Also from the Hersh article…
By implication, visceral hatred of Saddam is irrational. Like the NYT’s Duranty before him, Hersh will be remembered as a less-than-useful idiot.
Since you obviously missed the point by a country mile, Milum, let me spell it out for you: any policy that bears any resemblance to “we can ignore international law and unilaterally invade Country X because it is led by a loonie” cannot work, because no one has the authority to declare which leaders are loonies and which leaders are not.
The only person who might have the authority to make this kind of judgment is God, but last I heard (and despite what many religious fundamentalists might think) He hasn’t given George W. Bush any such authority for “pre-emptive” war.
Capesh?
Shouldn’t this be Capisce? ?
It’s a pity this is GD and not the Pit.
Anyway, what exactly is your problem with the bit you quoted? Hersh didn’t say that the visceral hatred of Saddam was irrational, he quoted an ambassador who was surprised at the visceral hatred of Saddam coming from some people in the Clinton administration. The implication, if any, was that visceral hatred of Saddam caused irrational behaviour. Like lying about evidence and advocating military responses to things that never happened.
Gee, a lot’s changed in the ten years since Hersh wrote that, hasn’t it.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, there was no possibility of any further evidence being produced - the guy that “confessed” was executed.
Post invasion, the U.S. has access to the records and to the people who would have been involved in this, had it ever occurred. No one’s said anything about it, have they? Because there’s no new evidence.
I think there’s as much truth in the assassination story as there is in the Niger yellow cake story. That is, none whatsoever.
Even Hersh acknowledges that at best, his investigation’s evidence is as good as the US DOJ’s evidence. This is a claim that I find rather laughable, as Hersh is a reporter, and an ideologically biased one at that.
You can rarely be 100% certain when it comes to foreign nations doing naughty things. There is almost always a reasonable doubt. Clinton used the information he had, and judged that Iraq had probably been behind the assassination attempt(the fact that there was one is beyond dispute, the only question is who tried to do it). Perhaps he was wrong, but if I have to make a judgement call, I’ll side with Clinton and Reno over Seymour Hersh and Saddam Hussein any day. In terms of reliability and qualifications to conduct such an investigation, they easily are the better source as to who probably did what.
Okay, all opinions of the man aside, don’t you think this is one heck of a confession:
“Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability,”
And this isn’t the first time he’s said something along those lines. If he wakes up the US and the rest of the West to the fact that we have an obligation to these peoples, after years of supporting their dictators, isn’t that a good thing?
Rather than start “Yet Another Bush Bashing Thread,” I’ll just ask here for clarification and either side can have a go at getting to the heart of this.
According to the Nov. 24 issue of Time magazine,
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031124-543724,00.html?cnn=yes
Aside from Time’s obvious editorial comment, aren’t these some of the guys from the “most wanted” deck of cards? Does this mean that we are both figuratively and literally not playing with a full deck?
In terms of reliability and qualifications to conduct such an investigation, they easily are the better source as to who probably did what.
I don’t think you can say that. After all, you are talking about the head of the country with its hand dipped in 101 political issues around the globe. It’s not simply a matter of Govt.(Qualifications) -> Investigation -> Results, rather Govt.(Qualifications) -> Investigations(Politics) -> Political Filter -> Media -> Results
In the end, I would guess, ordinary people don’t know what really transpires most of the time. Judgement of politics is mostly a matter of gut instincts coupled with evaluation of media reported information.
True, but all that Hersh did was state the obvious: there is some doubt. I guess that’s valuable to know for people who thought the case was ironclad, but it does not do much for the poster’s case that it Hussein was not behind it. There is evidence he was behind it, just not enough for a court of law, for what it’s worth.
No, that’s a fundamental misrepresentation.
The evidence at the time came from questionable sources. There’s been no new evidence produced, despite the U.S. having access to the records and staff of Iraq.
I accept now that Woolsey lied his ass off about the Iraq->9/11 connection. I’d like at least some evidence that Woolsey wasn’t lying his ass off about the assassination attempt as well.
Whoa now, the DOJ had access to the suspects and the car with the explosives. They did not just get this from Kuwaiti hearsay.
When did Woolsey say Iraq was behind 9/11?
