Actually it’s pretty depressing when right-wing fanatics make unsupported allegations.
Could you produce a quote? (From your spelling of ‘pedestal’, I can explain to you what a quote is, if necessary.)
Do you know who put Saddam in charge in Iraq?
Do you know where he got his weapons of mass destruction from?
And assuming I despise the Bush policy over Guantanamo Bay, why would I support terrorists? Did you mean ‘put Amnesty International on a pedestal’?
<as the scene fades out, december continues to cling to the Titanic wall panel n the icy waters, but his fingers occasionally slacken as unconsciousness begins to overtake him. It’s now 4.00am. The ocean is silent, now. Hope has almost gone . . . >
<Scene Two: One week later, a deserted island, somewhere (we think) in the mid-Atlantic region>
Opening credits of . . .’The New Adventure of Robinson Crusoe’
Starring:
Sam Stone as Robinson Crusoe
December as Man Friday
. . …and not many others . . .
<in the background december can be seen stripped to the waist, constructing a shelter with his wall panel and exotic leaves>
Will they be rescued by The Administration . . . .
**Why is this quote inconsistent with a belief that al-Qaeda has been aided by Iraq? And if the report in the OP is proven accurate, why would this be considered ex post facto justification (as some in this thread contend), given the administration’s contention, prior to the war, that Iraq aided and abetted al-Qaeda?
You might recall this assertion, since it was treated with such derision on this very board. If the pre-war intelligence told of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, and now one is shown to exist, this will be ex post facto why?
I picture it more like Gilligan’s Island. They almost get rescued every week, but Gilligan somehow manages to klutz things up. You could have either december or GWB in the role of Gilligan.
Because, if the administration had this information (or anything like it), it should have been presented to the U.N. instead of their “well, there was one guy that was part of al Qaida that visited Iraq a couple of years ago.”
If there is anything to this (beyond either pure invention or some al Qaida guy giving his interrogators what they want to hear), then it should have been part of the actual justification for the war before the war.
Just about a week ago, Condoleeza Rice cited the finding of the 13 year old centrifuge parts and the notorious tubes as evidence to Gwen Ifill on The News Hour. Every now and then those nefarious chemical laboratory trailers are paraded about like the Pharaoh’s umbilical.
Is this the same high-ranking al-Qaeda operative who spent last year closing banks and generally jerking us around, or is this a new and improved good al-Qaeda operative ?
cached
Does anyone else remember the scare about frogmen armed with nuclear weapons threatening America’s rivers and harbours ?
There still aren’t any WMD’s, dude, at least neither in Iraq or in al Qaeda. We just have an allegation by one guy that maybe Iraq gave al Qaeda some chemicals. That’s really rather a dubious claim since Iraq, itself, doesn’t seem to have any.
There still aren’t any WMD’s, dude, at least neither in Iraq or in al Qaeda. We just have an allegation by one guy that maybe Iraq gave al Qaeda some chemicals. That’s really rather a dubious claim since Iraq, itself, doesn’t seem to have any.
Actually, it seems to have nothing to do with the current claim. When Zarqawi’s camp was taken, several weeks before Baghad fell, the U.S. and our Kurdish allies were all over the camp and reported no findings of any connection with the Ba’ath or Hussein. The report at that time was that al Qaida seemed to be using the U.S. protection of the Kurds as a way to have a place safe from both Iraq and Iran to train their agents for exportation to other locales.
They also found (last I had seen reported) no evidence of poisons of any sort. It was strictly a training camp for guerrilla fighters. (There was a flurry of reports at the time of the capture of Sagrat that “recipes” and “residue” of chemical weapons had been found and shipped off to the U.S. for analysis. Four months later, the adminstration is quietly letting those reports die the same ignominious deaths as all the other early reports.)
I have just been passed a note from the SDMB hamster, Slow-Moe.
“Guys, please! Its bad enough that I have to run my tiny little feet off for content-free postings, do you have to make it worse by refuting them? Take it to the Pit, willya, that’s Dead Meat’s job. Gimmee a break, I’m all out of amphetamine…”
In addition to the points made above I think it is useful to note that the Herald Sun belongs to Rupert Murdoch’s stable of newspapers. As such the story is about as credible as those remarkably convenient (from the administration’s pov) stories that keep popping up in the Washington Times but almost nowhere else.
Actually you’re not quite getting it. What was the evidence that convinced Powell to say that to the UN? If we squeeze something out of some prisoner now it can’t be fairly used to justify past events. If this prisoner’s confession is all we have then Powell was clearly bullshitting the UN previously. All he can say now is “We guessed right” if this lead pans out(which it probably won’t)
ps to monstro2_2001. Being derisive is only really effective from a position of authority or respect. IOW, give it up.
Though I suppose that if the report was publicly released the credibility of the Herald Sun doesn’t enter the picture. But is this story being reported on any American news site?
