Inquiring minds would like to know...

Hmmm... All the terrorist groups? I didn't think Saddam's Iraq had any relations with the Israelis at all...

I'll believe this juiced up Al-Qaeda link when it is solidly proven. I think it's a neocon lie, and the neocons being what they are - sore losers, here and in Iraq - I expect the lie to be repeated more and more. But nobody with brains is listening - there are too many good reasons to doubt.

As for the other "terrorists" in the region... Terror is in the eye of the beholder. What the neocon / zionist axis calls a terrorist many call a legitimate resistence.

You're intractable bias is showing...

Possum,
Thanks for the reply.

If only "neocons" believe Saddam and al Qaeda is Carney a neocon?

Bill Clinton? Hillary Clinton? Bob Kerrey? Buzz Patterson? Lee Hamilton?

Are all of the members of Saddam's regime and al Qaeda who have admitted cooperation (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23264)

I certainly understand the skepticism on the issue with the Bush administration unwilling to defend itself on this and much of the press convinced that no links existed but what makes you think the press and critics know more than Carney? know more than members of Saddam's regime and al Qaeda themselves?

You know, it’s really amazing. Videotapes of Saddam handing out checks to families of any suicide bomber in Israel have been shown on national television. We have the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, complete with a passenger airplane with its wings removed for training, also shown on national television. In addition, there is the totally uncontested fact that Saddam allowed Ansar al-Islam, a known terrorist group behind the Ricin incident in Briton a few years back, to operate completely unfettered in northern Iraq.

These things are known to all, the facts virtually uncontested. Yet, the myth goes on. Saddam had no ties to terrorism? Give me a break.

"I think it's a neocon lie, and the neocons being what they are - sore losers" -Harry Hutchison

That's the first time you've been on the giving end of that particular name-call in years huh! Strange that I don't hear neocon cries of voter fraud or stolen elections, like were heard from certain other segments of the American voting public. But that's an argument for another time and place.

At any rate, documents retrieved from Saddam's archives, since translated, have pretty much put this to rest. There was indeed a link between his regime and Al Qaeda, if not a strong one of partnership. That's irrelevant anyway. Ansar al Islam camps were overrun by coalition forces during the initial military campaign. As already stated, Saddam's regime put up money to compensate families of suicide bombers in Palestine. The man was a permanent threat to stability and our interests in the region. Our government and military exist to protect our population's interests, even when a portion of that population is too dim-witted to realize it.

Great post, unfortunately, those that need to understand that, won't "hear" what you wrote.

Maybe I am part of the "neocon lie" or a victim of the lie; but from the documentation I have seen; when it is all placed together, I have no doubt whatsoever that Saddam supported and encouraged terrorism; in particular I have no doubt that Saddam supported Al Queda, statements by Carney strengthen my conclusion.

What deeply troubles me is the apparent hit this debate has caused on our ability to respond to Iran a nation at least if not more connected to the 9/11 terrorists than Iraq ever was and very close if not already in possession of a nuclear bomb. It is apparent to me that a confrontation with Iran is inevitable. We have the necessary force at the doorstep yet very likely that force will stand down against the political climate. In that event those against so called "neocons" will have victory but as a nation we will acquire a great lost opportunity.

Joseph

Folks, there's a reason why the Saddam/Al Qaeda link is only now being touted in media outlets such as Front Page Mag and Free Republic: it's because no other media outlet will print already debunked lies and try to pass them off as truth. Bush has already himself admitted that no such connection ever existed, so unless you know more than him, you may as well give that old dead horse a rest now.

Regarding Saddam's support for suicide bombers in Israel, hopefully someone here can tell the difference between Al Qaeda (they're the ones who attacked us) and other terrorist groups, such as the ones in Israel. They're different groups.

Regarding Ansar Al-Islam, that terrorist training camp was located in the Kurdish region of Iraq, where Saddam had absolutely no power. Blaming Saddam for Ansar Al-Islam is like blaming him for terrorist camps in Iran. Essentially different countries.

However, now that you mention Ansar Al-Islam, then perhaps you are aware how the Bush Administration purposely did not attack that training camp in 2002, while they had the opportunity and were aware that they were planning a ricin attack on Europe. According to our former ambassador, Peter Galbraith, Bush decided to leave Zarqawi and his training camp intact to use as justification for the Iraq invasion. For this reason, Bush is partly responsible for all the death and destruction caused by Zarqawi for 3 years following.

