It seems that Iraq and Al Qaeda did have

[theoldgeezer]

a relationship of sorts. Smile if you want at the source, but the article seems well documented and quite factual.

The Mother of All Connections

From the Weekly Standard, but many sources are cited - including Senate Intelligence Committee reports, AP news sources, NY Times, etc.

A fascinating read.

[rooboy]

1. From a witness detained at Guantanamo Bay... LOL...

I guess the Duck-a-l'Orange really got him singing like a canary, eh???

ROFLMAO.

[RadiDem]

2. That's total bullshit - and if you believe it

You either don't belong here, or haven't been paying attention.

Steven Hayes has NO credibility. The Department of Defense even came out and publically refuted the claims in his wild fantasy filled article named "case closed".

Hayes is a Rev Moon worshipping wingnut who is one step away from the crazies who claim they were abducted by aliens.

Actually he's worse. They're harmless. He's not.

[Qanisqineq]

3. I think it is the former

I happened to see some of his/her other posts -- about how Bush won the election, etc.

[Hissyspit]

4. There's nothing new there. Now go away. n/t

[Frederik]

5. Oh fer cryin out loud

They have to let this fixation go. The Defense Policy Board dispatched James Woolsey to Europe immediately after 9/11 to try and find a connection to Saddam. He didn't find any (except for that famous alleged meeting in Prague). The 9/11 Commission didn't find any. Bush had to admit there wasn't any. They still haven't given up, apparently, but they are now resorting to digging up old articles which were based on allegations that circulated back in 1998 (which they themselves made up back then) and finding connections between somebody's third cousin and someone whose brother once went to Iraq.

The Weekly Standard is a propaganda outlet and nothing else. Their trade is misinformation, not journalism.

[sandnsea]

6. Not really

Did you know many of these reports are online? fas.org has a bunch. So does the CIA and State department web sites. The actual reports don't say we "know" or "knew" any of what this article says. It's all speculation, based on very weak sources, like people named "Curveball" and Iranian spies named Chalabi. The Zarqawi stuff is flat wrong, he was in Kurdish Iraq which Saddam had no control over. This is exactly how they perpetuated the lies during the runup to the war. They'll say any damned thing. When you confront them with the truth, they'll either say they didn't say it or change the subject.

[theoldgeezer]

8. So you're saying it's all made up?

To what purpose?

[Frederik]

11. The purpose is rather obvious

They are desperately trying find a way to justify the Iraq debacle.

[theoldgeezer]

17. Well, maybe they are

I'm more interested in knowing the truth about all of it.

I discovered a long time ago, that people lookign for a link between things can find it, and those are determined that there cannot be one will never find it.

So, if people are interested in finding a link between Iraq and terrorism, they'll find it if it exists. Those who are determined that there isn't and can't be one will only seek to discredit... Not search for ultimate truth.

Again, what people's motivations are isn't nearly as important... as what they find, factually. So, while your conclusions may be different, I noted some minor details in the article that point to there being a good possibility - and I'd like to ultimately know the truth. Purely from a logic POV, there can be no "proof" that Saddam did not support terrorism... there can only be a lack of evidence that he did, if he did not. But if he did, and the facts can be found, then no argument to the contrary is meanful, is it?

[Frederik]

24. Look

If he did someone would probably have found some indication of that by now, and I mean credible, serious people, not the baboons at the Weekly Standard. I mean, intel services have concluded there was no link, but the Weekly Standard found one. Sure.

Besides, so what if it might turn out that someone from the Iraqi governemt had a couple of meetings with someone connected to al-Qaida at some point. That's hardly impossible, it's also quite uninteresting. Compared to the substantial links to elements in the governments of Pakistan, United Arab Emirates and probably Saudi Arabia, any hypothetical contact there may have been between al-Qaida and Iraq is largely irrelevant. We're clearly not talking about al-Qaida taking orders from Iraq or being sheltered by Hussein or anything like that, in fact there probably was no contact whatsoever. This is a desperate attempt to find justification for a war the Weekly Standard were among the main cheerleaders for and which subsequently has been revealed to have been based on a pack of lies.

[sandnsea]

31. Take the aluminum tubes

No it isn't made up. There's two sets of possibilities. One includes nuclear weapons. The other doesn't. Our own Energy Dept. scientists said the aluminum tubes weren't appropriate for nuclear weapons. The Bushies chose to hype the nuclear weapon angle. They did that with absolutely everything.

Why? To implement the Bush Doctrine, our National Security Strategy. Expand the American perimeter, broaden the American footprint. They believe we're the only superpower and we should act like it and democratize the world and democratize it right now. Kind of like Dad saying we're going on vacation and everybody will have fun dammit.

