You don't know shit about Iraq

[jaguar]

Firstly, that's the same defectors that said Iraq has massive stocks of WMD. Sorry, not buying it, you this the admin is sitting on some massive secret report that somehow links them? They've been peddling every tiny bit of evidence they have and then retracting it a few weeks later once the media splashes it everywhere.

INTELLIGENCE REPORTS about the nature of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda from mid-1999 through 2003 are conflicting. One senior Iraqi intelligence officer in U.S. custody, Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, "said that the last contact between the IIS and al Qaeda was in July 1999. Bin Laden wanted to meet with Saddam, he said. The guidance sent back from Saddam's office reportedly ordered Iraqi intelligence to refrain from any further contact with bin Laden and al Qaeda. The source opined that Saddam wanted to distance himself from al Qaeda."

I think that says it all, they all started making up different stories. Every point in that article is weak, evidence flimsy and sources seriously questionable. Just because some scaremonger sees an opportunity to gather every dodgy little scrap the intel community drops doesn't mean it's true. I mean some of this stuff he may as well just be making up as he goes along.

Instead, CIA and FBI officials are methodically reviewing Iraqi intelligence files that survived the three-week war last spring. These documents would cover several miles if laid end-to-end. And they are in Arabic. They include not only connections between bin Laden and Saddam, but also revolting details of the regime's long history of brutality. It will be a slow process.

For example, how does he know that? He may as well have said it contains detailed information of Saddam's barbie collection for all the proof he has.

[Undertoad]

The 9/11 commission is reporting today that they found evidence of contacts between al-Qaida (I'm gonna use this AP spelling) and Iraq, but did not find evidence that Iraq participated in attacks against the US.

[jaguar]

Where?

[Happy Monkey]

Here.

Apparently, there were abortive gestures from each towards the other, but all were rebuffed.

[jaguar]

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.

Well gee, I take it all back UT, they were so close they were virtually in bed with each other. The US govt has had more ties to terrorist groups than Saddam.

[Undertoad]

And yet it's not exactly "They would have been arch-enemies due to their differences in Islamic theory", which was the progressive argument last year.

Connections between al-Qaida and Iraq are shown... and some AP flack decided that the lack of proof of direct assistance should be the headline?

Who decided on the word "rebuffed" when there was only a document requesting help, no return document saying "thanks but no thanks"?

Let's see, bin Laden wanted a training camp in Iraq. There were several training camps in Iraq. We find documents where "bin Laden" is actually whited out with white-out. The intel is crappy and yet we find evidence of this connection. It took over a year after the war for this one to be shown. I don't need my hand to be held on this one, do you?

[jaguar]

Yes, the intel is crappy, that doesn't mean you don't get anything, it means you get bad data. Like that Iraq has massive stockpiles of WMD. Where did these ideas ceom from? Exiled Iraqis who wanted Saddam out of power so they made up whatever would push their case forward, this is clear now.

The report also found that there was no "convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda

There is no evidence, as for those 'documents' from a cheap hack, if you think he is better informed and has more access than the entire intel establishment it's you that needs your hand held. If that article was all true it must have been missed entirely by the 9/11 commission and I assume been covered up in something of watergate proportions. Unname sources, 'well placed' sources, documents that we have no proof exist, the word of others, there's nothign solid in there, it's a pile of shit, if half of that were true it would be incendry as hell. The weekly standard is a right-wing shill and well known for it, you should try reading some real news one of these days.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Let's see, bin Laden wanted a training camp in Iraq. There were several training camps in Iraq. We find documents where "bin Laden" is actually whited out with white-out. The intel is crappy and yet we find evidence of this connection. It took over a year after the war for this one to be shown. I don't need my hand to be held on this one, do you?

You seem to have better intel than the administration. Cheney's the only one touting a connection anymore, and even he isn't willing to give evidence.

[Undertoad]

What did you say the opinion of the intel community is on this matter?

[jaguar]

I'm sure it varies but I'm yet to see anyone say with any degree of certainty or without multiple exit clauses that there are any links at all.

Let's see, bin Laden wanted a training camp in Iraq. There were several training camps in Iraq.

See look at this, you're pulling together bits of info you know little about and have no access to the primary sources for and despite the fact those with such access have claimed nothing of the sort, are trying to claim they are linked.

[Happy Monkey]

I don't believe I said anything about the opinion of the intel community. But if they had any evidence, I would certainly expect the administration to be touting it.

[lookout123]

Originally posted by Catwoman
. In a hostage situation (which this escalating crisis is effectively becoming) do you give in to the demands of the kidnapper? Do you at least listen to them without letting pride get in the way?

if they are "kidnappers" - HELL NO. you don't listen to kidnappers to see if there is a good reason for it. that ranks up there with thinking we should care why a child molestor screws kids.

if a white guy in denver started kidnapping people and threatening to kill them would you feel we need to listen to the "why"?

[jaguar]

This is not some white guy in denver though is it.
Lets face it, every terrorist/resistance/rebel army exists because there is some kind of grevience with whoever is in charge, the problem can almost enver be solved militarily without first solving the issue to some degree, in most cases there is some validity as well. While whoever kidnapped and behaded the guy should be dealt with, dealing with the root cause is paramount to stopping it happening it again and far more effective tham more security.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, it isn't some guy in Denver. It's some scumbag that's sick of dating goats in his loser village and succumbs to the bullshit that it all our fault. Believes a jihad against the great satan will win points with allah and get him out of his parents house. Oh what a splendid adventure it will be. Hey maybe terrorists have groupies. Certainly after the great satan has been vanquished there will be rewards. Beats dating goats.:p

[God]

Originally posted by lumberjim
we could ask jeeves?

I bet GOD knows. let's ask Him!

c'mon, slang

Sorry for entering the debate so late, I was implanting some wisdom into the hearts and minds of the Supreme Court.


Any----way....I have been receiving a lot of prayers about Iraq. And even I dont_know_shit_about it.


My time is valuable. I't be better spent on other critical issues like rigging the presidential election.

May pieces be with you,

THE God