At any rate, documents retrieved from Saddam's archives, since translated, have pretty much put this to rest. There was indeed a link between his regime and Al Qaeda, if not a strong one of partnership.

Yashmak, you are wrong. No such documents exist, apart from those fabricated by a handful of unglued journalists. Notice that Bush himself doesn't even make such a contention, and you'll see just how far out such a claim is.

The man was a permanent threat to stability and our interests in the region.

So you're saying things are more stable now?

As for threatening our interests, if by "our" you mean the USA's, then you are wrong. Saddam has been shown to have not been a threat to us in any way. Hence, the plummeting support for the war, which is now regarded as having been unnecessary. If by "our" you mean a handful of oil industry oligarchs, then yes, you are right, Saddam was keeping them from the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world. However, the US military is not meant to act to defend the interests of a relative handful of Americans. I hope you can appreciate that.

"Folks, there's a reason why the Saddam/Al Qaeda link is only now being touted in media outlets such as Front Page Mag and Free Republic: it's because no other media outlet will print already debunked lies and try to pass them off as truth. Bush has already himself admitted that no such connection ever existed, so unless you know more than him, you may as well give that old dead horse a rest now."

Are the Washington Post, AP and New York Times included in the list of Bush supporting publications?

"Regarding Ansar Al-Islam, that terrorist training camp was located in the Kurdish region of Iraq, where Saddam had absolutely no power. Blaming Saddam for Ansar Al-Islam is like blaming him for terrorist camps in Iran. Essentially different countries.

However, now that you mention Ansar Al-Islam, then perhaps you are aware how the Bush Administration purposely did not attack that training camp in 2002, while they had the opportunity and were aware that they were planning a ricin attack on Europe. According to our former ambassador, Peter Galbraith, Bush decided to leave Zarqawi and his training camp intact to use as justification for the Iraq invasion. For this reason, Bush is partly responsible for all the death and destruction caused by Zarqawi for 3 years following."

Actually doing a post on this right now. The reason that the camp wasn't attacked with air power was because there were so many chemicals and CBW precursors that air strikes would have caused a huge cloud of poison that would have killed civilians. This is according to Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong, Tommy Franks #2 for the runup to and execution of the original invasion, which went much better than the post-invasion.

"Yashmak, you are wrong. No such documents exist, apart from those fabricated by a handful of unglued journalists. Notice that Bush himself doesn't even make such a contention, and you'll see just how far out such a claim is."
ABC's Brian Ross is unglued? Ed Morrissey is unglued?

"As for threatening our interests, if by "our" you mean the USA's, then you are wrong. Saddam has been shown to have not been a threat to us in any way. Hence, the plummeting support for the war, which is now regarded as having been unnecessary. If by "our" you mean a handful of oil industry oligarchs, then yes, you are right, Saddam was keeping them from the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world. However, the US military is not meant to act to defend the interests of a relative handful of Americans. I hope you can appreciate that."

Take a look at the Iraqi Perspectives Project referenced in my links section and peruse that and the Duelfer report, the entire things and then let me know if you still think Saddam had no ill intentions or no capabilities.

"However, now that you mention Ansar Al-Islam, then perhaps you are aware how the Bush Administration purposely did not attack that training camp in 2002, while they had the opportunity and were aware that they were planning a ricin attack on Europe."

Well golly. Given this we just have to bring up Mr. Clinton not killing bin ladin when he had those four chances. Guess he was saving bL for something?

I seem to remember the Duefer report concluding that the war was the right thing to do.

It's really refreshing to see that there's at least one sane Democrat in DC. I wish him the best.

What a bunch of mindless drivel. Why would the Pentagon withhold information from the SSCI that would have vindicated the President? It doesn't make sense. Even if it would have compromised any "ongoing mission", they could have kept the specifics classified and included the conclusion. You're all delusional straw-graspers. Listen to the floor speeches from the day the report was released. The Cover-Up Committee Chairman, Sen. Roberts, kept classified parts of the report that compromised nothing but would have destroyed Bush's case even further than the unclassified report did.

