The Mother of All Connections

I'm frustrated. I printed out all 18 pages and read it. I can't find any evidence in it at all. Help me out here.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

I'm frustrated. I printed out all 18 pages and read it. I can't find any evidence in it at all. Help me out here.

Try taking off your "libby" colored glasses, GF. Not saying it's surefire, but couldn't hurt.

0 Replies

Glad they're finally saying it. Impressive, thorough, undeniable.

0 Replies

I've some other definition of 'evidence', but I suppose, e.g. Tico (and any other lawyer) would use expressions like "undeniable" in court quite often to strengthen his case. :wink:

Nevertheless, I wonder, what's really on this.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
I'm frustrated. I printed out all 18 pages and read it. I can't find any evidence in it at all. Help me out here.

Try taking off your "libby" colored glasses, GF. Not saying it's surefire, but couldn't hurt.

Not that at all Tico - I suppose I'm used to dealing with evidence as facts which are settled and proven to exist and from which can be drawn valid inferences. When I read inferences drawn from speculation I simply can't treat the product as evidence. I mean I checked to see if Tom Clancy was writing for this magazine but no, it was one of their writers and and economist who wrote it.

But I will give it another try. I will work through my printed copy and highlight evidence according to the accepted defintion. By the time I've done that though I would imagine that this piece will have been flashed around the globe, it would have been in Congress and various Parliaments. By the time I have finished with my highlighter Bush will be beaming with victory, his hypothesis proven at last. Tony Blair may well decide to stand for another term having been completely vindicated by this piece. Damn good thing I'm not a writer for the Weekly Standard or an economist, I'm too slow to get the good news out.

Oh well, back to trawling through this stuff looking for facts. Looking for evidence. Or should I just wait for the New York Times splash on this when they get onto it?

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
goodfielder wrote:
I'm frustrated. I printed out all 18 pages and read it. I can't find any evidence in it at all. Help me out here.

Try taking off your "libby" colored glasses, GF. Not saying it's surefire, but couldn't hurt.

Not that at all Tico - I suppose I'm used to dealing with evidence as facts which are settled and proven to exist and from which can be drawn valid inferences. When I read inferences drawn from speculation I simply can't treat the product as evidence. I mean I checked to see if Tom Clancy was writing for this magazine but no, it was one of their writers and and economist who wrote it.

But I will give it another try. I will work through my printed copy and highlight evidence according to the accepted defintion. By the time I've done that though I would imagine that this piece will have been flashed around the globe, it would have been in Congress and various Parliaments. By the time I have finished with my highlighter Bush will be beaming with victory, his hypothesis proven at last. Tony Blair may well decide to stand for another term having been completely vindicated by this piece. Damn good thing I'm not a writer for the Weekly Standard or an economist, I'm too slow to get the good news out.

Oh well, back to trawling through this stuff looking for facts. Looking for evidence. Or should I just wait for the New York Times splash on this when they get onto it?

Well, good luck. But I'm not sure what you mean by "accepted defintion." Remember that circumstantial evidence is admissible in a court of law -- at least it is in my neck of the woods.

0 Replies

Cool Tico -

Karl Rove e-mailed a reporter - he reported and others eventually outed a CIA officer.

I guess Rove is guilty. The circumstantial evidence would certainly hint at it. Wink

TTF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

Cool Tico -

Karl Rove e-mailed a reporter - he reported and others eventually outed a CIA officer.

I guess Rove is guilty. The circumstantial evidence would certainly hint at it.

TTF

Guilty of what, exactly? Again, the circumstantial evidence is helpful for adducing facts, but that doesn't address the whole "has a law actually been broken" question. But, that's one function of the Grand Jury. :wink:

But of course there is the whole burden of proof issue. What standard ought be applied here? The criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"? What about "clear and convincing"? Perhaps "preponderance of the evidence" is sufficient?

0 Replies

From Tico:

Quote:

Remember that circumstantial evidence is admissible in a court of law -- at least it is in my neck of the woods

Here too Tico (just as well to I might add). I don't want to sound sniffy and dismissive but the article, interesting as it is, is too full of weasel phrases to be convincing. I mean the article itself doesn't have to be measured by the standard we would apply to a criminal trial but for me it fails in its efforts at persuasion. It's convoluted, it fails to make a clear case, it meanders, it sneaks, it hints, it raises its eyebrows and points but in the end it fails.

