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

Your 9/11 commission beliefs are shaky at best.

Here's one from Rummy himself, today:



That's from Rumsfeld, who I have no doubt has much more access to intelligence information than you ever will, Icann.

Here he is explaining his past claims:



So, he's claiming that the evidence now does not support such a conclusion. This directly contradicts your claims, Icann.



Now he's claiming that Zargawi isn't even a member of AQ.

Your case gets worse and worse, Icann... I don't suppose you are going to argue that you, in some way, have more access to telling information than Rumsfeld does?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html

Cycloptichorn

I've learned as a child that liars must have good memories. It seems Bush and his minions has both bad memories and lies constantly. Unfortunately, most repugs still don't believe that.

Cyclop, this has been known for some time. It is thought that Z had tenuous contacts with Al-qaeda in the past. The latest credible account I read says that he is a loner and has created his own group of terrorist/followers.

So, we have a tenuous connection between Saddam and Zarqawi, who had a tenuous connection to AQ?

As I've said before. Our own CIA has stronger connections to AQ than Iraq does!

Cycloptichorn

but wait guys! it gets better;

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Monday conceded that U.S. intelligence was wrong in its conclusions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Asked about a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda,

Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

A short time later, Rumsfeld appeared to backtrack, releasing the following statement:

"A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) regarding ties between al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.

"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between al Qaeda and Iraq." (Full story)


bremer / rumsfeld


FLIP......FLOP......

Joe, I am unable to access the article via this link without joining up with this service. Please post a copy of what you think is most pertinent to this discussion.

Generally, I consider the NYT, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe and the Los Angeles Times to be unreliable sources. I base that on what I judge to be the lack of validity of too much of what they published on our topic here since January 2003. They, too, suffer greviously from what I now call the Dan Rather Syndrome.

The debate problem here as I see it, is that we trust different and conflicting sources for our evidence. I recognize that I cannot even prove to my satisfaction, much less to anyone else's, that my sources are more valid and the conflicting ones are less valid. However, too many here act as if the validity of their particular sources have been proven valid. They have not. In many cases the evidence is compelling that many of these sources are invalid.

So what is my basic foundation for my repeated allegation that the Saddams sheltered al Qaeda? It's consists of logical analysis of the implications of alledged facts which appear to me to not be in dispute, plus sources that discuss and analyze the implications of these alledged facts.

>After we invaded Afghanistan, some al Qaeda fled Afghanistan. Most initially fled to Pakistan whose government subsequently refused to shelter them. Some of these subsequently fled Pakistan for other countries in the area.

>Some of those al Qaeda that fled Pakistan, fled to Saudi Arabia whose government subsequently refused to shelter them. Some of these fled to other countries whose governments did not refuse to shelter them.

>Zarqawi and fellow terrorists were sheltered in a camp in northern Iraq both before and after 9/11/2001.

>Osama in his 1998 Fatwa alleged that his grievance against Americans was partly caused by what Americans had done to Iraq in 1998 and before.

Those sources that openly and rationally discuss the consequences of these apparently undisputed facts have greater credibilty to me than those that don't. Those sources allege many of the al Qaeda that fled Afghanistan and subsequent countries ended up in Iraq before we invaded Iraq.

That seems to me to be a logical consequence of such fleeing.

Do I think I proved anything by what I am posting here? No! Do I nevertheless think some of those al Qaeda that fled Afghanistan probably ultimately fled to Iraq before we invaded Iraq? Yes!

Here's an excellent example of where you and others here lose contact with reality. I will for now believe Rumsfeld believes what you quoted here. We'll see whether he actually does or not.

But let's examine it for its true logical consequences. Rumsfeld says he has not seen any "strong, hard evidence that links the two (i.e., al Qaeda and Saddams)."

Cyclo: That quote is not equivalent to:

>I have not seen any evidence that links the two;
>I have not seen any credible evidence that links the two;
>There is zero evidence that links the two.

In other words the absence of "strong, hard evidence" is not equivalent to the absence of evidence.

I infer you think that the US should constrain what actions it chooses to take to that which it has "strong, hard evidence" to support. If the US actually adopted that tactic and always waited for "strong, hard evidence" before it acted, it would soon cease to exist. Hell, if anyone adopted that tactic one would soon cease to exist. If we were to repeatedly wait for "strong, hard evidence," events would over take us and leave us with nothing more than failure, injury or death plus maybe spontaneous reactions chosen with zero evidence to back up those reactions.

At this point, I don't know (and I bet you don't know either) why Rumsfeld believes he has more reason to believe the new intelligence than he does the old. Exactly what is it about the new intelligence that makes it more credible than the old? Does his new intelligence consist of "strong, hard evidence?" If so, what is it?

Do you have "strong, hard evidence" that this is true, or is this merely conjecture? We don't have to have the strongest evidence for everything we do; just major wars that cost billions of dollars and thousands of innocent lives.

