Yet another Iraqi lie refuted

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap


The CIA and FBI both signed of on this report. I assume the CIA would know about any sources they were not willing to make public.

I'm not sure what report you're refering to. I was simply making the point that some bits of especially sensitive intel are never included in any reports. So its possible that Bush et al were told something which cannot be revealed. Given the comments made by the 2 senior AQ terrorists though, it does seem unlikely that there were close ties between Iraq and AQ

You're conveniently forgetting that at the time of the invasion that there was nobody (including Hans Blix) who didnt believe that Iraq had chem- and bio-weapon stockpiles.

No, I am not. What you are ignoring is that in the run up to war people like me, who did believe at the time Saddam probably had something given all I was told, still argued that the threat was not real enought to excuse the adventure. THAT was the arguement, not that Iraq had nothing.

I recall your position very well. You're reading to much into my comment which was in reply to

Well, the whole WMD debacle makes this one a hard thing to sell, but even back when, part of reason to say this could happen was the claim by the admin ties were current as of invasion time.

my bold

Using the presence of WMD in Iraq as a cause for war may appear a debacle in retrospect but at the time that was not true (hence my comment).

[lord of the mark]

no comment until the Steven Hayes book comes out. At that point this matter will be discussed in full, I expect.

[Inverse Icarus]

How is this an Iraqi lie?

[Gibsie]

Bush is still saying there's a connection

[lord of the mark]

'There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said. "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq.'


Statement one - they do not appear to have resulted in a colloborative relationship. This largely confirms what was in the controversial DoD memo - at some point AQ reached to Iraq, but couldnt close the dea, and at other (later) points Iraq reached out to AQ, but couldnt close the deal. Lots of talk, lots of negotiations, but never quite a meeting of the minds. Not what Laura Myljoie said, but not "AQ and Iraq are natural enemies who could never cooperate" either. There continue to be reports of an individual alleged to be from Iraqi intel who was involved with mid level AQ types in southeast Asia. Not clear to me if the 9/11 commision looked at this - it doesnt seem that they did, but thats not surprising since examining every alleged Iraq AQ connection was NOT part of their charter, IIUC. But it doesnt surprise me that CIA signed off on this statement.

As for the second - it only says that senior Bin Laden associates denied any relationship. Which im not surprised CIA stood behind - that doesnt indicate if CIA thinks the assertions are credible, etc. Not clear if the commision asked - again, it seems that was beyond scope as well.

This was a commision to look into facts around 9-11 - how prepared were we, what did we do wrong in intelligence, etc. It was NOT an attempt to dissect the Saddam regime, or US foreign policy post 9/11.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Yet another Iraqi lie refuted

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed



This should put another wild contention from Bush defenders to rest

Iraq is now ours. Get over it.

[germanos]

Re: Re: Yet another Iraqi lie refuted

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Iraq is now ours. Get over it.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
There continue to be reports of an individual alleged to be from Iraqi intel who was involved with mid level AQ types in southeast Asia.

This can probably be said of any Arab state.

[GePap]

Lets simplify the issue- most of the claism made for this war have turned out to be bogus-that being said, the poorly run occupation is now changing its form, so will will have to see what happens after June 30th.

There.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Lets simplify the issue- most of the claism made for this war have turned out to be bogus-that being said, the poorly run occupation is now changing its form, so will will have to see what happens after June 30th.

There.

No. The short answer is that the 9/11 commision addressed a large number of issues related to 9/11, as per their mandate - from traffic control, to intelligence, to emergency response. They included an ASIDE about Iraq, which included nothing we havent heard before.

If youre really interested in the Saddam AQ connection, we will undoubtedly be getting massive arguments both ways when a book on just that topic by Steven Hayes is released.


As for the Iraqi occupation, what does THAT have to do with the 9/11 commision? Is that under their purview as well?

[GePap]

You seem to have this strange notion that this Steve character will be the avatar of Truth who shall reveal all and know all and make the case definitive. Why on erath you think that, I can;t tell, but beyond that:

The point of this thread is not about 9/11, but Iraq, hence the title.

Lots of arguements were given before the war for the rationale for this war- many, many and usually, when the pro-side can;t even agree on its basic rationale, you know something is up.

Over a year later, few of those pro-arguements have shown any validity. Not WMD's, not AQ, not that it would spur a fix of the ME situation.

And the occupation has been run badly-maybe, MAYBE if the occupation had not been botched things would be better.

So here we are today, one year after with no cluye if even 12 months from now the country will be in a nasty civil war. So why don't the pro-war perople cimply do as anti-war MtG has done and decide to give up their past arguements and go with the you broke it its your reason?

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Yet another Iraqi lie refuted

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
This should put another wild contention from Bush defenders to rest

Ironic, considering that I've only heard the question once or twice from people like Fez... whereas I here it almost constantly from lefties who talk about the WoT.

[Chemical Ollie]

Re: Re: Yet another Iraqi lie refuted

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Iraq is now ours. Get over it.

I thought you planned to give it back in two weeks or so?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Saddam only became bad when he was no longer an US lackey.

So?

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: Re: Yet another Iraqi lie refuted

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
I thought you planned to give it back in two weeks or so?