Aluminum tubes...for conventional weapons
Niger yellowcake...forgeries
Mobile bio labs...single sourced from an alcoholic w/ ZERO credibility
Connections to al Qaeda...non-existent

Once the grown ups take control in January, the investigations and report declassifications will FINALLY shut you people up.

SP,
I guess me, Carney, Hillary and 3 Star General, the number two man for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan are all just idiots who need to "shut up"

Right?

piece on Delong is below this one.

Once the "grownups" take control in January?

OMG that's a laugh.

Talk about hypocritcal claims of partisanship showing (filled with neocon-this and neocon-that).

No Ties to Al Queda?
http://www.scottmalensek.com/PhaseIIrebuttalrpt.pdf

Media Reports Connect Saddam to 9/11 Plot
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/4425_0_4_0_C/

BUSH LIED; pt1/5 "Those NO TIES Lies"
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09252006.htm

Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 2
Only 18% of Intel Still Says There Were No Ties Between al Qaeda and Hussein
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09262006.htm

Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 3
Is Saddam a Liar?
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09272006.htm

Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 4
There Are No Jihadis in Iraq
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09282006.htm

Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 5
The Real Ties and Truth About the Lies
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09292006.htm

No WMD?

In Search of Saddam Hussein’s WMD:
Introducing Iraqi General Georges Sada
Part 1 of a 5
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/04032006.htm

In Search of Saddam Hussein’s WMD:
The Russian Connection
Part 2 of a 5
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/04042006.htm

In Search of Saddam Hussein’s WMD:
Russian Intelligence, Belarus & Highway 11
Part 3 of a 5
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/04052006.htm

In Search of Saddam Hussein’s WMD:
Saddam’s “Special Weapons”
Part 4 of a 5
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/04062006.htm

In Search of Saddam Hussein’s WMD:
The Documents Tell the Story
Part 5 of a 5
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/04072006.htm

Democrats as grownups:
How Opposition Rhetoric Helps Terrorists
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/07312006.htm

Progressives Try to Plagiarize National Security Strategy…Again
http://www.therant.us/guest/pender/08182006.htm

Dem Lies Dey Are a Dyin'
http://www.conservativepunk.com/ColumnItem.asp?reviewId=15

pics from the Duelfer Report can be found here and linked to from this site for use on other boards-po's the moonbats something bad
http://www.scottmalensek.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=248

Gets some book learnin kiddo. You're talking points are way too out-dated. Get a new set at Truthout, Bartcop, Buzzflash, or any of the real leftist online rags.

When the grownups take control in January....Dude, that was AWESOME!

ROFLOL!!!!!

One thing that has become apparent to me is that people will tend to accept evidence as true from the side that they already believe in, and discount evidence as false from the side they already disbelieve. In an age where all evidence is suspect because of the ability to forge false evidence with advanced technology skepticism is healthy. But of course the problem is obvious. We don't know what evidence is real, and what is faked. What we do know for sure is that quite a bit of evidence has been faked along the way. For example the AP photographs of the Israel-Lebanon war provided by a political hack "reporter". Faked. So that's the rub. Those who distrust the neocons will simply and absolutely dismiss whatever they say, even if they show up with evidence, even if they are actually members of Congress. The situation is Kafkaesque. Who can you trust? Whomever fits your biases, that's who.

...and why would that be Cato?
;)

Take a look at the Iraqi Perspectives Project referenced in my links section and peruse that and the Duelfer report, the entire things and then let me know if you still think Saddam had no ill intentions or no capabilities.

I've read Duefler, and from that I understand that while Saddam did indeed have ill intentions, he had no capability. It's important to separate those two. If we engage in a deeply disastrous adventure such as the Iraq debacle each time we detect that a leader doesn't like us, we will need to invade every country on the planet apart from Israel.

Well golly. Given this we just have to bring up Mr. Clinton not killing bin ladin when he had those four chances. Guess he was saving bL for something?

Two things, Gmee. First, the 9/11 commission concluded that Clinton did not make any mistakes in his pursuit of Bin Laden, and that he did not in fact miss a true chance to take him out. While Clinton made many mistakes during his presidency, such that I never voted for him, that wasn't one of them according to a bipartisan commission.

Second: How does anything Clinton did address the fact that Bush purposely let Zarqawi go? Is this some kind of two-wrongs-making-a-right type of thing? Please explain.

I seem to remember the Duefer report concluding that the war was the right thing to do.

