the other terrorist groups. And some of this doc is about Iraqi intel rather than than active two-way relationships. I’m sure the CIA has lots of intel of terror groups. This of course is not saying that Saddam wasn’t actively involved with some of these terror groups – just that his relationship with Al Qaeda specifically was thin compared to other groups or other countries.
If you play the seven degrees from Kevin Bacon type game – then no doubt they are all connected along with most governments including the US. OBL and Zawahiri are part of Al Qaeda. Hezbollah isn’t. It wasn’t members of Hezbollah who flew into the World Trade Centre. Apparently Hezbollah criticized Al Qaeda for that (although remained mute on the Pentagon). That doesn’t make them nice people at all. Just important to recognise they are a seperate group.
Hmm – to be honest MataHarley (and I like you to) I could accuse you of being clueless when you say they are an “undefinable entitly” which you then go on to define as “ever morphing association of jihad terrorists groups who “join”, break away, rename themselves, regroup, etc.” and as a as a concept and “a base”.
Al Qaeda is more than a base or a concept – that’s taking it’s name too literally. However I agree that Al Qaeda morphs and change – where people come and go and people can be part of several groups in some cases etc. But that’s true of most definable groups! Certain terror groups could align or even hijack the name – but that doesn’t prevent the fact that a group calling itself Al Qaeda funded and headed by OBL caused 9/11 and it is this group which doesn’t have very strong ties with Saddam Hussein who wasn’t behind that atrocity. It wasn’t a concept alone which alone killed over 3000 people.
Now as part of a global strategy the US can go beyond Al Qaeda and simply have had enough with all these Jihad nutters (understandable) but I think it is wise to know your enemies (and their differences) and that the Bush admin as a whole played quite a part in aligning Saddam with Al Qaeda closer than is the case in reality which has contributed in a large majority of your fellow countrymen and women thinking incorrectly that Saddam was part of 9/11. How stoopid is that? No doubt Saddam was capable of such an act (although even those thugs in charge of countries generally avoid such obvious attacks as unlike stateless terror groups – they are far more targetable) but facts are facts.
You should talk to U.S. District Judge Harold Baer. He answered your question way back in 2003.
@Aye
Hysterical…lol.
I never said that Saddam was behind 9/11. Neither did Judge Baer. You’re trying to put words in his mouth.
The issue is the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
This is your discussion, your issue. Do try to remain focused and unconfused.
Judge Baer ruled that there was enough evidence presented to find that material support was provided to Al Qaeda by Saddam. This decision was made in 2003. That was prior to all of the other evidence which has come out since then.
Here’s what I believe:
Anyone who relies on Wiki for 90% or more of his/her arguments is fooling no one when it comes to the value/quality of his/her arguments. The article you cited from Wiki is flagged as having factual inaccuracy and neutrality problems. Yet you rely on it anyway.
That’s what is laughable here.
Finally, yes, I do believe that Saddam had connections with Al Qaeda and was providing support to them. One would have to ignore mountains of irrefutable evidence and engage in willful blindness in order to conclude otherwise.
Add Judge Baer’s judicial findings to the long list of arrows that point to Saddam and Al Qaeda being connected.
ummmm… well, we’ve made progress with you. At least you will no longer dash around and say Saddam had “no” ties with AQ, but timidly concede he had “thin” ties. LOL
Let’s see…
1: a *strong* relationship with Zawahiri back to 1993, since his days as the EIJ leader. EIJ merged with AQ in Feb 1998. It was not a revelation or rebirth of ideology, but a joining of two terrorist movements to deal with common enemies
2: Mohammed Atta, who originally proposed the 911 plot in 1996, underwent training in Iraq, courtesy of Abu Nidal… who had been Saddam’s “guest” in Iraq since 1999 – even occupying a villa supplied by Saddam’s secret service
3: 911 was initially proposed in 1996 (five years in advance), and formal planning began in 1999. By that time Zawahiri, who already had a working relationship with Saddam, would have no trouble arranging any kind of hosting of Atta during training
While you are playing the Kevin Bacon 6 degrees of separation game, here’s another event for you to ponder. And to do so, I shall give you an introduction to the extraordinary Ray Robison in one of his American Thinker columns called “More Evidence of Saddam and al Qaeda back on May 2007. It’s Somalia, 1993…. Black Hawk Down time.
Conclusions? Saddam did not “plan” 911, but he had a history of faciliting and working in concert with those who did. Nidal did not “plan” 911, but facilitated it with Atta’s training, taking place in Iraq. If you look at AQ specifically, it is anything *but* thin, and instead you can see the vast threads between the terrorist groups.
