Re: aw
ican711nm wrote:According to my best intelligence (which you are of course also free to question) the following is true:
1. Saddam helped finance and equip Palestinian terrorists;
2. Osama declared Saddam an infidel prior to 9/11/2001 but did not terrorize Saddam (or any member of his government or any Iraqi citizen) as a consequence.
3. A Boeing 727 fuselage and training site was discovered in northern Iraq;
4. Saddam defrauded the UN Oil-for-Food Program and distributed $billions of Iraqi oil revenue to both secret and non-secret accounts all around the world;
5. Some members of Al Qaeda fled Afghanistan after the US entry into Afghanistan, and through Iran entered Iraq to join up with other Al Qaeda in Iraq who were there prior to the US entry into Afghanistan and Iraq;
6. More Al Qaeda went into Iraq after the US entry into Iraq;
7. Al Qaeda members met with members of Saddam's government prior to 9/11/2001;
8. Osama and Saddam hated Americans and did not willingly share intelligence with the US -- In other words, they tried to keep secrets from the US (we too late learned of when they succeeded).
With the aid of a little probabilistic inference, one can rationally infer that Saddam was secretly financing and equipping some terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, around the world.
Thats quite a LOT of probabilistic inference. Most of the points you mention in NO way imply the conclusion you suggest. Tick them off:
- How does the fact that Saddam financed Palestinian terrorists imply that he "was secretly financing and equipping"
Al Qaeda around the world"?
- How does the assumption that al Qaeda "did not terrorize Saddam" mean Saddam must therefore have
financed and equipped them?
- How does the fact that Saddam defrauded the UN Oil-for-Food Program and siphoned off the loot to his secret accounts mean that he must have been financing
Al Qaeda with it (as opposed to, say, stuff his own pockets with it, like every other dictator)?
- How does the fact that "More Al Qaeda went into Iraq
after the US entry into Iraq" - i.e., when Saddam wasn't even in power anymore - imply that he must have been equipping them?
- How does the fact that "Saddam did not willingly share intelligence with the US"- he kept secrets from us! - mean that he must have been financing Al-Qaeda? (Hint: most countries in the world do not willingly share intelligence with states they disagree with).
All of these points you're suggesting are just you blowing hot air - nothing that supports it except for your personal theory that it would "only be logical". Nothing probabilistic about your inferences.
That leaves you with 3), 5) and 7). This is the stuff the commission has been looking into, right? It concluded that there
were contacts, but that they never led to anything. Now they had access to the intel and, consisting of both Republicans and Democrats, did not have a common cause to be pushing for regarding the matter. The Bush admin had access to the intel as well, but also a clear desire to see its own plans confirmed in it. And then there's you. I choose to trust the Commission on this, thanks.
