"Iraq supplied al-Qaeda with WMDs" -- Does this report justify the war?

[RedFury]

BTW, Bob since you keep referencing Powell’s UN address, I thought you might be interested in reading this AP article released today:

**One evening in February, in a stifling Baghdad conference room, Iraqi bureaucrats, European envoys and foreign reporters crowded before television screens to hear the reading of an indictment.

Half a world away, in the hushed U.N. Security Council chamber in New York, U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was unleashing an avalanche of allegations, speaking of “the gravity of the threat that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction pose to the world.”

Powell marshaled what were described as intercepted Iraqi conversations, reconnaissance photos of sites, defectors’ accounts, and other intelligence sources.

In the United States, his intelligence file swung opinion toward war.

But in Baghdad, when the satellite broadcast ended, Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi, science adviser to Saddam Hussein, appeared before the audience and dismissed the U.S. case as “stunts” aimed at swaying the uninformed.

How does Powell’s Feb. 5 indictment look today? He has said several times since then that he stands by it, the State Department said last week. Here is an Associated Press review of major elements, based both on what was known in February and what has been learned since:

**

Well, just how does it look today? Read the conclusion at The Philadelphia Enquirer.

Hint: pretty thin.

[David_Simmons]

*Originally posted by december *
**I know that Dems and some media have made this the issue, but I don’t see what difference it makes. Either Iraq still had WMDs or they had secretly destroyed them, but without verification of the WMDs’ destruction. Surely American policy had to be based on the former assumption.
**

We should conduct preemptive wars merely on spec? No wonder we see news accounts like this.

In spite of all the bombastic posturing by our “bring it on” Poseur in Chief there is little doubt in my mind that violence breeds little more than violence.

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**It is true that the claim about the agents who “accompanied” Zarqawi to Baghdad is not, technically, ex post facto, since Powell mentioned it on February 2. On the other hand, the current report simply repeats that claim–never substantiated–with the addition of putting the words in the mouth of some purported captured member of al Qaida.

**I agree, this has clearly not been established. If the claim of the operative is a fabrication then it does not further edify the claim, obviously (I don’t assume it’s a fact). My point was not to say the source was credible, only that it did not constitue an ex post facto claim.

**However, the actual claims that Powell made regarding Sagrat (mislabeled Khurmal in his presentation) have turned out to be false–while the adminstration repeats it in their point 8 of the just released report.

Releasing the same apparent lie and attaching it to an anonymous source looks to me as though they are simply trying to drag up new ways to present old lies; adding the “captured informant” is ex post facto.

**Well, no, not if it corroborates an antebellum argument. But I acknowledge your point that this could just be two separate representations of the same falsehood. I will wait to see.

**The Sagrat camp was encircled and captured very quickly. There were reams of documents discovered regarding their training and organization. If they were there “at the invitation” of the Ba’ath party, (which is not known for its “hands off” approach to control of Iraq), there should be evidence of that connection. None has been presented.

**Perhaps you’re right. But I don’t know if there should be evidence of such a connection given the spin Powell put on this relationship prior to the war.

**Sagrat was not the size of Iraq and the Ansar al-Islam were surrounded by enemies, not friends. If there had been chemical or biological weapon production going on there, it could not have been moved out of the area and some documentation should have remained. None has been found. So the entire section of the U.N. report dealing with Zarqawi appears to have been false, and is now being re-released with a new by-line (attributing it to the purported captive).

**I know this is a smaller region, but we have yet to establish how Iraq disposed of any of its unaccounted for WMD’s (assuming it did). I don’t believe there would have to have been documentation remaining if such activity had taken place there. But I do not at all know if it’s plausible that there would not have been physical evidence of the substances in question. If that is an incredible notion, then you’re absolutely correct.

[tomndebb]

I wonder if this story prompted the Whitehouse to push the Herald Sun’s report?
Iraq-al Qaeda links weak, say former Bush officials

[monty2_2001]

If it eventually turns out that the latter was the case, too bad for Saddam and the Ba’ath regime. **

I honestly don’t understand why people here are mourning the death of the ba’ath party and uday/qusay so far.

