Clinton Back's Bush's War in Iraq

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

Having reading comprehension problems?:
"WSJ made the claim that two people with similar names are likely the same person. Maybe it said that they weren't certain, but it was an absolutely ludicrous claim to make in the first place. I, myself, share my name (not just a "similar" one) with an Islamic terrorist."

Nope.

Just marveling that you can in good faith criticise an opinion article that goes out of its way to question its evidence in order to prove its journalistic integrity.

Then to hear the drivel spouted from you that the WSJ (oped or otherwis) is the journalistic equivalent of Newsmax.

Your a piece of work.

[lord of the mark]

Isnt this also interesting (from the same article):


"As others have reported, at the time of the summit Shakir was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport, having obtained the job through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy."


I mean lets put aside the Fedeyeen lists for now. Is it routine for Iraqi intelligence agents to find jobs Iraqis living abroad?? In particular for ones they havent vetted? Surely they knew nothing about this Shakir, since he was an AQ associate, and Iraq was NOT collaborating with AQ. So they just get him a job anyway.

What gives?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Isnt this also interesting (from the same article):


"As others have reported, at the time of the summit Shakir was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport, having obtained the job through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy."


I mean lets put aside the Fedeyeen lists for now. Is it routine for Iraqi intelligence agents to find jobs Iraqis living abroad?? In particular for ones they havent vetted? Surely they knew nothing about this Shakir, since he was an AQ associate, and Iraq was NOT collaborating with AQ. So they just get him a job anyway.

What gives?

Maybe he was, I don;t know, a cousin and benefited form nepotism?

Who cares. This is till at best a wild speculation, besides the fact they can;t even point to any sort of the Saddam government having full knowledge and control of actions. So this report remains just wild speculation that Feith's office threw out there. But good move on thier part given the play it has gained in certain circles.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Maybe he was, I don;t know, a cousin and benefited form nepotism?

LOTM - I member of the Mukbarat had a cousin who was an AQ guy? A member of a an organization dedicated to the ultimate destruction of Saddam? Pretty sloppy vetting, Id say.

And Id think that Mukbarat members would in general be expected to be careful about this sort of thing. Keep a low profile, at least.


Who cares. This is till at best a wild speculation, besides the fact they can;t even point to any sort of the Saddam government having full knowledge and control of actions. So this report remains just wild speculation that Feith's office threw out there. But good move on thier part given the play it has gained in certain circles.

So its not collaboration unless someone that Saddam had full control over was in AQ? I dont think so.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
So its not collaboration unless someone that Saddam had full control over was in AQ? I dont think so.

Sorry, no bait. This is as of yet an unsubstantiated rumor with little worth other than war supporters trying to paint it as more than it is.

Though, as I always add, this war was not about terrorism today-it was an experiment long in planning. So double whatever.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Sorry, no bait. This is as of yet an unsubstantiated rumor with little worth other than war supporters trying to paint it as more than it is.

Sorry, that there was an Iraqi named Shakir who was part of AQ, who sat in at a meeting with 9/11 plotters, and who got his job with the help of someone from Iraqi intell is NOT rumor.

What it means is speculation. We speculate about alot of things here, and I see no reason not to speculate about this.

By the way, did the 9/11 commision say anything about Mohammed Attas trips to Prague from Germany, in May and June of 2000?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Let's not stop at linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda. We must go to war with the Czechs and Germans! Atta was in both countries before 9/11, so they must have ties to the terrorists! I mean, a few terrorists stayed in Iraq for a while, and that obviously means that Saddam was giving them billions of dollars. We must invade Prague because the Czechs are providing safe haven to murderers

[Ramo]

Nope.

Just marveling that you can in good faith criticise an opinion article that goes out of its way to question its evidence in order to prove its journalistic integrity.

Then to hear the drivel spouted from you that the WSJ (oped or otherwis) is the journalistic equivalent of Newsmax.

I don't care if it offers a caveat (I don't think it went "out of its way to offer it," if he didn't offer the caveat, it would be a complete and utter lie). The point is that it was a non-story. It shouldn't have been reported as evidence for a tie. Because then gullible people like apparantly this Republican commissioner look at it as real evidence.

It's sad that their Opeds are so craptastic given that it's otherwise a generally reliable paper.

Your a piece of work.

Well, you're being a jackass.

As others have reported, at the time of the summit Shakir was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport, having obtained the job through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy.

My understanding is that it was just some dude in the embassy, not an "Iraqi intelligence agent." In pretty much every source I've read it's "embassy contact," not an intelligence agent. Can you substantiate this what a more reliable source?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Sorry, that there was an Iraqi named Shakir who was part of AQ, who sat in at a meeting with 9/11 plotters, and who got his job with the help of someone from Iraqi intell is NOT rumor.

What it means is speculation. We speculate about alot of things here, and I see no reason not to speculate about this.

By the way, did the 9/11 commision say anything about Mohammed Attas trips to Prague from Germany, in May and June of 2000?

I will say it for the last time- I do not care. After almost 3 years no one has shown anything more than possible coincidences here and there-and that includes an entire year of control of Iraq. It's like the damned Kennedy assasination! Some people have already made their minds up- as I said before the war, this invasion of Iraq was not about any AQ-Iraq links or WMD's those were excuses-its an experiement in American power, and those issues are nothing but annoing sideshows. If they help quick Bush out of office for screwing up his little invasion, great, the better.

But they are a side show nonetheless, and extremely annoying. So hopefully LoTM someone will answer your questions cause I won't be bothered.

[Giancarlo]

Look at it this way. Anybody who says there is no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime is a liar. A flat out little liar.

And I see Gepap is up to his usual bull****. First off, this has nothing to do with power experimentation (utter garbage). It has to do with the liberation of a people and a removal of a dictator before it grown to problematic proportions.

[GePap]

I thought you were blissfully gone..I guess the sane time is over.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by GePap
I thought you were blissfully gone..I guess the sane time is over.

When people have been lying so much on this forum I just had to come back and counter them. I hate liars and people who misrepresent the reality.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

no proof fez. and if it did have something to do with removal of dictator, lets invade ZIMBABWE, where last I checked, people were starving and oppressed. and also lets invade North Korea, and the Sudan. You want us to invade those countries fez? cuz if you dont, then your logic, as usual, dont mean ****.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I will say it for the last time- I do not care. After almost 3 years no one has shown anything more than possible coincidences here and there-and that includes an entire year of control of Iraq. It's like the damned Kennedy assasination! Some people have already made their minds up

Yes. Some have.

Some of us are still trying to sift through evidence.

And yes, I gave the Kennedy assasination folks(one of whom was a pal at Stuy) the courtesy of discussing their concerns, in detail. Even 13 years after the event.

I dont know what Dubyas motives were, and neither do you. We dont have access to the inside of his head (even Woodward didnt) Cheney may have wanted to demonstrate American power, but its not clear that was his sole motive, or that it was what motivated everyone else in the admin.

Look, if you want to turn every discussion of every aspect of the Iraq war to Bushs or Cheneys motives, theres nothing I can do to stop you.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


When people have been lying so much on this forum I just had to come back and counter them. I hate liars and people who misrepresent the reality.

God, the irony is so damned thick that it is unbelievable.

Just keep your pollution of threads to a minimum.