Proof: The Iraq - Al Qaeda connection

[Apos]

That makes the assumption that the U.S., U.K. and others took this action when they were knowingly uninformed. Where did you get that idea?

Far be it for me to interrupt your evening tea, but I didn’t get that idea anywhere.
You seemed to have missed the section of my post that went a little something like this: “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.” I can see how you might have missed that. I mean, after all, it was coyly hidden DIRECTLY UNDER the passage you quoted. I’m such a sneak!

One significant reason that the action in Iraq was taken was precisely because we were “uninformed.” How many times must this be pointed out? It is demonstrably proveable that Iraq was not complying substantively with U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding its verifiable disarmament. That’s not a Bush and Blair position; it’s a Hans Blix position.

What does that have to do with evidence of them conspiring with Al Queda?

We knew what they once had; we knew what they refused to or could not account for.

Heavens! Who are you talking to?

Perhaps next time you “respond” to me, you’d do best not to associate my name with your response, seeing as it barely has even a passing familiarity in what I even said in the first place.

---

Look people: the reality is, Iraq and Al Queda almost certianly shared at least money and weapons expertise with each other. Whether they hated each other or not, there was no reason for them not to do at least that much.

But in defense of the deniers, it is quite true that meetings between the two are not particularly a) new evidence or b) particularly damning until we know exactly what they conspired together to do. Without some evidence as to what their contacts were about and actually led to in terms of substantive cooperation, it would be as silly as this:
“There have just been reports that confirm that the Israeli government actually conspired with known terrorist Arafat several years back. While it’s not clear what the meetings were about, other than some sort of cooperation and agreements over land and weapons, the meetings apparently went so well that delegates from Israel hung out with Arafat in a cushy American resort for at least a week. No word yet on whether the Israelis actually agreed to conspire with Arafat on launching more suicide bombings against Israel.”

But against deniers, you really should consider the fact that, at this point, evidence of substantive contacts among the two is probably going to surface in the future, and the U.S. is probably going to, at some point, reveal evidence that it was keeping quiet so as not to compromise sensitively placed sources (who are likely now out of danger, or in radically new placements already). And be such evidence real or fabricated, you’re going to have egg on your faces either way.

[tomndebb]

Look people: the reality is, Iraq and Al Queda almost certianly shared at least money and weapons expertise with each other.

Certainly? Hardly. Possible? Sure.

I’m willing to acknowledge that some direct, material support could have occurred. However, I see no reason to accept that as some “truth” based on the claims made by an adminstration that has already been caught telling numerous lies on related subjects. The reason that I do not accept the certainty of such a connection is exactly that the administration has lied and that both the CIA and MI6 have indicated that there was no such connection.

As the alternative to your challenge, what are the True Believers going to do if, in fact, there never was a material connection?

[Finagle]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Well, it already has, hasn’t it, Milo. Long before Fearless Misleader had so much as a scrap of evidence, he was busily fostering the notion that Saddam and AlQ were in cahoots, an accusation that had no more substantiation than reports of the nesting habits of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Please note that this connection was not forged with evidence, but by the age-old technique of innuendo and implication. **

I don’t think “Elucidator doesn’t believe that there was evidence.” is logically equivalent to “There was no evidence.” Nor does “The evidence was not shown personally to Elucidator” mean that “The accusation was unsubstantiated.”.

Please note that the assertion that “There was no connection” was not forged with evidence but by the age-old technique of innuendo and implication.

[pantom]

I’m always open to evidence, but this stuff doesn’t make it yet. Osama is referred to in the actual documents as a “Saudi opposition leader”. Remember, prior to the African embassy bombings, bin Laden, to the best of my knowledge, had not done anything to U.S. interests anywhere yet, other than perhaps provide support to the Somali fighters in that “Black Hawk Down” incident.
The last date on the documents is April, 1998; the embassy bombings were in August. Therefore, it would be logical to conclude that the meeting between al Qaeda and Iraq took place not to discuss the U.S., but to discuss Saudi Arabia.
If you actually do a search for “United States”, “USA”, or “U.S.A.” on the documents in question, at least the parts quoted by the Telegraph, nothing comes up. Any conclusion that these meetings had anything to do with the U.S. are the reader’s; the documents themselves contain no such references.

