Yet More Reason For The Us In Iraq

[Nuclear]

It appears there may be a link between Saddam an Osama after all! All the people out there who cried and whined that there was no connection between them and used it as their defense against why we don't belong in Iraq are gonna ow the conservatives and President Bush a big apology if this turns out to be true...

Another interesting discussion topic. I could only find this article on Fox News... CNN and Yahoo news seemed to have not heard of it....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103163,00.html

[cknykid]

Fox News and reports from a variety of domestic and foreign spy agencies compiled by multiple sources to the rescue. All the information in this report is old, checked, tested and garbage. One more poor attempt to validate the illegal war.

[righturnonred]

All the information in this report is old, checked, tested and garbage. One more poor attempt to validate the illegal war.

I don't think so cknykid, If this report turns out to be the bombshell it looks like, Nuclear is exactly right.

So let me get this straight, liberals consider this leaked CIA report about deteriorating security to be legitimate

CIA: More Iraqis Support Resistance

But...

You consider this DOD memo to the intelligence committee siting links between Saddam and bin Laden to be just one more fraudulent attempt by this administration to justify the invasion.

Intelligence Report Links Saddam, Usama

I sense a high level of hypocracy.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Nuclear and rightturnonred,

It is very difficult for many to fathom how anti-western Muslim extremists can be America's best friend one day and it's mortal enemy the next. I think that is what a lot of people are fed up with. People like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Osama Bin Laden, and also Manuel Noriega and Gen. Suharto, Marcos, etc. ad nauseum are funded and supported by the US, and we are then supposed to believe that they are evil the next day. People are getting fed up with the USA, plain and simple.

[SirRiff]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Nov15.html

CIA Finds No Evidence Hussein Sought to Arm Terrorists

The CIA's search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has found no evidence that former president Saddam Hussein tried to transfer chemical or biological technology or weapons to terrorists, according to a military and intelligence expert.

Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, provided new details about the weapons search and Iraqi insurgency in a report released Friday. It was based on briefings over the past two weeks in Iraq from David Kay, the CIA representative who is directing the search for unconventional weapons in Iraq; L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civil administrator there; and military officials.

"No evidence of any Iraqi effort to transfer weapons of mass destruction or weapons to terrorists," Cordesman wrote of Kay's briefing. "Only possibility was Saddam's Fedayeen [his son's irregular terrorist force] and talk only."

washington post cites briefings from kay saying there are no WMD links...

it seems more and more like some people want it to be known thier intelligence was twisted. i'm sure the CIA doesnt appreciate having its accuracy questioned around the world.

SirRiff

[righturnonred]

People like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Osama Bin Laden, and also Manuel Noriega and Gen. Suharto, Marcos, etc. ad nauseum are funded and supported by the US, and we are then supposed to believe that they are evil the next day.

It is common knowledge that throughout history, the US has allied itself with some deplorable regimes. However, it must be acknowledged that support for these regimes occured in the name of global strategy aimed at combating a greater evil. For example, US support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan was intended to oppose the Soviet occupation of that country during the Cold War. Ironically, Russia was an important US ally during World War II. Although in retrospect, US support for some of these regimes has resulted in less than desirable outcomes, its intentions have always been to promote liberty in the face of greater evils.

The argument that US support for these regimes has not remained constant amid changing circumstances is irrelevant. Just because you cannot see the obvious logic behind support for these regimes at a given time does not mean such support was unjustified.

washington post cites briefings from kay saying there are no WMD links

The DoD memo to the Senate intellgence committee says nothing about the transfer of WMD to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, so I fail to see your point.

The memo concerns cooperation in the form of training, funding, and supplies such as obtaining passports, etc.

Read signifcant portions of the actual 20-point memo contained within this article.

Weekly Standard: Intel Report Links Saddam, Usama

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear rightturnonred,

Just because you cannot see the obvious logic behind support for these regimes at a given time does not mean such support was unjustified.