And yes, I am advocating that we have strong, hard evidence before we go to war. I believe that everyone in the current Bush Admin would agree with me, and most of those who advocate us going to war pre-emptively agree with this as well.



You're right, I don't know for sure. All I can go off of is what they say - that the intelligence community now believes differently.

My personal supposition is that the intelligence we had before was proven to be severely 'flawed' which is a nice word for 'wrong.' That's been bourne out, and Rumsfeld knows it, so now we are trying to go with the new intelligence. We'll see if it bears out.

Nevertheless; YES, we needed strong evidence in order to justify an attack. We don't have that evidence. You need strong evidence to support your argument if you want it to be a strong argument, Icann. You don't have that evidence.

Rumsfeld is now saying that Zarqawi (the man your argument relies upon) may not even be in AQ. While this doesn't mean he isn't, you shouldn't assume he is, and build your argument around it as if it was a fact.

Cycloptichorn

ican - got any suggestions as to why Rumsfeld said that if he didn't believe it?

it's on almost constant media rotation, so i'm pretty sure you've heard or seen it. it was enough to make an entire lunchroom crack up in laughter here today.

No, I do not have "strong, hard evidence" that this is true. In fact the only things I have "strong, hard evidence" for are the things that I know have already happened. For example the only way I can obtain "strong, hard evidence" that lightening will strike me dead if I stand under yonder tree during the current thunderstorm here, is to stand under yonder tree and wait there for the storm to strike me dead before it passes. On the other hand, the only way I will have "strong, hard evidence" that I'm safe where I am during this storm is wait for the storm to pass and not strike me dead.

But I do have considerable anecdotal evidence that I will more probably survive if I stay where I am than if I stand under yonder tree.

Let's look at global warming. Do we have "strong, hard evidence" that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are causing global warming? No! Do we have "strong, hard evidence" that increases in the sun's radiation since the last ice are causing global warming? No! We don't even have "strong, hard evidence" that the globe is warming!

Back to Iraq! We do have considerable anecdotal evidence that the Saddams were harboring terrorists. And we do have considerable anecdotal evidence that these terrorist killed people including Americans both before and after 9/11/2001. So I jump to the conclusion, without "strong, hard evidence," that these terrorists were a threat to the security of Americans, are a threat to Americans and would have probably been an increasing threat to Americans. So I say exterminate 'em before they can exterminate us.

For those interested in body counts, we can sort out those terrorist corpses that are al Qaedan and those that are not al Qaedan. But why would any rational person give a damn whether Zarqawi is or was or will be an al Qaedan? Doesn't he have to be exterminated regardless? Didn't the invasion of Iraq have to occur to make it more likely that Zarqawi and gang would be exterminated and not continued to be sheltered to kill more Americans?.

Finally, I think you are combining two issues in your mind that you should keep separate. The first issue is what shall we do to secure Americans? The second issue is whom shall we elect president November 2nd? Once you decide what you want done to secure Americans, then you can rationally contemplate which is the candidate most likely to do what you want, or, if you like, which candidate is the less likely to make things worse.

Rumsfeld said he didn't have any "strong, hard evidence" to link the Saddams and al Qaeda. Then he said (I paraphrase) he was misunderstood and thought there was evidence of such a link. As I previously posted to Cyclo: not having any "strong, hard evidence" is not equivalent to not having any evidence. The media and too many here seem not to understand that logic, that's why I currently trust the judgment of both little.

Without "strong hard evidence" we were not justified to attack Iraq in a preemptive strike that killed over 10,000 innocent people no matter how you twist the words.

First, it was a counter-attack not a pre-emptive strike. We had already been struck several times while waiting for "strong hard evidence."

Second, if we had waited longer for "strong hard evidence" there was too high a risk that more would have died if we waited for "strong hard evidence" than would die if we counter attacked promptly.

Right there is illustrated another problem the media and many here have. They think about choices only in terms of absolutes, when most choices warrant thinking only in relatives. Of the choices, generally available to any of us, the net consequences of some are judgeable only in terms of more or less favorable than others. In other words, life is in deed unfair absolutely, but more or less fair relatively.

Ican writes:


This struck me as rather profound. I wonder if we had been presented of a list of 'do's and don'ts' re response to terrorism, dealing with Iraq, targeting Al Qaida, etc. and didn't now who proposed or was doing the items on the list, would we oppose or support the same things on the list as we do now?

How much of our personal ideology about these things is related to a dislike or support of a President/administration that we oppose or support? How many of our convictions do we force to 'fit' the person we have chosen to support? How much do we rationalize the words our chosen candidate says in order to not oppose him?

(I'm using the collective metaphorical 'we' here of course.)

In other words, don't criticize any of my actions, because "I" made the judgement to attack with 135,000 troops.