[Apos]

“certainly” is a little different than “almost certainly” tom

Also “based on the claims made by an adminstration that has already been caught telling numerous lies on related subjects” is not the issue. The issue is simply whether or not they are likely to have done so, not what any administration has had to say on the matter.

[capacitor]

Sam all you showed was that al-Qaida may joined some Kurds and Islamists in the NE corner.

[Evil_Captor]

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

In my original post, I said:

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.

Hmm…what could I have possibly meant by “I guess we’ll have to wait on this one again?” Oh yeah, it really sounds like I’m just jumping to the conclusion that we’ve found “the smoking gun.” WTF?. **

Yes, and what could you have POSSIBLY meant by the title of this thread: “Proof: The Iraq Al-Qaeda Connection”? Why it sounds EXACTLY like the sort of thing rjung was describing. It might as well have painted itself purple and danced on a harpsichord.

**And another of my posts:

Let’s see. I said “I shouldn’t have expressed that so simplistically,” referring to my original post in which I lept to conclusions. I even reinforced this in a follow-up post in which I said, “SOME” and “A FEW” anti-war protestors have been harping these claims. Gee, sounds like another frikin instance of me saying, “commie pinko!” You’re frikin clueless.**

Yes, you backpedalled after you got nailed by rjung and others. But you still initially engaged in exactly the behavior described by rjung.

He NEVER provided any particularities. They’re all GENERALIZATIONS. Can your mind grasp that concept? He categorized the ENTIRE “pro-war” movement as nothing but bloodthirsty hawks who believe anyone who disagrees is a "commie pinko."

Yes, he DID use hyperbole to point up the absurd, lumpish behavior of the pro-war movement every time anything that might have justified ANY of Bush’s rationalizations for war is “discovered” and trumpeted by an absurdly credulous right-wing press.

What kind of frikin’ logic is that?!?!

It’s called “rhetoric.”

Yet, you follow it. Go figure. I should give up and admit that I’m completely in the wrong?

It will hurt less in the l;ong run.

No, that would be you, for completely basing your arguments on generalizations and assumptions. Now that I’ve exposed you and nailed your ass to the wall, I’ll expect an apology. Thanks.

My arguments consisted merely of pointing out the conciseness with which rjung described this thread. YOu’re going to have a hard time confuting them, considering the title and tone of the thread early on. No apology needed.

[ShaneVA]

Yes, and what could you have POSSIBLY meant by the title of this thread: "Proof: The Iraq Al-Qaeda Connection"

Umm…EvilCaptor, I didn’t start this thread, so I certainly didn’t title it.

** Yes, you backpedalled after you got nailed by rjung and others. But you still initially engaged in exactly the behavior described by rjung**

The key word is “initially.” I apologised for jumping the gun on my first post, and made my position clear. I have NEVER labeled ANYONE a “commie pinko” or whatever simply because they opposed the war, and I object to the assertion that I have. I don’t let other people tell ME what I mean, because I’m the only one who can know my true feelings on any subject.

My arguments consisted merely of pointing out the conciseness with which rjung described this thread. YOu’re going to have a hard time confuting them, considering the title and tone of the thread early on. No apology needed.

You’re absolutely right; I need not offer any apology since I was not the one who titled the thread. Perhaps that was your main problem with my post? You thought I had titled the thread and then subsequently I must think that the recent finds are “proof”? If that is the case, then I apologise for jumping down your throat; it’s a simple misunderstanding. To clear things up, I don’t feel that any of these finds are “proof.” Only when our allies confirm them will I believe they qualify as substantiated proof.

[blowero]

*Originally posted by ShaneVA *
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).