You really need to sit down and read the report, because your memory does not reflect the facts. Duefler's report detailed exactly how Saddam was absolutely no threat to the United States. However, well aware that these facts would undermine his boss, he spent an inordinate amount of time in his report hypothesizing on what would happen if Saddam had gotten the sanctions lifted. That is not a reflection of facts, but rather, supposition. Based on his supposition and in spite of the facts, Duefler concluded that it was right to invade Iraq, and for that he received his "attaboy" from Bush.

Scott Malensek, I see your problem. The reason why you believe in all these fantasies is because you accept extremely partisan editorials as news. Let me explain: just because someone writes a spittle-flecked diatribe on an online publication called "The Rant" does not automatically convert those assertions into facts.

What does substantiate a claim is if various publications make claims, and the claims are verifiable through facts to which the various publications make reference.

If your only exposure to information about the larger world comes from rarified environments such as "The Rant," it's inevitable that you will eventually lose contact with reality completely, if that hasn't already occurred. Please, back away from the edge.

"I've read Duefler, and from that I understand that while Saddam did indeed have ill intentions, he had no capability. It's important to separate those two. If we engage in a deeply disastrous adventure such as the Iraq debacle each time we detect that a leader doesn't like us, we will need to invade every country on the planet apart from Israel."

He maintained the stocks to have Chem weapons in hours, kept the cultures and samples of aflatoxin, botulinum, hymmeragic fever weaponized, ricin, and enough uranium enrich for a few dirty bombs. All of this in addition to their IED and carbombing expertise that we are STILL seeing. That training went on for nearly a decade.
Add this to the training that took place at Salman Pak and elsewhere in assassination, poisoning, infiltrating water supplies (like they tried in Jordan and Turkey), and terrorist attacks using conventional weapons/explosives.

Think of what Osama had access to in Afghanistan (primitive camps) and multiply those capabilites (state oil revenue, much more sophisticated equipment, more manpower, etc) by at least ten.

2.5 on a 1 to 10 scale.
Well I GUESS it could be a little less but not much.
Would this figure also include agents who infiltrated al Queda ?
Was Saddam about to handover power to the al Queda dream caliphate ?

He maintained the stocks to have Chem weapons in hours, kept the cultures and samples of aflatoxin, botulinum, hymmeragic fever weaponized, ricin, and enough uranium enrich for a few dirty bombs.

Mark, you have a long overdue appointment with the facts. Here's your first installment regarding the Duelfer Report:

The discoveries made by the ISG include a "clandestine network of laboratories . . . that contained equipment . . . suitable for continuing chemical biological weapons research" and vials of "live C botulinum Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced."

So, in your telling, vials of live botulinum became "aflatoxin, botulinum, hymmeragic fever weaponized, ricin, and enough uranium enrich for a few dirty bombs". Very creative.

Here's more:

Throughout the life of ISG and SCP-B, there were only two occasions where chemical weapons were found. The first was a sarin mortar shell which had been reworked into a roadside improvised explosive device by insurgents. The second was a handful of 122-millimeter rocket warheads filled with inert mustard gas that was recovered near Babylon. Both were thought to be remainders from the Iran-Iraq War and were useless as offensive weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group

Seriously, your fantasies aren't serving you. Dump them and adopt some facts.

Paul,
Read this piece from one of the ISG inspectors highlighting some things that were found
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/8195

You are aware that there are 2 or 3 reports that came out from Duelfer, right?

And only a few shells of sarin, vx?
Try over 800 now being found
"One intelligence official, who asked not to be identified because of political sensitivities, said the agencies have devoted “hundreds of man hours” to the hunt.

The search has not been entirely fruitless. The DIA has discovered another 300 old chemical shells lying around the war-torn country. That's in addition to the 500 sarin shells mentioned in a declassified Pentagon intelligence report revealed by Hoekstra and Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum last June." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15134719/site/newsweek/

Mark, here's how to tell a ridiculous online source from a credible one. A ridiculous source makes claims that aren't being made by the very people who would benefit the most were those claims true. (In this case, everyone who ever supported the Iraq invasion, including the Bush Administration.) They make many assertions but almost never substantiate any of those claims by, say, quoting a more objective source such as the Dulfer Report itself. And, here's the dead giveaway, THEY MAKE GREAT USE OF THE CAPSLOCK.

