Proof: The Iraq - Al Qaeda connection

Great Debates
1

Discuss.

I’d particularly like to hear from those who thought this was the most ludicrous of the Bush administration assertions. I distinctly recall several of you saying that Powell’s allusion to the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection undermined his presentation at the U.N. prior to the war.

I’ll throw a couple of predictions out there, just for fun: Some will assert this means nothing. Some will shift positions to, “It may be so, but at the time, the U.S. didn’t have enough evidence to justify their subsequent actions.” As if the fact that their concerns were spot-on is somehow irrelevant.

2

The US has also reported “finding” chemical weapons about five times, and each time has later admitted nothing has been found. So no, initial reports of this nature aren’t good enough. For that matter, to answer your concern: no, it doesn’t justify a war.

3

Given the number of secret reports that only The Telegraph seems to have found amid the chaos of ruined buildings (and always in the form of complete reports that contain exactly what would be needed to prove an assertion made earlier by The Telegraph), I am wondering if the Telegraph owns any printers with Arabic fonts.

Beyond that, it would be interesting if it proves true.

4

It’s quite remarkable what a lucky streak The Telgraph is having. From the same link:

“Over the past three weeks, The Telegraph has discovered various other intelligence files in the wrecked Mukhabarat building, including documents revealing how Russia passed on to Iraq details of private conversations between Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, and how Germany held clandestine meetings with the regime.”

5

Sounds like a good story. I’ll wait until the other news agencies jump on this one and I see 4" bold headlines in my morning paper that say:

“Iraq/Al-Queda Connection Proven Beyond Doubt”

“France Sends War Planes in Support of US’s Efforts in the Region”

Well, maybe the second headline is a bit farfetched.

6

Old news Milossarian, the BBC beated the Telegraph by a couple of months, and it was to report a different conclusion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm

And it looks to me that Tamara Baker, from American Politics, was right on this opinion:
http://www.apj.us/20030205Baker.html

7

For that matter, the US government and the media have assured us at least twice before that they had rock-solid proof of a link between Al Queda and Saddam’s regime. In both cases it turned out to be total BS. We all do remember that meeting in Prague that turned out to never have happened, right? What we have now at most is evidence of one meeting that occured in 1998, with absolutely no evidence that Iraq provided money, weapons, or any other type of support for Al Queda, although the American and British news sources don’t seem to be very eager to report that side of the story.

8

Here we go again: It appears as if we may have found some banned chemicals, including a mixture of cyclosarin and mustard gas. I guess we’ll have to wait on this one again.

And now it appears as if the Toronto Star is corroborating the report by the London Telegraph. Documents have been discovered linking Hussein’s regime with OBL. The Star reporter found bin Laden’s name in Iraqi dossier, covered with white out.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1051359175040&call_pageid=968332188492

If the connection proves to be true, I hope the people who objected to this liberation on the grounds of no connection between OBL and SH will admit they were wrong. (As a side note, I also hope that those who were willing to give UN Inspectors another 6+ months of inspecting will allow our troops the same amount of time. I’m getting sick of hearing “Where are the WMD they’re supposed to have?!?” Well, if you were going to grant an extra 6 or more months to the UN, will you at least allow our troops a little time as well? After all, they’re still busy trying to dodge grenades and pockets of resistance. If you can be patient with the UN, you can be patient with our troops). As always, just my .02 cents…

9

Keep in mind there were a lot of other grounds, some which haven’t been addressed even to this minimal degree.

10

Keep in mind there were a lot of other grounds, some which haven’t been addressed even to this minimal degree.

Very true. I shouldn’t have expressed that so simplistically. That particular line, as well as the one that followed, are generally directed towards a few (not all) of my fellow college brethren, who basically object to the war on the grounds that there is a Republican in office. I realize that not all people who are against this war think that way, but there are certainly a vocal minority who do, and it’s been too damn irritating. Thanks for letting me vent. :o)

11

As Lincoln noted, the accidental truth or falsity of a claim does not excuse the potential dishonesty of one who presents it as a matter of knowledge when in fact they were knowingly uninformed. Their concerns being spot on is relevant only if they had conclusive grounds for their concerns to begin with. And they may have had such grounds, but were unable to speak about them openly because of matters of national security.

This makes ever more tragic the incident of the forged document that the U.S. presented as rock-solid evidence of an ongiong nuclear weapons programme. Even though some degree of coordination (at the very least, perhaps, weapons sales) between Iraq and Al Queda is probable, that incident, the fact that the U.S. has rejected external weapons inspectors, and the reality that they had Special Forces operating all over Iraq for weeks prior to the conflict, all adds up to the reality that evidence like this is going to be far less convincing than it otherwise would have been to the Arab street and other parties we need to convince. But then, a lot of those parties wouldn’t have cared all that much if Al Queda and Iraq WERE working together, so maybe it’s not all that bad after all.

12

It’s a “liberation” now, rather than a “war”? Jesus, have the guts to call it what it is.

As to the issue of WMDs and this war, I don’t see anything wrong with demanding to know where the damned things are. Unlike the UN inspection teams, the United States now actually controls the entire country. Unlike the UN inspection teams, the U.S. government claimed to have “Secret evidence” that proved the existence of chemical and biological weapons, evidence it claimed could not be revealed at the time. The U.S. is clearly in a position to find the WMDs far easier and quicker than the UN inspection teams could have, and it’s quite reasonable to expect them to do so, especially when it’s THIER claim that very substantial numbers of WMDs existed and were ready for use.

Curiously, none of this evidence has ever been presented or, apparently, been used to find a weapon of mass destruction, or a facility for producing WMDs. Of course, some of the more prominent non-secret evidence has turned out to be lies, so it’s possible the Administration just doesn’t want to bother to make up more lies. Even more curious, the pro-war folks just don’t mention about all that “secret evidence” anymore.