Unfortuantely, proof should have existed somewhere other than Bush’s mind. Look, if proof needs “corroboration”, then it’s obviously not proof, is it? If Bush knew that Saddam was conspiring with Al Queda to attack the U.S., he should be able to tell us RIGHT NOW how he knew. Why would it have to be contingent on finding some “smoking gun” document in the rubble?

Millosarian:
First of all, whether a connection was proven or not seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

I guess, although worldwide I think there were a lot more “eyes” that found his “proof” seriously lacking.

This position is unbelievable. And seems to be uniquely held by those who would not be satisfied with anything less than Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein starring together in a new sitcom entitled “We’re Going to Wipe Out the USA.”

Strawman.

Following this position, what America and the UK were supposed to do is sit idly by, despite the evidence that Saddam was not accounting for significant amounts of WMD. Despite the mountains of circumstantial evidence that WMD production continued unabated. Despite the demonstrable evidence that Saddam was evading and rendering irrelevant the U.N. weapons inspection process. Despite the evidence - now proven - that Iraq and Al Qaeda were at the very least quite interested in teaming up in recent years.

We were talking about the Al-Queda link; how did we all of a sudden get into WMD’s? I said Bush didn’t prove the Al-Queda connection before going to war, so I will thank you to limit yourself to responding only to what I actually wrote.

[ShaneVA]

I originally said:
** In the minds of some people, it was already proven**

blowero said:
Unfortuantely, proof should have existed somewhere other than Bush’s mind.

My apologies; I shouldn’t have worded it that way. I meant to say that the evidence existed and was known among the intelligencc communities, yet it could not be publicly stated until such corroboration was discovered. JMO.

[Liberal]

The US has also reported “finding” chemical weapons about five times, and each time has later admitted nothing has been found.

That is a revision of the facts. Centcom has been consistently cautious and conservative in its announcements, going out of its way each time to say that preliminary data are not conclusive.

[RandySpears]

That is a revision of the facts. Centcom has been consistently cautious and conservative in its announcements, going out of its way each time to say that preliminary data are not conclusive.

While at the same time allowing pentagon personel to leak unconfirmed stuff to the press…

[Desmostylus]

*Originally posted by RandySpears *
**While at the same time allowing pentagon personel to leak unconfirmed stuff to the press… **

That’s pretty much how it seems.

“Proof of weapons of mass destruction have now been found at …”, said a Pentagon official today, on condition of anonymity.

During questions, Mr Rumsfeld said “It’s too early to make a judgement.”

My guess is they hope that the punters will only remember the initial hype. Rumsfeld gets to weasel out of putting his name to any of the more recent bullshit.

[yojimbo]

My guess is they hope that the punters will only remember the initial hype.

That’s my view as well. Try asking people about links with 9/11 or how many SCUDS were fired by Iraq and you’ll get a lot of people telling you about links with 9/11 or that they saw SCUDS hitting Kuwait. They’d be wrong but the seed was put there by headlines that they saw and bad journalism.

[Desmostylus]

The most recent example:

Lt. Col. Ted Martin of the 10th Cavalry Regiment said troops went to the site at midnight Friday after having been alerted by U.S. Special Forces teams, which were suspicious because of the presence of surface-to-air missiles guarding the area.

A chemical team checked the drums, one of which tested positive for cyclosarin, a nerve agent, and a blister agent which could have been mustard gas, Martin said.

“I am satisfied that it is sarin,” Martin said, adding that further tests were being conducted.

Soldiers also found two mobile laboratories that contained equipment for mixing chemicals, but they appeared to have been ransacked by looters, Martin said.

That made headlines everywhere. The followup isn’t sensational in the U.S. and doesn’t get the same coverage:

The New York Times is reporting that no chemical weapons have been found at a site in northern Iraq.

The newspaper quotes a member of a specialist team as saying a barrel at the site did not contain chemical weapons despite a preliminary positive test.

Capt. Ryan Cutchin also says initial suspicions that two vehicles at the site were mobile labs have been proven wrong.