That's your Benador Associates link. Utterly worthless. Says what you want to hear, I understand, but it's only the opinion of one editorialist in the Wall Street Journal, and is devoid of facts. I refer you to the Duelfer Report itself, rather than these attempts at misrepresenting it.

As for poor Peter Hoekstra's quixotian quest to discover the missing WMDs, that's more sad than anything else. Sure, they found some things from before the 1991 war. Stop the presses! I just wish I wasn't paying for this boondoggle.

Long story short, here in reality, the WMD issue as well as the Al Qaeda/Iraq link issue have been completely refuted. Those who continue to struggle with these truths may have a hard time adapting, but it doesn't change the facts on the ground one whit.

Do I have to point out the hyposcrisy and ignorance? I guess so...

"You're intractable bias is showing..."

You mean the kind of bias that dog vomit puddles like yourself live on? The kind of bias that plants logic-shielding words like neocon and zionist in your speech?

"But nobody with brains is listening - there are too many good reasons to doubt."

As opposed to people with your kind of brains; people who state an unsupported opinion and only back it up by claiming there are 'many good reasons' yet cannot cite a single one. The kind of brains that were absent in kindergarten when the simple concept of contractions was taught. Here's a lesson my pea-brained friend, listen up this time instead of polishing your Quran - "You are intractable bias is showing..." is not an English sentence. "Your intractable bias is showing" on the other hand, is correct.

Would that we all had your powerful brain, we would all be on the path to Jihad, hiding behind human shields and religious zealotry because our civilization was too inferior to advance the state of technology to even a fraction of our enemies. Then we would confuse this last-resort human butchery with "legitimate resistance".

The only question left is whether you are another bleeding-brain liberal dhimmi or a jihadi in our midst. Why don't you come to DC and we'll have a chat in my alley to find the truth.

"That's your Benador Associates link. Utterly worthless. Says what you want to hear, I understand, but it's only the opinion of one editorialist in the Wall Street Journal, and is devoid of facts. I refer you to the Duelfer Report itself, rather than these attempts at misrepresenting it."

That guy isn't an editorialist. He was one of the inspectors with the Iraq Survey Group (who inspected Iraq for WMD) and was also on the U.N.'s WMD inspection team prior to the invasion. He's just quoting portions of the Duelfer report. I couldn't find the original link but it's also available at defenddemocracy.org's site

"Long story short, here in reality, the WMD issue as well as the Al Qaeda/Iraq link issue have been completely refuted. Those who continue to struggle with these truths may have a hard time adapting, but it doesn't change the facts on the ground one whit."
The NEWSWEEK article cites someone else saying 800 various CBW weapons had been found.
I also cited Spertzel and could spite Michael Tanji and Ray Robinson, other people involved with inspections as well who have talked about documents found indicating Iraq had WMD programs at the time of invasion.

Of course this is on top of the chem weapon precursors all over the country, the chem suits, the factories and equipment for making it all, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and sounds like a duck......

Mark, your argument consists of "this guy said this, and that guy said that." I have no doubt that "this guy" and "that guy" are real people. But I have to point out, the vast majority of analysts, as well as Duelfer, say there are no WMDs and no Al Qaeda link. Sure, there is bound to be dissension, just as some people still believe the world is flat. However, it doesn't mean it's true.

Here's the best indicator that the WMD and Al Qaeda in Iraq claims are invalid. The Bush Administration has paid a very heavy political price for the fact that their rationale for this disaster in Iraq have turned out to be false. Right now, with the war and his agenda in tatters, Bush's single concern is with his legacy: how history will view him. Right now, as a president who started a war under false premises, his legacy doesn't look too good. Given that, I can think of no one else on this planet who would be more overjoyed if such connections were found. However, Bush remains silent on this issue.

And let's face it, it's not like Bush shies away from making false claims. Remember the yellowcake? The meeting in Prague? The last throes? To this day, he's still making dodgy claims about the status of the "mission." If these claims of WMDs and Al Qaeda had even the most minute shred of validity, he'd be shouting it out from the tallest mountain. The fact that he says nothing about these claims indicate that they are too invalid even for Bush to claim as truth.

Why Bush does what he does is beyond me but since when does him saying or not saying something convince people like you?