I see the logic just fine. The term 'The enemy of your enemy is your friend' is retarded logic at best. I believe history proves this, especially now.

[Michael Hardner]

I see the logic just fine. The term 'The enemy of your enemy is your friend' is retarded logic at best. I believe history proves this, especially now.

Recent events are putting the spotlight on America's foreign policy more and this can only be good.

The administration blatantly appeals to the US citizen's sense of justice by referring to Saddam's record of torture, etc. But regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan certainly have their problems too.

I hope that one positive outcome of that rhetoric is that Americans become more aware of the poor human rights records of some US allies, and there is pressure for change.

[KrustyKidd]

Dear rightturnonred,

Just because you cannot see the obvious logic behind support for these regimes at a given time does not mean such support was unjustified.

I see the logic just fine. The term 'The enemy of your enemy is your friend' is retarded logic at best. I believe history proves this, especially now.

Agreed, unfortunately, we all live in "the now" and must deal with present problems "immediately" rather than sit back and muse how the US foreign policy has finally come home to roost and how we should have backed less repressive regiemes such as Israel?

I hope that one positive outcome of that rhetoric is that Americans become more aware of the poor human rights records of some US allies, and there is pressure for change.

As for learning a lesson I can say with certainty that we have. Witness the Billions of dollars being pumped into Iraq in the form of aid and construction rather than simply bombing the place into an underground parkade.

[Lost in Manitoba]

global strategy

OOOHHH!! You mean the awesome brain power that led to training guirrilla fighters (aka terrorists) and supporting a man who, later on, would cost the US billions of dollars and two wars to try and kill him? Yeah, that's some strategy.

[righturnonred]

The term 'The enemy of your enemy is your friend' is retarded logic at best

Well, what would you suggest as more appropriate logic in foreign policy: "The friend of your enemy is your freind" or maybe "The enemy of your friend is your friend" or why not just let all hell break loose and say "The enemy of your enemy is your enemy". Now there's real logic for ya.

You know what would be really lovely: "The friend of your friend is your friend". God, I'd love to live in that world.

Get real will ya? We don't live in some wonderful utopian vacuum.

The administration blatantly appeals to the US citizen's sense of justice by referring to Saddam's record of torture, etc. But regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan certainly have their problems too.

I couldn't agree with you more, but lets stop for a moment to consider what would happen if we decided to alienate these "allies" tommarro. The cooperation of these nations in particular is essential to the success of the war on terror. The solution is different for every nation as there is no cookie cutter approach that applies to all. More must be done to convince these nations to take more than token baby steps towards establishing freer societies.

[KrustyKidd]

Get real will ya? We don't live in some wonderful utopian vacuum

Exactly. It is called foreign policy. It's a political tool. The enemy of mine enemy is my friend. A saying, not a hard fast rule. It is applied by every government on the planet to some extent. France and Germany, Germany and Israel, Canada and Russia. Comon guys, let's move on out of grade school here and stick with reality. This was not the cause of all war, if it was France would be hip deep in blood in Iraq, Viet Nam and Russia would be fighting the US alongside Egypt. Alliances change, it's politics.

[bama4256]

I believe with my whole heart they conspired with each other or supported each other. If a person can't see that or believe it well I'm sorry for you.

[Black Dog]

Hate to burst some bubbles (actually, I don't) but...

memo "innacurate": D.O.D

The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions.

Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.

[Morgan]

Black Dog,

I think it's you whose bubble will be burst...honestly, you should read more carefully before jumping to conclusions.

a)What the DOD describes as being "inaccurate" are the news reports claiming the DOD "confirmed" "new" information linking Saddam to Al Qaida per the leaked classified annex. The DOD does not say the memo is inaccurate at all.

News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.

b)The DOD then goes on to say that classified annex represents "raw data", not an analysis that drew any conclusions. Indeed, the DOD does not dispute the validity of the raw data, but merely says the leaked classified annex does not represent a detailed final report, which of course it doesn't.

