Yet another Iraqi lie refuted

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
The commission study was regarding 9/11 links firstly and if otherwise is outside the scope fo the 9/11 comittee. The contention of whether there were links is not contended either by this study.

The extent of collaborative links is in question and by this study says none existed at the point prior to or of 9/11. This is not to say that new relationships were formed subsequently or that the likelihood of collaboration in the future was not a possibility.

The problem is the admin. continues to present a lackluster case at best-specially since it claimed long stading connections, as do supproters (like that article cut& paste boy provided alledging Saddam was involved in the planning), not just ne ones after 9/11. An as of yet no one has made the case the possiblity of ties in the future was in any way a valid rationale for anything.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


An as of yet no one has made the case the possiblity of ties in the future was in any way a valid rationale for anything.

I thought that was the implicit arguement for rationalizing the whole WMD thing. Potential future collaboration thereby enabling AQ or other terrorists access to WMD. 'Course I might have been in a coma during 2003.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

As for Drake's assertion, one would think that the WH would have made all evidence available to this panel if it had anything to show such links-why on earth would they stiff a bipartisan commission of such evidence?

Utter incompetence? Misplaced secrecy? Political cynicism? Becuase there is none?

Which reason seems best?

Its unlikely that some types of very highly protected intelligence such as humint would be passed on to anyone outside of a very exclusive 'need to know' group.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

I thought that was the implicit arguement for rationalizing the whole WMD thing. Potential future collaboration thereby enabling AQ or other terrorists access to WMD. 'Course I might have been in a coma during 2003.

That was the governments position at the time and I think it was a genuinely held belief.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


I thought that was the implicit arguement for rationalizing the whole WMD thing. Potential future collaboration thereby enabling AQ or other terrorists access to WMD. 'Course I might have been in a coma during 2003.

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.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Its unlikely that some types of very highly protected intelligence such as humint would be passed on to anyone outside of a very exclusive 'need to know' group.

You mean like all the stuff about the plans for 9/11 they got from currently held AQ bigwigs?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

Which by this article says were in existance (at least as of 9/11) just not necessarily collaborative.

[SpencerH]

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.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

You mean like all the stuff about the plans for 9/11 they got from currently held AQ bigwigs?

No. Captured terrorists are not protected sources.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Which by this article says were in existance (at least as of 9/11) just not necessarily collaborative.

Lats I heard, the copntact they mention is in '94, and then the call is not returned.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
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.

The key word here is stockpiles. People like Scott Richter, who had actually worked in Iraq, were fairly sure that got most if not all of the stockpiles. What they felt they had missed were bits and pieces as well as plans.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


No. Captured terrorists are not protected sources.

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.

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.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Lats I heard, the copntact they mention is in '94, and then the call is not returned.

You got a mole within the CIA?

[GePap]

That was what was reported by the Media. As I told Spence, the CIA signed off on this report.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I agree. The WH does need to flesh out further contacts for public consumption. We shall see. I find it more than a bit incredulous to think so many others including those on the other side were adamant that such ties existed that they did not.