Oh, I know why… Cause it makes Bush look good, and they HATE that!

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
**I honestly don’t understand why people here are mourning the death of the ba’ath party and uday/qusay so far.

Oh, I know why… Cause it makes Bush look good, and they HATE that! **

Yeah, I know that december hates for Bush to look good. **monty2_2001 **,
Do you have any idea of what going on in this discussion?

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by RedFury *
**Well, just how does it look today? Read the conclusion at The Philadelphia Enquirer.

Hint: pretty thin. **

Hey, I’m from Philly. That’s the Inquirer, not the Enquirer. How dare you play so fast and loose with the facts.

BTW, I cited Powell’s address to make a very specific point. I do not mean to suggest I believe everything he said was accurate, whether an inaccuracy was inadvertent or deliberate. But the article you reference bases most of its claims on the fact that WMDs have yet to be found. IOW, it’s not terribly startling or likely to change any opinion already formulated, unless someone was under the impression that WMDs have already been found.

And we can stop beating the Wolfowitz quote to death, but my point is that he is referring to Iraq being behind the 9/11 attack. Am I misunderstanding this? He is NOT saying that there is no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq, or I am missing it. Do you agree?

[elucidator]

“Thin” is an entirely generous assessment. There are, nonetheless, certain unrefuted portions of his address.

1. Powell correctly stated that Saddam Hussein was President of Iraq. There is no arguing this fact, it stands entirely unrefuted by the liberal media.

2. Powell was entirely cognizant of the fact that he was addressing the UN Security Council, and made that clear in the opening sentences. Again, another fact that the scurrilous lefties are incapable of assailing!

Of course, intelligence is “murky”. And, no doubt, there were minor ommissions here and there, a few exaggerations, sure, but at most we’re only talking about a couple of thousand words. Little ones, for the most part, a lot of "and"s, "the"s. Its pathetic to nitpick at a few paragraphs here and there, and the odd bulletted point.

I expect the Secretary of State will publish a point by point refutation of this article, if not immediatly then very soon. Unless, of course, national security issues are involved. Sources and methods, that sort of thing.

[monty2_2001]

*Originally posted by SimonX *
**Yeah, I know that december hates for Bush to look good. **monty2_2001 **,
Do you have any idea of what going on in this discussion? **

You severely misread me, I was talking about the liberals.

[december]

**Al-Qaeda directs Iraqi hit squad

Marie Colvin discovers a deadly alliance has been formed between terrorists from various Arab countries and Saddam Hussein loyalists.**

RAMADI, Iraq – Al-Qaeda terrorists who have infiltrated Iraq from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have formed a deadly alliance with former intelligence agents of Saddam Hussein to fight their common enemy, the U.S. forces.

The alliance, known as Jaish Muhammad – the army of the prophet Muhammad – is believed to be responsible for increasingly sophisticated attacks on U.S. soldiers.

http://canada.com/national/story.asp?id=129C5297-C75D-4F68-AB79-B0C49D9A7CBB

No doubt some Bush basher will now explain that this deadly alliance is a result of our invasion of Iraq. Without our involvement the Ba’ath Party and al Qaeda would have remained vicious enemies. The US is to blame for forcing these two opposing groups into each others arms. Suuuure…

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
**You severely misread me, I was talking about the liberals. **

you did* quote december and then write your comments.
I hope you can see how that was confusing.

I don’t know what instance of mournig you are talking about. Do you have an example?

[elucidator]

Not a problem, december, glad to help. We have not the slightest evidence of any meaningful “alliance” between Al Queda and Saddam before the war. If, as you claim, credible evidence that such is the case exists now, you must necessarily entertain the notion that it is a recent development. No evidence then, evidence now.

See how this works? Is sometimes referred to as Post Iraq ergo propter Iraq. You could look it up.

[monty2_2001]

*Originally posted by SimonX *
*you did quote december and then write your comments.
I hope you can see how that was confusing.