The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA.  The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the Intelligence Community.  The selection of the documents was made by DOD to respond to the Committee’s question.  The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions.

c) Fyi, the Saddam-Al Qaida link was brought to light under Bill Clinton's regime by Janet Reno's Justice Department.

US Info.Agency Nov.4/98 OBL indicted for African bombings and OBL-Saddam link reported

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.

[SirRiff]

The memo concerns cooperation in the form of training, funding, and supplies such as obtaining passports, etc.

Read signifcant portions of the actual 20-point memo contained within this article.

that is meaningless because it is not a justification for war to supply al queda anyways. as we all know, the US sent $3 billion in weapons to afganistan, where alqueda started. thus the US is guilty of whatever ties saddam is accused of. thus any accusation by the US is baseless, as they have gleefully engaged in teh same activity. not to mention they have every incentive to lie as they based thier entire argument on WMD and have found none.

the fact that the US never puts its secret wars under the microspoce for scrutiny means they have no authority in leveling this charges against others. the war war repeatidly justified on the existance of WMDs and the transfer of WMDs. i'm not sure how you can just forget that since it was all bush blabbed about for weeks to scare people. of course, not anymore you notice.

and i will state once again, this is from the UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENCE. the least credible source around right now. thats like asking bush what the justification for war is this week.

anybody that believes a bush admin politician as GIs are dying in iraq everyday with an election coming up, american attitiudes on war justification are slipping LINK

, and they desperatly want to save face, is relying on people as unreliable as osama and saddam. its a useless source unless supported by some international credible third party. else you would have believed the aluminum tubes and yellowcake story too.

Sirriff

[KrustyKidd]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Nov15.html

CIA Finds No Evidence Hussein Sought to Arm Terrorists

The CIA's search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has found no evidence that former president Saddam Hussein tried to transfer chemical or biological technology or weapons to terrorists, according to a military and intelligence expert.

Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, provided new details about the weapons search and Iraqi insurgency in a report released Friday. It was based on briefings over the past two weeks in Iraq from David Kay, the CIA representative who is directing the search for unconventional weapons in Iraq; L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civil administrator there; and military officials.

"No evidence of any Iraqi effort to transfer weapons of mass destruction or weapons to terrorists," Cordesman wrote of Kay's briefing. "Only possibility was Saddam's Fedayeen [his son's irregular terrorist force] and talk only."

washington post cites briefings from kay saying there are no WMD links...

it seems more and more like some people want it to be known thier intelligence was twisted. i'm sure the CIA doesnt appreciate having its accuracy questioned around the world.

SirRiff

But Riff, I thought that Kay had no credentials? If so, how can you take the word of Cordsman when it is based on such crap as Kay and his report?

Make up your mind, is Kay credible and his WMD search also legit or is he an idiot and unqualified and therefore Saddam may have transferred WMD to Al Queda? Then again, scince you change your opinion on the reliability of sources from day to day - never mind, forget I asked.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

Mr. Kay is employed by the CIA. The CIA is not renowned for unbiased, factual reporting. In fact, the truth is low on the agenda. Finding information is one of their jobs, to be sure, but first and foremost it is to find or create use-able information. (It doesn't even need to be true to be used). I would suggest that any 'evidence' provided by Mr. Kay to be akin to asking the fox about why some of the hens are gone.

[KrustyKidd]

So then, which is it, does he support Riff's contention that his report is wrong and that there is no WMDs in Iraq or that there is none but lots of material and lots of Al Queda links? What I am trying to say is that you either believe a source is right some of the time and wrong some of the time, all the time or none of the time. Not picking and choosing which times to suit your arguments.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

Which do you believe the CIA represents? Right &wrong, representing falliability? Wrong all the time representing ignorance? Or right all the time representing omnipotence?

I believe it is none of the above. They have their own agenda, mostly directed by the CFR. The report would have been a foregone conclusion, the 'facts and findings' added later to give it an air of legitimacy.

The path they are on is inviolable, it is your path they wish to change.