U.S. Special Forces became suspicious after finding surface-to-air missiles guarding the area. About a dozen 55-gallon drums were checked. Initial readings suggested the presence of nerve agents and mustard gas in one drum.

An American officer had earlier said that initial tests showed one of the drums had the nerve agent cyclosarin, and a blister agent that could have been mustard gas. Lt. Col. Ted Martin had said that he was “satisfied” that sarin was found.

[blowero]

*Originally posted by ShaneVA *
I meant to say that the evidence existed and was known among the intelligencc communities, yet it could not be publicly stated until such corroboration was discovered. JMO.

But why? With Saddam out of power and Iraq under U.S. military control, surely there is no point in keeping the evidence secret anymore. If, at this point in the game, it still needs to be kept secret, what difference will “corroboration” make? If a “smoking gun” document is found in Iraq, and then Bush suddenly lets loose with all that secret intelligence info that he’s been keeping under wraps, I’ll buy you a Coke. But don’t hold your breath.

And if it’s acceptable to use “secret” evidence to justify an invasion, does that mean we just have to implicitly trust the government? Certainly you don’t think that governments never lie, do you?

[Marley23]

This is why it’s important to wait before deciding these things are settled - although we don’t hear much about it in the States, this has been going on throughout the entire run-up to this war.

Published on Monday, April 28, 2003 by the Times/UK
Saddam Link to al-Qaeda In Doubt
by Michael Evans

BRITISH Intelligence officials have expressed doubt that Saddam Hussein established any working relationship with al-Qaeda despite the discovery of documents showing that an “envoy” for Osama bin Laden visited Baghdad in 1998.
The documents were found by The Sunday Telegraph at the bombed-out Baghdad headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq’s Intelligence service, and were hailed yesterday as positive proof of an Iraqi link to al-Qaeda. They mentioned the arrival of a confidant of bin Laden who had traveled to Baghdad from Khartoum in March 1998. Bin Laden was based in Sudan until 1996.
Officials told The Times that there had been intelligence indicators about that time of a possible visit to Baghdad by someone purporting to represent al-Qaeda. There had been no evidence of any follow-up meetings to suggest that Baghdad had forged a long-term partnership with al-Qaeda.
According to The Sunday Telegraph report, the purpose of the March 1998 meeting was to establish a relationship on the basis of Iraq and al-Qaeda’s mutual hatred of the United States and Saudi Arabia. Because of the sensitivity of the meeting, the Iraqi agents who wrote the documents had covered bin Laden’s name with correcting fluid. Once it was removed, the name was visible, the report claimed.
There is pressure on Western Intelligence services to provide governments with their own assessment of the thousands of secret files that were abandoned when Saddam’s regime collapsed.
On the al-Qaeda link to Saddam’s regime, Britain has taken a robust line against the Americans who insist there was a connection. Washington gave the link as one of the reasons for toppling Saddam. Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) has always rejected the idea of a link.

[Marley23]

Probably a no-brainer, but I meant to note that the emphasis there was mine.

[december]

*Originally posted by Marley23 *
This is why it’s important to wait before deciding these things are settled

I’m unimpressed with the statement from the unnamed British intelligence officials. Note that[ul][]Apparently the sources haven’t seen the actual Iraqi documents.[]They moved the goal line to demanding a long-term partnership. They said: “There had been no evidence of any follow-up meetings to suggest that Baghdad had forged a long-term partnership with al-Qaeda.” Any link at all disproves the anti-war claim of no link between Saddam and al Qaeda.The fact that no evidence has yet come to light showing a follow-up doesn’t prove that there wasn’t any follow-up. This first document was just discovered a day ago. There’s plenty of time to find other documents and to interview participants.[/ul]

[ElvisL1ves]

I’m just wondering how many more of these “This time we really have the proof, honest Injun, how ya like that, ya stoopid lib’rals!” threads Milossarian is going to start before he catches on? This is the second by my count.