Trouble is, they don't grasp democracy is homegrown and capitalist societies are homegrown. It's bottom up and not top down. Since what they're really interested in is creating security for corporate trade, what they want to do will always end up as puppet governments supporting rogue militaries that protect US corporations. And that's a scenario that breeds terrorism.

[yurbud]

7. this is a primary difference with the right as long as it LOOKS good

it must be true.

No need to verify, see what other countries, independent experts or non-partisan intel analysts say--or even square it with history and common sense.

Of course Saddam wanted to develop nuclear weapons and give them to terrorists, so they could set them off here, and give us an excuse to wipe Iraq off the map.

All thugs who claw their way to the top of a country sitting on a couple of trillion dollars worth of oil would rather commit suicide than live like kings for the rest of their lives. Haven't you ever read a comic book or listened to Rush Limbaugh? He says A-rabs are so stupid they don't know to wipe their own ass (so no need to give them toilet privileges at Abu Ghraib).

The right has no credibility on foreign policy. They either lied or were mistaken going in, and since they shouted down anyone who disagreed and called them traitors, I'm inclined to believe it's the first since they knew their arguments couldn't stand up to real scrutiny and debate.

Bill Kristol and his magazine are to foreign policy what Tony Robbins is to financial advice. Only Tony Robbins doesn't get people killed.


Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[theoldgeezer]

10. I can't say your rebuttal

inspires much confidence, either.

Oh, well. I thought I'd get a discussion about the subject and some careful and well-reasoned arguments.

I never expected to just see wild-eyed ranting and conspiracy nonsense.

Forget it. I hope the mods just delete it, then. Much safer to sit in a cocoon with everyone singing the same song, that way nobody feels uncomfortable.

[Frederik]

12. "conspiracy nonsense"

is a fairly accurate description of the article you posted, isn't it?

"cocoon where everyone sings the same song" :rofl:

If you want a real discussion, why not post a real article from a real magazine?

[yurbud]

14. Read The Prize by Daniel Yergin, he works with Bush Sr.

It's a Pulitzer Prize winning book on the history of oil.

When you see how much oil influenced not only our actions but other countries, things will look a little different.

Not only that, you can see why the Arab world might distrust us since we kicked out a democratically elected president in Iran and replaced him with the Shah because he was driving too hard a bargain with the oil companies. It's tempting to say that's ancient history, but the revolt against the Shah led to the religious nuts we deal with there today, and those people remember that history when we say we are bringing them democracy.

If you read up on the Islamists, they are dead set against secular dictators like Saddam, and the ones on our side like Mubarak. Another good place to start might be http://www.wikipedia.org/">Wikpedia, or read the CIA World Fact Book or Library of Congress histories of those countries.

Forgive me for being abrupt before.

Let me put it to you another way too. Suppose we had an evil dictator here, and the Chinese came to liberate us. We would definitely be glad they came for a while. But then when they stayed and started mining our coal and cutting down our trees without paying us, we might get start to chafe. And when we asked when we could have elections, their first answer is, "Oh, that's okay, we brought a leader over for you. He's a great guy, he's been living in China for the last couple of decades, so we really trust him." We might start to get out our hunting rifles and start shooting at the Chinese and marching in the streets until they see the wisdom of letting us have elections.

Once we do, those elected officials would be in a tight spot. As long as the Chinese are here, if they cooperated too closely, they would be accused of being a puppet government and assassinated by us patriots. If they sided to closely with the people, well, the Chinese might give them an accident.

Of course gangs and freelance thugs would take advantage of the chaos, and maybe the militias and Aryan Nations would fight the Chinese too. And the Chinese would say, "You see! All the people fighting us are these racists extremists! We are trying to bring civilization to the caucasians, but it's going to take a while--sigh." And they would go back to cutting down our trees and digging our coal.

General Garner, the first guy Bush sent over to run Iraq has said this is essentially exactly what happened. You can read and see the story about the administrations plan to privatize and sell off everything over there, which pissed people off just as it would here.

http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=383&row=1

Iraq oil timeline http://www.gregpalast.com/iraqmeetingstimeline.html

I think that all Americans would like to see other countries democratic and relatively prosperous. Our fundamental disagreement at the moment is if that is what this administration is really trying to do, and if killing people is the best way to get there.

Let me know if there is some more specific question you have.

[theoldgeezer]

19. Your comparison...

Between us being liberated by China, and liberation in Iraq...

Are you implying that somehow we're taking Iraq's oil?

We're not. If you have some kind of evidence to that, please offer it. I've never seen any.

A published communique which claims to be from Al Qaeda in Iraq calls for attacking the Iraqi Army and anyone else who opposes Al Qaeda in Iraq. I recall the Iraqi people defying those same terrorists to vote... And the war hasn't let up against them since.