And so it is with the OBL/Iraq connection. Let’s see some evidence. REAL evidence. The USA had no problem showing real, substantial, convincing evidence that al-Qaida was connected to Afghanistan, evidence that convinced pretty much every sane person alive. Bin Laden’s name appaearing on a document is hardly a big deal or proof of anything; I’m sure Osama bin Laden’s name appears on many documents in the intelligence agencies of every nation in the world.

13

No, the objection was that no connection was proven before going to war. If they had proof before the invasion, they should have been able to document it already. Imagine if Bush had said “Well, we don’t have anything right now, but if we bomb the hell out of them and then go in and scour the country, we might be able to turn something up.” Guessing that there might be a link to Al Queda and gambling that you can turn something up after the fact is hardly justification for war.

14

I wonder how many other Arab and other states had similar contacts with Al Qa’eda in 1988- before it started any major terrorist campaigns. I would guess that the organization was making many attempts to contact sympathetic regimes- Sudan where it was based, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Palestine etc…

The question is- does contact of this level at that date mean anything at all in in attempts to justify the launching of an aggressive war and invasion of a country. The answer, I am afraid, is no.

15

Guys,

I really wish you would have read my follow-up post as well. I CLEARLY said I was only referring to SOME anti-war folk, NOT ALL OF THEM. I even stated that much of my first post was written out of frustration, not logic. But thanks for selectively choosing what you wanted to read; I appreciate that.

No, the objection was that no connection was proven before going to war. If they had proof before the invasion, they should have been able to document it already.

In the minds of some people, it was already proven. It just took time to find the appropriate documentation to corroborate that proof. We knew it existed, but we still had to find exactly where it was kept. JMO (Please note again, it’s JUST MY OPINION).

It’s a “liberation” now, rather than a “war”? Jesus, have the guts to call it what it is.

It is both. Read my original post and my follow-up; I refer to it in both terms. Please don’t selectively choose what you want to read, and ignore the facts. Thanks. And yes, it is as much as a liberation as our actions in Bosnia were, in my opinion.

Unlike the UN inspection teams, the United States now actually controls the entire country. Unlike the UN inspection teams, the U.S. government claimed to have “Secret evidence” that proved the existence of chemical and biological weapons, evidence it claimed could not be revealed at the time.

Very valid points, as long as you ignore the new evidence uncovered by the New York Times that many weapons were either destroyed or moved just PRIOR to the war’s beginning. UN Weapons Inspectors supposedly had “unfettered” access; they could go to the same places our troops are searching now. If you’re willing to give them time, then you should be willing to give time to our troops. Otherwise, you’re a hypocrite.

And so it is with the OBL/Iraq connection. Let’s see some evidence. REAL evidence.

I’m with you on this one. I’m afraid, however, that even when REAL evidence is presented, some people will continue to ignore it, and challenge its validity, no matter how certain it may be. JMO

16

Is this wht we’re going to have to put up with for the next year or so?

  1. An overeager reporter trips across a scrap of information and reports it as proof that Saddam Hussein was working with al Qaeda/has a huge stockpile of WMDs/had a nuclear weapons program/tortured puppies for fun/whatever.

  2. The resident war-hawks of the SDMB give a hearty heigh-ho silver, leap into the air, and yell “Eureka! A smoking gun! Eat this, you pinko commie anti-war protester weenies!”

  3. Cooler heads prevail, look at the evidence, wait a spell, and point out all the holes/retractions/ambiguities/weasel words in the original report.

  4. The resident war-hawks of the SDMB slink back into the shadows, muttering the usual taglines about how Iraq is a really big place to search/the war was actually about liberating the Iraqis/no one will believe them when the proof finally comes/George W. Bush is not a dimbulb/whatever.
    I mean, really, guys, I know y’all are real gung-ho to finally find something to show that the Iraq war really wasn’t about seizing Iraqi oil, but would it hurt you to wait for the ink to dry on the newspaper before doing yet another “eureka!”?

17

2. The resident war-hawks of the SDMB give a hearty heigh-ho silver, leap into the air, and yell "Eureka! A smoking gun! Eat this, you pinko commie anti-war protester weenies!"

You know, I’m reading over my previous posts, and I don’t see that ANYWHERE. Oh well, I suppose some people will do whatever it takes (make stuff up, put words in people’s mouths, whatever) in order to get a point across. I admit that I’ve been guilty of the same in the past, but NOWHERE have I “lept in the air” nor called anyone a “pinko commie.” But, whatever gets your agenda across…

18

Oh, puh-leeze. Rjung absolutely nailed your ass to the wall, and this is the best you can do?

Rjung’s post perfectly described what this thread is all about, and I note that nowhere do you dispute the substance of what he (or she) said – you’re just arguing with the particularities of his phrasing. Best just give up and admit that you’re completely in the wrong. In the long run, it will hurt less.

19

Nitpick: Independent news agencies reported finding possible chemical weapons about five times. To my knowledge, there has been no official announcement from a Federal source verifying the finding of chemical weapons.

20

[ nitpick ]
The NYT reporter relayed the claim made by the military group in which she was embedded that they had found an Iraqi scientist who made this claim. She was not allowed to interview the Iraqi (and was only allowed to look at a person from several yards off who was pointed out as “an Iraqi scientist”), and neither she nor any other reporter has been allowed to actually inspect the place where the WoMDs were purportedly destroyed, nor has she (or anyone else) been allowed to see the documentation that is purported to support the claim.

I am not about to leap to any conclusions that the military personnel lied to her, but we have no independent confirmation that they were not lied to.

The NYT has not “uncovered” anything, yet.
[ /nitpick ]