[KrustyKidd]

I look at reason and logic Lonious. Bush has at the very least unknowingly exaggerated the WMD threat in order to invade Iraq to plant democracy. At this pointin time Kay is not doing a search for the express purpose of vindicating Bush, if so they would have found all sorts of smoking missiles and vials of bad stuff. He is doing what they need to do to secure the country. If you don't believe that, then there is only your personal imagination to go on. I don't think yours is too active but check out some of the anti war crowd, everything from Bush planning 911 to doing this for Iraqi oil. I try to keep my reasoning within possibilities. Yes, it is possible Kay is not going outside Baghdad and is doing nothing but typing bogus reports from a hotel in Rijhad somewhere instead. Somehow, that does not seem the case. What do you think he is up to?

[SirRiff]

there is no substance to kays report that says iraq has even programs of WMDS. all he said was thay there MAY be "PROOF" of "INTENT" or something vauge like that.

THERE IS NO SMOKING GUN

i dont care who claims it, if there was it would be all over CNN tomorrow.

kays report never cited real material evidence of WMDS existed. in fact, nothing material was found at all. only some labs that could have come from any high school lab in north america.

so in reality he found nothing.

now he is saying there is no evidence of WMD transfer either.

so in truth NOTHING that was claimed to be so certain and obvious before the war has come to the light of day.

kay has never found anything but he cant say that so he is being diplomatically vauge about it without outright lying. its all he can do without screwing himself.

sirriff

[Morgan]

Sir Riff and Loniusfleabag,

You say that Kay was being purposefully vague in his report so as not to make Bush look bad, that the CIA lied in their earlier reports to give Bush the evidence he wanted to invade Iraq, but neither you have explained how in 1998, under your hero, Slick Willy, his Justice Dept. headed by Janet Reno came to the same conclusion as the Bush Admin. 4 years later ie. that OBL and Saddam had agreed to co-operate on procuring/developing WMD.

In 1998, Reno's Justice Dept. used evidence put together by the largest task force ever assembled to collect evidence abroad. The CIA was not even the driving force. Nor did Slick Willy need to blackball Saddam to "avenge his father" as the Left likes to accuse Bush of doing. How do you explain the following?

Bin Laden indicted in US Court for African bombing, Nov. 4, 1998

The investigation deployed the largest contingent of FBI agents abroad and included members of the multi-agency joint terrorist task force -- New York City Police Department detectives, US customs agents, US Secret Service, the New York State Police, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the US Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Bin Laden, (US Attorney)

White charged, engaged in business transactions on behalf of Al Qaeda, including purchasing warehouses for storage of explosives, transporting weapons, and establishing a series of companies in Sudan to provide income to al Qaeda and as a cover for the procurement of explosives, weapons, and chemicals, and for the travel of operatives.

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the (238 count)indictment said.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK, and Sirriff,

Mr. Kay is doing what he is told to do. He is also doing nothing more than the UN inspectors did. I doubt that his timeframe for research indicates a resumption of open hostilities.

The CIA does not produce information for public opinion.

I believe the reports supplied by Mr. Kay are to :

1. supercede or 'replace' the exact same evidence as found by the UN, thus reducing the importance and influence of the UN in the eyes of the public

2. establish Mr. K as a 'truthful voice' which the public can believe(even though employed by the CIA)

The 'willful suspension of disbelief' can then move from Hollywood to the 'news' through the 'findings' of 'experts'.

[Morgan]

Sir Riff and Loniusfleabag,

You still don't answer the question of why a 1998 independent investigation that was undertaken by a multi-task force, not just the CIA, under Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, without involvement by Dr. Kay, concluded that Bin Laden and Saddam had an agreement with one another to pursue the development of WMD to be used against the USA.

That was 4 years ago and this conclusion was drawn in the course of investigating the African bombings.

Or perhaps you believe that George Bush conspired with Bill Clinton to frame poor Saddam?

In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the (238 count)indictment said.