Do you live under a fuckin’ rock, adaher? Former CIA director suspects Iraq’s involvement in Sept. 11 attacks. Or try googling “woolsey iraq prague”. The guy made up a supposed meeting between Mohammed Atta and Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-An, an Iraqi goverment official, in April 2000. Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged
Got any evidence for that?
Nobody ‘made up’ this meeting. There was plenty of intelligence suggesting it occured. And it was later shown that the evidence that Atta was in the U.S. at the time was incorrect.
The Prague meeting has not been debunked. Neither have many other contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq. In fact, there is plenty of solid evidence of communications between the two.
What IS disputed is what that communication means. Does it mean they were cooperating, or does it mean that al-Qaida sought help and was refused? That’s what’s unknown, and why many in the intelligence service didn’t want the evidence of links used to categorically state that the two groups were cooperating.
Here’s a recent article in the New York Times that sheds further light on the disagreements about the intelligence.
Here’s an article from Slate specifically on the Prague meeting.
From the article:
Note that the Slate article also states as fact that a previous Embassy officer, Jabir Salim, defected after being given $150,000 by Saddam’s government to recruit a bomber to attack an American target. So we have plenty of evidence that Saddam was, in fact, sponsoring terrorist attacks against the U.S. There’s also good evidence that he tried to assassinate a U.S. president. It is no stretch of the imagination to believe that he may have offered some form of assistance to people who were trying to strike a massive blow against the United States.
Copy (free) of NY Times article 10/21/02 by James Risen
Are you now once again going to demand evidence of a negative?
Clinton was persuaded to act by three kinds of evidence, a senior intelligence official said last night. First, key suspects in the plot confessed to FBI agents in Kuwait. Second, FBI bomb experts painstakingly linked the captured car bomb to previous explosives made in Iraq. Third, unspecified intelligence assessments concluded that Saddam meant seriously the threats he has made against Bush. Other classified intelligence sources supported this analysis, the official said.
The combination made the CIA “highly confident that the Iraqi government, at the highest levels, directed its intelligence service to assassinate former president Bush,” said the intelligence official.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm
No, I’m going to point you towards a lot of positive evidence that such a meeting DID occur. Go back and read the links.
I’m not saying the meeting occured. I’m saying that the most accurate statement one can make about it is that there is some evidence that a meeting occured, but there are also unanswered questions, so the question is still open. I think that’s the only intellectually honest statement to make.
Demo is falling into the trap of expecting ironclad proof that would stand up to a jury. This is nearly impossible in foreign affairs because we simply will not have access to all the evidence like we do in domestic crime cases, where people are required by law to cooperate with investigations. So we either act on a preponderance of evidence, or we don’t act at all. On anything.
There’s no positive evidence in those stories you linked to. There’s a claim, and there’s no evidence that it actually occurred.
a) Iraqi defectors aren’t exactly known for their truthfulness
b) Your claim that Radio Free Europe in Prague was an American target is, well, just a tad less than honest, don’t you think?
adaher: you can’t refute Hersh’s story by quoting the very claim that Hersh says was false. What next? You gonna try and prove that the Niger story was true by quoting Bush?
You are making the mistake of confusing cause and effect. Neither the invasion of Iraq, nor the 1993 missile attacks were responses to the two events we’re talking about here. The Prague meeting and the assassination attempt were fabricated excuses for following a particular course of action.
You do realize that Radio Free Europe is a U.S. corporation funded by the U.S. Congress, right?
Anyway, allow me to quote:
Maybe you should work on your reading skills, since you also say there was no positive evidence in the articles I linked:
There is strong evidence that Atta has been in Prague. There were eyewitnesses that claimed Atta was the one who met the Iraqi agent in Prague. The original debunking of the meeting came from the FBI, which claimed it had various receipts that showed Atta was in the U.S. at that time. After this, Havel came out and said that Czech intelligence had decided that it wasn’t Atta.
Subsequently, it was found that the FBI had no such evidence. And in the meantime, post-war intelligence gathering has caused that story to surface again, and it is now once again being debated in intelligence circles.
Let me repeat: Atta may or may not have been there, but the most honest thing we can say now is that the evidence so far leaves some doubt and is inconclusive.