THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

"Contacts between Iraq (news - web sites) and al Qaeda in the 1990s never led to a formal relationship and there is no evidence Iraq helped conduct an al Qaeda attack."

formal relationship? You mean they just lived together and never actually were married? The absence of evidence is not proof of absence!(Einstein) Maybe it was a common-law marriage.

For the Senate Committee not to have found evidence of a formal relationship begs the whole question.

The question is not: Did Saddam have a formal relationship with Osama?
The question is not whether Saddam helped Osama conduct an al Qaeda attack.

The question is: Did Saddam help finance, train and equip al Qaeda? The answer is probably yes with a high enough probability to warrant Saddam's removal!

C.I. the 9/11 commission did not deny a link between al Qaida and Saddam. The Senate intelligence committee doesn't deny a link between al Qaida and Saddam. Both, and the Bush Administration, agree that there is no link between Saddam and 9/11. You simply cannot read all the evidence that is out there and come to the conclusion that al Qaida has not been involved in Iraq.

Edited to add qualifier: they have not found EVIDENCE that there is a connection between Saddam and 9/11.

Good god, the Martians have landed in the U.S.
Must check Google.

Fox, You can't find evidence of my connection either. duh......

Senate intelligence knows everything? No evidence means not true? Huh. The lack of evidence linking Meir Lansky to Charlie Luciano must make Meir Lansky a falsely accused innocent man then. Terrible.

From Foxfyre's PBS link (which is just full of gems)

Good morning, everyone.

Al-Quaida smashed up three buildings. We smashed up a country, and it wasn't even Al-Quaida's country.

Saturday, July 10, 2004

Fatal Mortar Duels in Baghdad, Samarra
Senate Tries to Make CIA the Fall Guy

Correpondents in Iraq report that guerrillas launched mortar fire at the area around Sadeer Hotel, a favorite of foreigners on Friday. They killed a child and wounded three hotel guards. In Samarra to the north of Baghdad, mortar fire took the lives of two Iraqis and wounded a third. Local residents accused the US of firing the mortars. Near Fallujah, guerrillas fired reocket propelled grenades at a US military convoy, managing to set one truck afire.

The Senate intelligence committee (which is dominated by Republicans) released a report on Friday that blames the CIA for the bad intelligence on Iraq that led to the war. It appears to have aimed at exonerating George W. Bush, who ispresented as having been deceived by poor intelligence and bad judgment calls inside the Agency.

But the CIA wasn't as irresponsible as the Bush administration and the Pentagon. For instance, CIA director George Tenet refused to sign off on the Niger uranium purchase story that Bush wanted in his 2003 State of the Union address. Because of Tenet's opposition, Bush had to source the story to British intelligence instead. Stephen Hadley, deputy national security adviser and a Trojan Horse working with Scooter Libby of Dick Cheney's staff to get up an Iraq war, signed off on the inclusion of the passage.

This story tells me that the rush to war was not coming from the CIA, which does not make policy, but from elements in the Bush administration and from the president himself. The aneddote is telling because it reveals the fault lines. There were things Tenet would not sign onto, but which Bush and Hadley and Libby would. Ipso facto, the morass is their fault, not solely or even mainly Tenet's.

posted by Juan @ 7/10/2004 08:30:20 AM


http://juancole.com/

Who answered this question "probably yes"?

The Bush administration, especially Wolfowitz and Cheney, have tried to stretch any thin indication of contact into a full blown assistance program. Never happened.

But just for the fun of it -- who was the biggest help to al Qaeda in terms of finance, training space and equipment, and thereby must deserve the full might of the US to come down upon them?

Saddam?
No. Not the biggest, not the foremost, not even on anyone's top ten list except Bush's.
The Taliban?
Well, yeah, they had plenty of space but not a lot of cash laying around for equipment and we ran them out of town with only 11,000 troops.

So where did all that money for planning, recruiting and equipment come from? Saddam?

uh.. again... no.

Ask Prince Bandar.

Joe Nation

Saddam (Directly into camera, stern faced, emphatically, punctuating each word with angry finger-pointing): "I - did - not - have - a -relationship - with - that - terrorist, Osama Bin Laden."

Voice from offstage: "Hey, isn't this Osama's burnoose? And what's up with all these stains on it?"

Bomb squad humor .....

hahaha! What a riot Gelisgesti!

Boy, I remember, way back, thinking, "Aah, I see how this is going, when all is said and done, they're gonna blame the CIA instead of the admin!" And hey, I was right again! These guys really are predictable.

Okay everybody, I'm going to type this REAL SLOW so everybody can follow:

1. There is no evidence (yet) that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.

2. There is evidence that al Qaida was involved in 9/11.

3. There is evidence, supported by most, that there has been contact between al Qaida and Iraq and there has been the presence of al Qaida in Iraq.

Believing No. 3 is NOT the same things as saying that No. 3 is pertinent to No. 1 or No. 2. Let's separate 9/11 from the al Qaida/Iraqi connection, and we'll use up a lot less space on the message board. Some seem unable to understand that simple fact however.

"There is evidence, supported by most, that there has been contact between al Qaida and Iraq and there has been the presence of al Qaida in Iraq."

Yeah, Northern iraq. Here's another, Foxfyre:
Al Qaida: religious fanatics. Saddam: Not religious.
Generally, the two don't mix.
But are you saying that this "proof" that AlQaida was in Iraq is reason enough to attack Iraq?

Foxfyre

What is, in your opinion, the difference between an and an ?

evidere = to see clearly

Interesting reasoning.
Now, since we all know there were, and Tom Ridge suggests there are some now/or will be shortly, (click) Al-Quaeda operatives in the U.S., I guess this means the coalition better attack the U.S., and re-establish democracy.


I think that works nicely with Foxfyre's reasoning.

Works fine for me.

Walter, as some keep insisting that belief in Saddam's WMD was not universal, I will leave room for a handful of people who actually did live in a cave and who actually didn't see all the 'evidence' of Saddam's WMD. Therefore, I am qualifying my opinion of the evidence that existed at the time as being supported by most. That leaves room for any who want the testimony of a tiny minority to be the one that should have decided the issue.

That allows the Canadian Prime Minister to be one of the cave dwellers, though if all Canadians in fact believed Saddam did not have WMD, why did it continue to vote for inspections for years and years when it WAS a member of the Security Council?

I'm just trying to be diplomatic here.

Why do you go for regular "inspections" to the doctor, dentist?

Suzy asks:


Iraq was attacked because it was, in the opinion of the U.S. and the U.K., the next logical target in the war against terrorism. The belief at the time was that Saddam Hussein harbored and financed terrorists, and that he himself supported and participated in terrorism. And it was believed, by most, that he possessed and given a chance would use WMD. That is why Iraq was attacked.

Now that subsequent intelligence calls into question some of the beliefs that were held at the time is moot. The belief at the time is the belief that is pertinent here.

And subsequent intelligence/evidence or however you wish to define it does not change the fact that the Iraqi invasion has an excellent chance of being good for Iraq, good for the U.S. and the U.K. and other coaltion members, for the Middle East, and the world.

We probably did invade for the wrong reasons. But in my opinion, the motives were sufficient. So, in my opinion, the most constructive policy at this juncture is 1) learn from the mistake and 2) continue to make a silk purse from the sow's ear.