It hasn't so far and still won't and I am not sure that he really has all that much to gain by saying as much, or at least thinks he has nothing to gain. Either way, I don't understand his refusal to speak up on the issue and your criticism is important but I don't think it necessarily invalidates the information.

On the other hand, in a second hand conversation I had with someone who follows politics of this sort closely I was told they are done fighting leaks of anonymous people to the press and the intelligence bureaucracies and just want to move on. Particularly about Iraq.

Why hasn't Bush talked about how we had double agents in Saddam's inner circle? About the 7,000 al Qaeda members caught in Iraq? Why not talk about Russia's public assertion that Saddam was attempting to attack the U.S. after 9-11 and had plans for bigger attacks? Why not talk about the mass graves we keep finding?
Good questions that deserve answers, just as the questions about the footdragging in the post-invasion do. A fair question but there are too many things that we also can look at that we know happened and ask why he hasn't mentioned those either.

On Prague and yellowcake you are wrong that the issue is "cleared up." Certainly about the yellowcake.

Did you not read the SSCI's thrashing of Joe Wilson and the Butler Report, Silbermann Robb's findings on yellowcake? Chris Hitchens work? They found that the allegations were true but that someone had manufactured a phony document on the subject as well. Doesn't change the overall story and meetings that took place. Please read the SSCI first investigation and Chris Hitchens pieces at Slate on the issue. Or even ask Charles Hanely of the AP.

On Atta and Prague, Komeniecek (sp?), head of Czech intel prior still maintains that the meeting took place, as do others. Deroy Murdock has interviewed him and others in Czech intel as has Edward Jay Epstein.

I don't know if the meeting happened or not but I certainly don't and won't think it didn't happen because David Corn or NEWSWEEK says it didn't.

By saying that Bush not mentioning these things indicate that they didn't happen or aren't true is entirely false logic.
It's an argument based on the preposition that he doesn't have anything better to do, that he isn't running a war at home, in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere against jihadists. That he doesn't have domestic concerns, that he puts party and personal approval ratings over victory at wartime. That he says "Yes, we need to fight an insurgency in Iraq, deal with North Korea, Iran, al Qaeda everywhere in the world, keep the economy running, monitor the countless threats against the U.S. each day, but I want to try and boost my approval ratings by a few points by talking about this Saddam's possible links to al Qaeda", which would undoubtedly only be followed up by the cynical news stories on the issue at ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, WashPost, etc.

Paul's comments from a recent email exchange followed by my responses:

ME: Why Bush does what he does is beyond me but since when does him saying or not saying something convince people like you?

PAUL: Well, given his record of well-documented lies, wisdom dictates that one regard his claims with a lot of skepticism. Like that quote that Bush fumbled so badly: Fool me once...

ME: I really have little time or patience for people pushing the thoroughly discredited "Bushlied" memes. It shows me far more about that person's hatred of a president than their desire to wage argument and weigh evidence.

ME: "On the other hand, in a second hand conversation I had with someone in high political circles administration I was told they are done fighting leaks of anonymous people to the press and the intelligence bureaucracies and just want to move on. Particularly about Iraq. "

PAUL: That makes no sense and doesn’t jive with facts on the ground, where Bush seems very focused on his own legacy and how history regards him. While most of the Bush Administration must have by now realized that their administration has been an abysmal failure, they still put a lot of energy towards putting a positive spin on the war in Iraq. (Count how many times Bush claims we’re winning, in contradiction of most every expert on the subject, as verification.) If someone discovered something that would make people realize that we invaded Iraq not to keep 14 permanent bases next to where their oil comes out, but for the actual reasons stated in the first place (WMDs and Al Qaeda connection), it makes absolutely no sense to suggest that Bush wouldn’t promote this discovery heavily.

ME: just because you obsess on politics, approval ratings and details doesn't mean that everyone does, why is that so difficult to comprehend? I see nothing but raw emotion and opinion above, zero facts even peppered inside.

To put permanent bases in Iraq? Like Japan, Germany, Korea and Europe?

What is with you lefties obsessing over that? It's what happens in war, Have you ever studied any war before? Ever?

Says we are winning in Iraq? Would you say our military is losing? Has our military ever lost a battle? No, though I see a lot more raw emotion.

War for oil? Give me a break really. I was taking you seriously for a while but now it's getting old. Vietnam and Afghanistan were "only for oil" too right?