Honey, not even George Bush agrees with you on this, so I don't know who you're going to find to vote for.

ehBeth, It's useless telling necons that Osama attacked the US and not Saddam. They have that burned into their brains.

evidence =facts available as proof; (in law) information given personally or drawn from document to prove fact, witness, give evidence against one's accomplices (a.t OXFORD DICTIONARY)

Source

From: [Wall Street Journal reporter] Farnaz Fassihi
Subject: From Baghdad

Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest. Forget about the reasons that lured me to this job: a chance to see the world, explore the exotic, meet new people in far away lands, discover their ways and tell stories that could make a difference.

Little by little, day-by-day, being based in Iraq has defied all those reasons. I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't. There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a security personnel first, a reporter second.

It's hard to pinpoint when the 'turning point' exactly began. Was it April when the Fallujah fell out of the grasp of the Americans? Was it when Moqtada and Jish Mahdi declared war on the U.S. military? Was it when Sadr City, home to ten percent of Iraq's population, became a nightly battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency began spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to include most of Iraq? Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come.

Iraqis like to call this mess 'the situation.' When asked 'how are thing?' they reply: 'the situation is very bad."

What they mean by situation is this: the Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities, there are several car bombs going off each day around the country killing and injuring scores of innocent people, the country's roads are becoming impassable and littered by hundreds of landmines and explosive devices aimed to kill American soldiers, there are assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings. The situation, basically, means a raging barbaric guerilla war. In four days, 110 people died and over 300 got injured in Baghdad alone. The numbers are so shocking that the ministry of health -- which was attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the numbers -- has now stopped disclosing them.

Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day.

A friend drove thru the Shiite slum of Sadr City yesterday. He said young men were openly placing improvised explosive devices into the ground. They melt a shallow hole into the asphalt, dig the explosive, cover it with dirt and put an old tire or plastic can over it to signal to the locals this is booby-trapped. He said on the main roads of Sadr City, there were a dozen landmines per every ten yards. His car snaked and swirled to avoid driving over them. Behind the walls sits an angry Iraqi ready to detonate them as soon as an American convoy gets near. This is in Shiite land, the population that was supposed to love America for liberating Iraq.

For journalists the significant turning point came with the wave of abduction and kidnappings. Only two weeks ago we felt safe around Baghdad because foreigners were being abducted on the roads and highways between towns. Then came a frantic phone call from a journalist female friend at 11 p.m. telling me two Italian women had been abducted from their homes in broad daylight. Then the two Americans, who got beheaded this week and the Brit, were abducted from their homes in a residential neighborhood. They were supplying the entire block with round the clock electricity from their generator to win friends. The abductors grabbed one of them at 6 a.m. when he came out to switch on the generator; his beheaded body was thrown back near the neighborhoods.

The insurgency, we are told, is rampant with no signs of calming down. If any thing, it is growing stronger, organized and more sophisticated every day. The various elements within it-baathists, criminals, nationalists and Al Qaeda-are cooperating and coordinating.

I went to an emergency meeting for foreign correspondents with the military and embassy to discuss the kidnappings. We were somberly told our fate would largely depend on where we were in the kidnapping chain once it was determined we were missing. Here is how it goes: criminal gangs grab you and sell you up to Baathists in Fallujah, who will in turn sell you to Al Qaeda. In turn, cash and weapons flow the other way from Al Qaeda to the Baathisst to the criminals. My friend Georges, the French journalist snatched on the road to Najaf, has been missing for a month with no word on release or whether he is still alive.

America's last hope for a quick exit? The Iraqi police and National Guard units we are spending billions of dollars to train. The cops are being murdered by the dozens every day-over 700 to date -- and the insurgents are infiltrating their ranks. The problem is so serious that the U.S. military has allocated $6 million dollars to buy out 30,000 cops they just trained to get rid of them quietly.

As for reconstruction: firstly it's so unsafe for foreigners to operate that almost all projects have come to a halt. After two years, of the $18 billion Congress appropriated for Iraq reconstruction only about $1 billion or so has been spent and a chunk has now been reallocated for improving security, a sign of just how bad things are going here.

Oil dreams? Insurgents disrupt oil flow routinely as a result of sabotage and oil prices have hit record high of $49 a barrel. Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer because Saddam is holed up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq?

Iraqis say that thanks to America they got freedom in exchange for insecurity. Guess what? They say they'd take security over freedom any day, even if it means having a dictator ruler.

I heard an educated Iraqi say today that if Saddam Hussein were allowed to run for elections he would get the majority of the vote. This is truly sad.

Then I went to see an Iraqi scholar this week to talk to him about elections here. He has been trying to educate the public on the importance of voting. He said, "President Bush wanted to turn Iraq into a democracy that would be an example for the Middle East. Forget about democracy, forget about being a model for the region, we have to salvage Iraq before all is lost."

One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle.

The Iraqi government is talking about having elections in three months while half of the country remains a 'no go zone'-out of the hands of the government and the Americans and out of reach of journalists. In the other half, the disenchanted population is too terrified to show up at polling stations. The Sunnis have already said they'd boycott elections, leaving the stage open for polarized government of Kurds and Shiites that will not be deemed as legitimate and will most certainly lead to civil war.

I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"

-Farnaz