Which is the point Bush was making when he stated Saddam was a threat… being rich in resources, adept at underground/black market weapons acquisition, and a serious relationship with terrorists… who all seem to work together as needed. Thus it did not need to be only those carrying imaginary AQ badges that were defined as the enemy. The Taliban was not a member of AQ, but it is they who we attacked immediately after 911. Funny how no one complains about that…
Of course the global strategy was to go beyond AQ. That’s why it was called the “war on terror”. Evidently preventative strategy is now passe, and we are returning to law enforcement tactics only after an event occurs. In other words, Obama has backed the US down to pre-911 status.
Considering that the harmony/ISG docs actually substantiated much of the intel and suspicions of Saddam’s relationship with terrorists, and considering that Saddam had already broken 17 UN resolutions and kicked out IAEA inspectors, I believed then (and still do) that removing Saddam was a very wise move. Do I think the aftermath of Iraq transition to Arab democracy could have been done better? Sure. But then, I know of no perfect war and despositions in history. And needless to say, creating new democracies and constitutions from scratch doesn’t happen overnight… especially in a country completely foreign to the concept of a central representative government.
However the misconception that Bush was fixated only on a relationship between AQ (Zawahiri) and Saddam is a fantasy created and propagated by the media… not by Bush. As is the same with the myth that Bush suggested Saddam was part of 911. I suggest you refocus your assignation of responsibility to an uninformed and manipulative press, who gave more face and microphone time to the voices who had political reasons for pushing this lie. Bush’s WH responses were under reported, ridiculed and dissed as pure poppycock.
@Aye
If you believe Saddam provided material to Al Qaeda who caused 9/11 – then therefore isn’t he also behind 9/11? Why so shy? lol And if there is any evidence that the US had any connection with OBL – then would the US also be guilty? Do you believe Al Qaeda aren’t a terrorist group but just a concept like MataHarley. And do you really believe in Laurie Mylroie’s theories?
The “few actual facts” Baer refers to have been debunked.
http://www.radio.cz/en/article/57782/limit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Pak_facility
Tell me – do you believe Mohamed Atta met an Iraqi agent in Prague? Do you believe that Salman Pak was a terrorist training camp which trained Al-Qaeda?
As for Wikipedia – I find it generally more balanced with linked reference than the opinions expressed on here. Again what do you dispute as wholly inaccurate in the below?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations
Gaffa, I will not allow you to cherry pick my comments in order to misportray my understanding of al Qaeda which, from what I can tell, is vastly superior to your understanding.
So let me put this on record to correct your propaganda campaign against logic:
In case your Queen’s English muddles the translation, the above does not mean that AQ as an organization is not definable (as I pointed out… it is an association of ever morphing terrorist movements). Rather, AQ is not the definition of the lone US enemy target as you can’t define a constantly moving/morphing target with changing players in that organization. This is not like declaring war on a nation who’s leadership and army remains constant. We’ve killed off a vast majority of major AQ leaders since this began. New critters have stepped in and taken their place (and been less effective too). And they take on many organization names when they do so.
The enemy is not definable by a name of an organization, movement or association. It is definable by a particular distorted ideology.
You then go on to accuse me of things I did not say… ala that I said AQ was a “concept” and did not exist. You may return to all my posts on this above. I am quite consistent. You, on the other hand, are not. Could be a language barrier, but nothing I have said can lead a sane mind concluding that I said AQ is a “concept” or “doesn’t exist”.
What I said was:
Again, I repeat above: The enemy is not definable by a name of an organization, movement or association. It is definable by a particular distorted ideology. So I did not say AQ was a “concept”. I said you would do well to learn about AQ as a “concept”… which may improve your understanding of the problems of defining the enemy as a single, ever morphing organization.
Instead, you muddy your thought first by saying not all jihadists were part of AQ. Well, who the hell said they were? And why is that a point? Fact is, AQ will work with any jihad movement…. “imaginary card carrying” AQ “member” or not…. to accomplish any mission. Hang… they’ll work with anyone, including the unsuspecting, or those like Saddam who found mutual benefit in missions. So what the heck is your point?
I’ll again lay this out simply. The enemy is the global Islamic jihad movements, not al Qaeda. To battle them requires intel sharing and cooperative nations in bombing the cockroaches out of their nests all over the world. Saddam would not have given the cooperation, and in fact historically provided the opposite. This new Iraq will be a better ally. Fancy that…
Wiki, balanced? Well sourced? (well, it is, at least to other Wiki pages) LOL Gotta have some of what you’re smoking, Gaffa….
The blunder from down under strikes again.
Willfully blind to the facts.
Willfully ignoring the evidence.
Willfully twisting and tweaking the comments of others to fit his weak tea, easily destroyed, tissue paper arguments.
Some people never learn.
And one more thing, Gaffa:
You said:
Again this comes down to your confusion in learning about organizations/associations as a concept. The AMA… like AQ… is a very real association based/founded on a concept. Not all doctors are in the AMA, nor is the AMA built on membership that is solely doctors, but includes all kinds of industry participants that share the same end. It is an association built on the concept of issues and goals that relate to the medical industry.