And that was with my Lib glasses off :wink:

As an aside the issue of admissibility of evidence in Australia is an interesting one - it really gives the judge much discretion (couple of High Court cases on it that are a good read).

0 Replies

Well, GF, it is a long read, and there is a lot to digest, but it's quite plain to me there was a connection.

Let's just take a look at a one passage, shall we? You can give me your take on it if you'd like. Let me know whether you think the statement -- standing alone, not even taken as a whole with the rest of the article -- is: (A) inaccurate, or (B) just doesn't give rise to establishing a "connection" between Saddam Hussein, Iraq and Al Qaeda:

Quote:

On February 3, 1998, Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, came to Baghdad for meetings with Iraqi leaders. The visit came as Islamic radicals gathered once again in the Iraqi capital for another installation of Hussein's Popular Islamic Conferences. Iraqi vice president Taha Yasin Ramadan welcomed them on February 9 with the language of jihad:

T[i]he Islamic nation's ulema, advocates and preachers, are called upon to carry out a jihad that God wants them to carry out through honest words in order to expose the U.S. and Zionist regimes to the world peoples, to explain facts, and to say what is right and to call for it. This is their religious duty. The Muslim ulema are called upon before Almighty God to act among the Muslim ranks to confront the infidel U.S. moves and to raise their voices against the U.S.-Zionist evil[/i].

We do not have reporting on when, exactly, Zawahiri left Baghdad. But we do know from an interrogation of a senior Iraqi Intelligence official that he did not leave empty-handed. As first reported in U.S. News & World Report, the Iraqi regime gave Zawahiri $300,000 during or shortly after his trip to Baghdad.

Iraq gave Al Qaeda $300,000 at this one meeting.

I could post more examples from the article, but where to stop? One just leads to another. If you can read this entire article and not walk away convinced of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, you are not wanting to see one.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Iraq gave Al Qaeda $300,000 at this one meeting. ["gave Zawahiri"/"during or shortly after"]

You can't have got this from your quote, because
a) it isn't said there
b) that quote is only referring to hearsay and a newspaper article, which might be hearsay as well

Quote:

We do not have reporting on when, exactly, Zawahiri left Baghdad. But we do know from an interrogation of a senior Iraqi Intelligence official that he did not leave empty-handed. As first reported in U.S. News & World Report, the Iraqi regime gave Zawahiri $300,000 during or shortly after his trip to Baghdad.

But I will read up the comments in the media and by the WH.

0 Replies

The Weekly Standard article Tico quoted, wrote:

We do not have reporting on when, exactly, Zawahiri left Baghdad. But we do know from an interrogation of a senior Iraqi Intelligence official that he did not leave empty-handed. As first reported in U.S. News & World Report, the Iraqi regime gave Zawahiri $300,000 during or shortly after his trip to Baghdad.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Tico wrote:
Iraq gave Al Qaeda $300,000 at this one meeting. ["gave Zawahiri"/"during or shortly after"]

You can't have got this from your quote, because
a) it isn't said there

What do you think is wrong about my analysis of the quote, Walter? You have a problem with my equating "during or shortly after" to "at this one meeting"? Fine ... let's assume it was not during, but was shortly after. You know, I'm aware of your zealousness for trying to point out what you view to be mistakes made by some posters, even mind-numbingly inconsequential ones, but please tell me ... what's your point?

Quote:

b) that quote is only referring to hearsay and a newspaper article, which might be hearsay as well

So you think it is an inaccurate report in U.S. News & World Report? Or you just don't know whether it's accurate or not .. but it's a newspaper report, and you don't find them convincing? Please do advise.

0 Replies

Well, you got my "a)" point.

And 'yes', I don't know anything about the interrogation of that secret agent, how valuable it is, how trustworthy (I mean, there have even been some reports by e.g. the CIA which were a bit besides what actually happened).

And 'yes', I don't know wether the USNoW report is correct or not (all other media mentionings only refer to it).

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, you got my "a)" point.

No, I didn't, and you didn't state it. ... and I gather you aren't going to. Pretty much par for the course if you don't, I might add.

0 Replies

The Mother of All Connections

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know