I don’t know what instance of mournig you are talking about. Do you have an example? **

Look at this thread. People are moaning and bitching that we cleaned those animals up.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by december *
**http://canada.com/national/story.asp?id=129C5297-C75D-4F68-AB79-B0C49D9A7CBB

No doubt some Bush basher will now explain that this deadly alliance is a result of our invasion of Iraq. Without our involvement the Ba’ath Party and al Qaeda would have remained vicious enemies. The US is to blame for forcing these two opposing groups into each others arms. Suuuure… **

As far as the charge of the invasion providing a greater pool of potential terrorists, the article you cite addresses that already.

His [the Saudi al-Qaeda officer] Iraqi partners recruit from the pool of security and intelligence officers who are unemployed and embittered by their loss of status.

How did these former Baathist come to lose their status and become unemployed and embittered?

Obviously, the article you cite is a Bush-basher. :smack:

[monty2_2001]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Not a problem, december, glad to help. We have not the slightest evidence of any meaningful “alliance” between Al Queda and Saddam before the war. If, as you claim, credible evidence that such is the case exists now, you must necessarily entertain the notion that it is a recent development. No evidence then, evidence now.

See how this works? Is sometimes referred to as Post Iraq ergo propter Iraq. You could look it up. **

I suppose Saddam paying pali suicide bombers to kill Jews didn’t matter either? If they’re in cohoots now, obviously the potential was there. That’s all that matters, the potential. If we sit on our asses while potential enemies join up and war against us, then we learned absolutely nothing from 9/11.

That’s the left for you, eternally ignorant.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
**Look at this thread. People are moaning and bitching that we cleaned those animals up. **

I am, but I don’t see it.
Could you please show me an example of the mourning about the death of the Iraqi Baath party? Quote please, just like you did w/ december.

[december]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Not a problem, december, glad to help. We have not the slightest evidence of any meaningful “alliance” between Al Queda and Saddam before the war. If, as you claim, credible evidence that such is the case exists now, you must necessarily entertain the notion that it is a recent development. No evidence then, evidence now.

See how this works? Is sometimes referred to as Post Iraq ergo propter Iraq. You could look it up. **

The point is whether Saddam might provide weapons to al Qaeda. If we hadn’t overthrown Saddam, some other situation might have triggered an alliance between al Qaeda and the Ba’ath Party. In other words, there was a substantial risk that Saddam would provide WMDs to al Qaeda – an unacceptible risk IMHO.

[elucidator]

I’m not sure I’m following you here, december.

…some other situation might have triggered an alliance between al Qaeda and the Ba’ath Party.

Do you mean to say that you accept that there was no alliance between Al Queda and the Saddamites before the war? Or was that garbled in transmission?

But you assert that such an alliance may have been fostered by some unknown and unforseen eventuality?

Is it your contention that such a possibility is a valid basis for war!

You can’t be serious. Some backpedaling is in order. Proceed.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
**
I suppose Saddam paying pali suicide bombers to kill Jews didn’t matter either?
**

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
**
If they’re in cohoots now, obviously the potential was there. That’s all that matters, the potential.
**

Many people us prefer to use likelihood as well as potential. The Bush adminsitration has the potential to join up with al Qaeda as well. Should we engage in a pre-emptive airstrike on the Whit House?
Likelihood makes all of the difference.

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
**
If we sit on our asses while potential enemies join up and war against us, then we learned absolutely nothing from 9/11.
**

Are you trying to imply that we’re sitting on our asses in Iraq?
Or are trying to imply that aQ and Hussein plotted the invasion of Iraq as a means of creating an opporuntiy for targetting American soldiers?

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
**
That’s the left for you, eternally ignorant. **

All of liberal, left-wing wackos like Pat Buchanan.:rolleyes:

Get a grip and address reality instead of myopic talk radio stereotypes and bumpersticker logic.

[hawthorne]

december
If we hadn’t overthrown Saddam, some other situation might have triggered an alliance between al Qaeda and the Ba’ath Party. In other words, there was a substantial risk that Saddam would provide WMDs to al Qaeda – an unacceptible risk IMHO.

“Some other situation”=“substantial risk”? Is there any action that this could not cover?