Thus, it is a relevant and accurate analogy.
@MataHarley
Here’s another wikipedia page for you to chew on…
I know you have a vastly superior understanding than me – but do you REALLY believe that Atta was in Iraq being funded by Nidal? Are you just basing that on this discredited handwritten letter or do you have collaborative evidence to back this up?
btw…where did I state that there were no ties between Saddam & Al Qaeda?
There you go, depending upon Wiki again, Gaffa. Perhaps you should learn the concept of Wiki before you put so much faith in their anonymous editors and their power to morph the truth.
There is no “letter”. Atta was not being “funded” by Nidal. Nidal was living in a villa, courtesy of Saddam’s IIS. At that time, he was in the regime’s good graces. He did not exit the planet that way.
The memo, not a letter, from Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti… Saddam’s head of the IIS…. is not such a cut and dried issue.
I’m not sure what you think you have as “collaborative evidence” from Wiki based solely on their notion that the letter was a fake. First of all, many Iraqi governing council confirmed the handwriting, and are not suprised at Saddam’s nefarious associations.
What Suskind tried to use as his major discredit was based on journalist Michael Isikoff’s claim the memo was a fake, and citing supposed FBI records saying that Atta wasn’t anywhere near that area.
There’s two problems … and the first is found in the reporting by Con Coughlin, the Telegraph’s leading expert on both Saddam and on Middle East terror groups.
The second can only add some confusion to the issue – the case of is the multiple Mohammed Atta’s… as revealed in the circa 2005 Able Danger exposure era.
All of this points to more than a few who collaborate the memo’s apparent authenticity, and cast question on whether or not Atta could have slipped out and into Bagdad (not Prague) under the intel radar.
For Suskind, who makes his living trying to expose the Bush admin as nefarious, his source data pronouncing the memo as an absolute fake comes into question.
Correct. What you said was there was “little, if any” prior to 911. This leaves a comment trail that at 2:59 on August 7th, you believed there was “little, if any” ties… when you said:
Technically, the “if any” means there was no ties, and “little” preceding it gave you an out just in case there was something you may run across that blows away your “if any/no ties” statement.
Since “if any” means you had not seen anything before, I had to run with your complete phrase as meaning you have seen nothing that makes you believe there was a Saddam/AQ tie…. and if something was presented it would be but a “little”.
After going thru the Iraqi Perspectives reports and ensuing conversation, we managed to see you budge from “little if any” to “pretty sparse” and “thin” (since you don’t consider Saddam’s relationship with Zawahiri/EIJ as the same as Zawahiri/AQ) with your August 10th comment at 8:43pm, when you said:
That is, at least, and improvement over your “little, if any” prior opinions that there were no ties, or “little” at best if something came up in the future.
Here’s another opinion regarding Mohammed Atta and Prague.
The thing to keep in mind, though, is that the claims regarding contact between al Qaeda and Iraq don’t hinge upon whether there was a meeting in Prague. The regime ties are numerous and I think the Administration was more cautious than the critics and political opponents will have you believe, in regards to whether or not the Administration over-emphasized those claims.
Gaffa #68:
I find it specifically much more lacking in accurate information than many of the FA entries when it comes to the topic of Saddam/Iraq/al Qaeda/intell; especially when it uses media claims as a source for “facts” when some media claims are behind the Curveball.
And what irks is Gaffa’s notion that the wiki entries are some sort of revelation and one-trumpmanship.
@MataHarley #67:
“Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”
-President Bush in an address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, United States Capitol, Washington D.C., September 20, 2001.
How difficult is this for Gaffa to understand:
Yup, not much has evolved since the last time much of this was hashed out.
Invading Saddam’s Iraq wasn’t a distraction, but part of the same war. I think he was a metastasizing threat. What is a distraction, is Gaffa’s quibbling over “al Qaeda” and misrepresentation of the Administration’s claims regarding the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda, and the justifications/reasonings used to remove Saddam.
One of the falsehoods critics used to push (and still do, although the argument should now be obsolete) was the notion that a secular Saddam would never align himself with religious fanatics, regardless of whether you want to label it “al Qaeda” or some other distinct Islamist terrorist organization. The CIA myth by lazy analysts and political opponents like Tyler Drumheller was to entrench their belief, that it was an impossibility. So documents that crossed their way that suggested links and cooperation between Saddam and Islamic terror became stones left unturned. Rather than re-examine and question their preconceived notions, they simply dismissed any challenge to that belief system as flawed data without actually looking into it.
And yes, Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower is the definitive account of al Qaeda’s geneology; but it’s not the end all, be all on all things al Qaeda; especially in regards to the numerous contacts and ties to Iraq. Check out Scott’s book, which I cited in comment #58.
Wow, this is quite the marathon thread! It’s getting close to a record!