The US did not install Chalabi, nor did it install Allawi. The people DID vote for them, and they plan on running again. Both of these people have definitely displayed a mind of thier own, and speak for Iraq, not us.

How long can people continue to argue the fight is against "occupation", when it has become more and more obvious that the people of Iraq, it's government, and police and soldiers will be the targets for failing to comply with the extremist's ideals, regardless of our presence?

[Speed8098]

21. The jig is up

I've seen a few of your posts and it seems to me you are in the wrong place.
There are other boards where you will be around like minded people.
Why don't you try one of them. Maybe they will take the "Weekly Standard" as a credible news source.
You can post the Iraq, Al-Quaeda link along side of the "Alien baby found in desert" story. :crazy:

[acmavm]

30. No shit. I've been wondering about that myself.

.

[Frederik]

25. You know what the Iraqi people voted for?

The majority voted for parties that promised an end to the occupation.

Very few voted for Chalabi or Allawi, who were in fact both installed by the US before there had been an election. Not too well-informed, are you?

[Roland99]

27. The candidates for the Jan. elections were selected carefully by the US

There's no way the Propagandist wasn't going to have as pro-US a government in Iraq as possible at this early stage.

[TomClash]

20. "Some careful and well-reasoned arguments"

Well, gee, there many arguments against this nonsense. Here's three:

1) Many senior members of this Administration have said there is no connection. They obviously would love to find one and broadcst it to justify the War.

2) Saddam and "Al Qaeda" were ideologically polar opposites.

3) Saddam would not give WMD to a group that might use them to remove him from power.

"A relationship of sorts?" Guess who had a "relationship of sorts" with Saddam? Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, the CIA, Bush 41 and 43, April Glaspie, every Congressman he met on Capitol Hill in the 80s and so on.

[annabanana]

23. You've never heard of the PNAC?

Not a theory.. they're very proud of their empire dreams...and they are disciples of Strauss, for whom lying to the populace is a legitimate and necessary tactic.

Do a little research.

[TheWatcher]

9. Should I Pour You Another Glass? Cherry Or Electric Blue?

[whitebear]

13. I think we need a little variety here.

It's actually more fun for me on a blog site if there are at least SOME who disagree with us,so we have someone to yell at.I've been on some conservative blogs.As soon as you disagree with any of them,zip,you're out.

The definition of "liberal" means one who listens to all sides of an issue.Since we are obviously smarter than they are,why go down to their level?I'm sure the article was bull,anyway. :rant:

[w13rd0]

15. "Fascinating"?

Weekly Standard?

Oh come the fuck on...

Who do you think you are fooling?

[Englander]

16. Those 'facts' would be faith-based ones....

not related to anything that actually happened.

[ET Awful]

18. The National Enquirer had a fascinating article as well, it said that

Saddam and Osama were gay lovers.

Shall I find a link? I'm sure you'll find it fascinating and the source is just as reliable as the Weekly Standard.

[Jacobin]

22. Weekly Standard?

You DO know that this hive of neo-con, whacko, warmongering freaks are the people who made up all the reasons to invade and conquer the middle east, don't you?

I have a suggestion for anyone who thinks its anything other than a fucking joke to cite anything the Weekly Standard says.

Go back to their archives and find some predictions from a couple of years back. Pick one. Anyone will do, especially about how the invasion of Iraq will go.

Now. Look at current news and see how their predictions have turned out.

Get back to me on your comparisons.

:eyes:

[Roland99]

26. BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Stephen Hayes...Weekly Standard.



Might as well have been written by Cheney or McLiellan.



My prediction? theoldgeezer will not be long for these parts.

[kentuck]

28. Like the US and the Al Qaeda had a "relationship of sorts.."

They were training in our country to fly planes. We were making trips to Afghanistan to make offers of $40 million to the Taliban - for what purpose? Yes, we had a relationship "of sorts" with Al Qaeda also. What does that prove?

[CTLawGuy]

29. Iraq and Al-Qaeda being connected

makes as much sense as the Heritage Foundation and AEI investing in a Michael Moore film.

Osama despises Saddam and would kill him if he had the chance, because Saddam was a secular ruler. Al Qaeda liked the old Iraqi regime as much as the Christian fundies would like an openly and proudly atheist US president.

[Walt Starr]

32. Um, Al Queda was supporting the Kurds

They wanted to overthrow the secular dictatorship of Hussein.

Hussein and bin LAden were enemies.

And the Weekly Standard is a rightwingnut rag and has never been a credible source. They are taking reports out of context to support their rightwingnuttery agenda.

What's YOUR agenda?

[Moderator]

33. Locking

Inflammatory at best......