I’m glad this thread popped-up, finally have a chance to mention a book I’m reading. It’s called Ghost Wars by Steve Coll and recounts US (CIA) and other countries activities in the middle east up to 9/11.
Although I was firmly in the camp that thought Iraq had no link to terrorism, I’m not so sure now. The book has a few mentions of Iraq Intelligence agents contacts with Al Qaeda and Osama, as well as some attempts by Iraq agents to hit American interests.
Weighing up this evidence against what we’ve already got, we end up with something like this:
“Some book I just read which says a couple of things about Osama and Iraq” vs the unequivocally negative findings of the 9/11 Commission on this topic as cited in the Washington Post
Use bugmenot is you have password trouble here
I got two bits says that if Saddam had known about 9/11 in advance, had the facts and shit, he would have ratted out ObL in one second flat. On the QT, maybe, but shit like that he did NOT need. He had to know he’d be the first person we’d blame, after whats-his-face, the tall loony looks like a starved Rasputin. Secular cynic tyrants and religiously fanatic revolutionarys do not hang, the cobra does not pal around with the mongoose.
Well now, that’s not quite what they said. They said that their intelligence was poor, and as a result they didn’t have evidence.
Interesting article by Stephen Hayes:
How much of this is accurate, I don’t know. But to categorically state that the 9/11 commission has disproved any links between Iraq and al-Qaida is simply false.
And there just has to be a pony somewhere near the Christmas tree, too. There’s something in the air.
Thanks for that totally useless comment. Why not try actually refuting what the article says?
Just pretend a document was found that showed that Bush lied, or that that Reagan administration propped up Saddam. You’d be all over those like a pit bull on crack.
Sigh … you know you can’t prove a negative, but the loyalist approach requires your saying so anyway, I suppose.
The article shows absolutely nothing factual. The lack of any actual evidence for Iraq being behind AQ, and the massive amount of reason to believe the opposite, is what should be decisive. Why isn’t it? Why do you persist with offering such, in your words, “totally useless” posts?
We deal in the world of facts here. Go get yourself some.
Who ever said Iraq was ‘behind’ al-Qaida? I love the way you spin the claim to ludicrous levels so that it’s easily ‘debunked’. No one believes Iraq is behind al-Qaida. The question is how much collaboration was there between the two? There’s a growing body of evidence that the collaboration was greater than originally thought.
The article merely summarizes existing intelligence, dating back through the Clinton administration and including a lot of documentation that has come out of Iraq since the 9/11 commission issued its findings (which, by the way, did NOT say there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaida. In fact, they said there WAS. What they said was that they had no intelligence that indicated that the contacts between them lead to an ‘operational collaboration’. I also quoted one of the 9/11 commissioners who was careful to point out that their lack of finding any positive evidence did not rule out the possibility of more evidence coming to light, and they admit their intelligence in this area was weak).
And what do you mean, “The article shows nothing factual”? Did you read it? Here’s an example of a fact in the article:
An al-Qaida member, who used to be an Iraqi soldier, joining al-Qaida and then later travelling to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence? That’s worth nothing more than a yawn and a curt dismissal from you?
There’s plenty more like that in the article.
What the hell is a “Chemical Mortar?”
Here’s the original for anyone interested in this particular hijack of the thread about whether or not current aQ activity in Iraq indicates that aQ and Hussein were working together or were likely to work together on attacks against the US:
Combatant Staus Review Board.pdf
Here’s the entirety of the implication of a Hussein-bin Laden linkage in question:
“In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.”
That’s it. The rest details that the Taliban and aQ had a member who was an Iraqi and that this fella worked for UbL on occasion.
Failure to note specific idiosycracies of wording has led me to make mistakes before. Given the unspecific phrasing, the single sentence could mean a number of things. I think I’ll reserve judgment until I find out some more about the affair.
Hopefully more will be revealed.
Since this could potentially justify the part of the case for the invasion of Iraq that Wolfowitz characterized as the reason “about which there’s the most disagreement within the bureaucracy,” (the strong reason being the presence of WMD) the wait to could be a very short one. I’m sure there’re a number of people and groups who’ll be eager to have this come to light.
Indeed. And where does one find the “Pakistan embassy” in Pakistan?
We should take a moment to commend the Weekly Standard for its bold audacity in challenging the stranglehold of the liberal media with this bombshell of an article.
But what accounts for the odd silence of the Bushivik administration, given this irrefutable and rock-solid affirmation of its cassus belli? It can only be dignified modesty, an unwillingness to trumpet such stunning revelations to the embarassment of its poltical enemies.
Yes, that must be it.
Maybe Bush is waiting for the Weekly Reader version.
Well, in Pakistan, of course. It conducts the ordinary sort of embassy business. For instance, issuing visas for Pakistani citizens to travel within Pakistan, that sort of thing. The export of nuclear weapons technology and fissile materials is handled by another agency altogether.
Business has been falling off though. A lot of Pakistanis have realized it’s better if they don’t get a visa to travel in Pakistan. That way they get picked up for being in Pakistan without a visa and deported back to Pakistan, thereby saving on bus fare.
Please keep in mind that an Iraqi link to terrorism does not necessarily mean only a link to aQ.
In addition, the world is a complex place. It’s entirely possible that Iraq supported terrorism in various ways to many different degrees. At the same time, the amount of terrorist activities Iraq may have been involved in could have been significantly less than that of the Islamic terrorists.
Atticus Finch, if you read the book you will see that it is well documented and maybe, just maybe, has some valuable information. My point was not that it proves anything (nor is the books intent to even discuss Iraq), but that maybe my personal black and white view of the Iraq terrorism link that I previously held was possibly too simplistic.
Plus, they avoid the risk of being killed by a chemical mortar.
Hey, is it true that the Pakistani embassy in Pakistan is really considered to be the sovereign territory of Pakistan? And are the Pakistani diplomats all have diplomatic immunity from Pakistani law?
That question actually has an answer. A chemical mortar is a mortar that’s capable of firing incendiary, smoke or gas shells in addition to high explosive shells.
Our true-blue ally, Pakistan, has no peer amongst military dictatorships when it comes to fostering democratic institutions and the rule of law. Pursuant to this laudable goal, Pakistan’s law code is sublimely simple.
Rule1: Do not piss off Musharaff.
Rule 2: There is noooooo Rule 2.