(necessary topic, though.)
@MataHarley
lol – you focus on the if any but you fail to take in the rest of the sentence I used – notably ‘HARD’ evidence and ‘STRONG’ connection.
In regards to the Habbush letter or memo (not sure why you are splitting hairs as it’s often refered to as a letter) – have it look at it – as it also talks about uranium shipment from Niger. Remember those other forged letters about yellowcake?
And don’t you smell a rat when an anonymous ‘leading member of Iraq’s governing council’ verifies the authenicity yet wont ‘reveal where and how they obtained it.’? Even Coughlin doesn’t know if it’s legitimate or a fake. lol. Isn’t it odd that this flimsy, most likely to be fake piece of ‘evidence’ is all there is? No photos, no flight info etc etc to link Atta being in Iraq. I’m sure you have read more on 9/11 than me – but the more I look into it – the more I find that the ‘experts’ like yourself treat dodgy disinformation like this as FACT.
As for Atta being in Prague in early April – well it could be possible that Atta used an alias, that he travelled internationally but his phone didn’t work internationally, that he gave his phone to someone else to use etc etc. But that’s not proof! That common old supposition. Lots of things COULD be possible. Bin Laden COULD have flown over himself to Prague that April, stripped naked and done a jig in Wenceslas Square at midnight as a part of a circus troupe. Doesn’t make it true. Or it could have been that the Czech security person was mistaken. Is every sighting of Atta, Bin Laden & Elvis true? Unlikely – so hence why collaborative evidence is so important. Again I’m surprise you spend anytime on such fluff. Do you really believe this to be true???
The burden of proof lies with those making such positive allegations. In the same way, the likelihood is that the Habbush Letter is faked unless there is convincing evidence otherwise – whether or not it was faked by the CIA on the orders of the White House as claimed by Ron Suskind is therefore up to Suskind to prove. Note I didn’t even bring up Susking until you did – as I’m yet to be convinced. Already ‘Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi alleged that the Pentagon was behind the forgery.’ but either way this isn’t enough proof.
Gaffa, were there “hard” and “strong” evidence… aka a smoking gun… there would be no need for debate or dissent. I did not “fail to take in the rest of your sentence”. I gave you the benefit of the doubt you weren’t that unbelievably stupid.
Don’t care about Atta in Prague, nor was my intent to cast doubt on whether he was in Prague or not. What I find more interesting was his relationship with Abu Nidal and his terrorist organization.
First of all, IMHO, I find great differences between a “letter”… ala voluntary correspondence between individuals… and a “memo”… intra-agency communiques for business purposes. But perhaps that’s another of those “Queen’s English” moments….
And surely you don’t believe that I’ve never seen this memo, nor explored this in the past… or even in the recent conversations. It’s not like it didn’t make the news, and I don’t have my archived bookmarks.
You’re just rackin’ up the “duh” moments here, aren’t you? LOL
And I certainly won’t be battling the Niger yellowcake argument yet again. Is there a “smoking gun” that Saddam did *not* try to acquire it? No. No more than there is a “smoking gun” that he did. Again, see first paragraph…. duh
But perhaps your quintessential “duh” moment is your comment:
Comparisons of national security and assessing intel… where there is rarely a smoking gun… with criminal lawsuits and evidence in a US court of law is so amazingly anal that I have no idea where to start… so I won’t. Were national security for any country to pivot on the “burden of proof” required by the US judicial system, we wouldn’t have make it past WWII.
@MataHarley
Leaving aside the stupid & the duh moments which add nothing to the debate…I believe there is plenty of debate over smoking guns or hard evidence. For instance I believe there is enough hard evidence to say that Al Qaeda caused 9/11 and yet there are plenty of people who believe that is what either caused by Bush or by Saddam!
Possibly but Abu Nidal is a sideshow – he isn’t part of Al Qaeda and I haven’t seen any decent evidence to connect him with Mohammed Atta.
Type in Habbush Letter and then type in Habbish Memo into Google – or your favourite search engine and you will see the hit rate is pretty much the same. I’m sure business and government can communicate via letter. To me that semantics and pretty much irrelevant. Main thing is that it is probably fake.
lol – I was giving you the benefit of the doubt – I hoping that maybe you weren’t so naive to know all the info about this letter/memo and then come to the conclusion that it’s a fact.
In this regards I’m not talking about US court of law (we are not dealing with people being locked up without trial here) – but what you and I consider what evidence is likely to be true and verified by reputable sources and cross checked with collobrative evidence. It appears your threshold for beliving certain evidence as fact is pretty low – or at least when it comes to evidence which support your world view;)
That’s funny… I was hoping you weren’t so naive as to just assume a journalist’s sketchy “investigative reporting” was definitive… especially in light of the gaps in Atta’s travel schedule.
I guess that makes us even, yes?