ME: How we had double agents in Saddam's inner circle? About the 7,000 al Qaeda members caught in Iraq? Why not talk about Russia's public assertion that Saddam was attempting to attack the U.S. after 9-11 and had plans for bigger attacks? Why not talk about the mass graves we keep finding?
Good questions that deserve answers, just as the questions about the footdragging in the post-invasion do.

PAUL: It’s obvious that the answers to those “questions” (if anyone actually considers them legitimate questions) do not benefit the administration in any way. As for Russia’s assertion, I’m afraid Russia has its own agenda, to where its assertions need to be regarded with skepticism as well.

ME: I take that as meaning you can't answer those questions either. Yes, there plenty of reasons for the invasion that Bush DOESN'T discuss which would support the invasion, just because he doesn't mention those either doesn't mean they aren't true. This should be LOGIC 101 at any University.

ME: On Prague and yellowcake you are wrong that the issue is "cleared up." Certainly about the yellowcake.

PAUL: A few people are still working at restoring their reputations regarding the fictitious Prague meeting, it’s true, and so there’s still some chatter there. About the yellowcake, you’re right, that’s still an open issue.

ME: Paul, who the hell do you think you are saying the Prague meeting didn't happen? Were you there? What makes you so certain that your sources are right? It's not possible you are wrong? Pretty arrogant to flatly assert something that you can't personally vouche for. What I did was allow for the possibility that the meeting took place and told you that the head of Czech intel still says it did, hardly someone trying to "restore their reputation".
The blanket rejections of any and all things that might support links between Saddam and al Qaeda (and threaten your staunch opposition to the Iraq war) seems to impede your ability to rationally look at stories, comments and intelligence reports and instead go into ad hominem attacks on those whose intelligence threatens your positions.

ME: By saying that Bush not mentioning these things indicate that they didn't happen or aren't true is entirely false logic.
It's an argument based on the preposition that he doesn't have anything better to do, that he isn't running a war at home, in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere against jihadists. That he doesn't have domestic concerns, that he puts party and personal approval ratings over victory at wartime. That he says "Yes, we need to fight an insurgency in Iraq, deal with North Korea, Iran, al Qaeda everywhere in the world, keep the economy running, monitor the countless threats against the U.S. each day, but I want to try and boost my approval ratings by a few points by talking about this", as if he had the time.

PAUL: If you gauge his priorities based on what he has spent the most time doing, then his priorities are the following:

* Vacationing in Crawford
* Stumping for republicans
* The Iraq War, etc.

Bush absolutely puts party and personal approval over victory at wartime. Keep in mind, his original push to invade in March 03 was based on weather concerns, not strategic ones. Also keep in mind, the big Falluja offensive didn’t begin until immediately after the 2004 election, although the troops were calling for it for a long time beforehand. Those are just two examples.

I don’t have endless time to discuss these issues just with you. I would much rather these comments get posted to your blog, where they can serve to educate other people.

ME: Well, I've gathered that you HATE President Bush and that any topic involving him comes up your default position is to see where he is on it and then go as far to the opposite side as you can and ignore any repudiation of your flimsy argument which just crumbled above.

It still remains that Bush not saying something about Iraq is not the end-all, be-all on whether or not something is true and your obsessive hatred for a man that liberated millions of Iraqis continues to not only drive your decisions but thoroughly control and limit your capacity for reasonable debate on any subject that involves the man.

Oh Paul,

I wrote many of those articles, and found the facts for the Phase II rebuttal rpt. Too bad you didn't read them. You'd then be dealing with facts rather than talking points based from people who literally jumped to the conclusion sections of reports.

I suspect very strongly that you didn't actually READ the Deulfer report for had you, you'd see three things:
1) inspections couldn't ever work because of Saddam-not because of Pres Bush. The pictures in the report alone prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt:
http://www.scottmalensek.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=248

2) Saddam was still a WMD threat as Dr Kay explained as well

"It was reasonable to conclude that Iraq posed an imminent threat. What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war,"
-1/28/04 Dr. David Kay testimony to Sen. Intel. Committee

3) Saddam was working closely with neighbors and America's allies to undermine the diplomatic process through a network of bribes etc ala Oil For Food.

What you believe to be facts are grossly incorrect. Time to study up mon ami.

-Scott

There are some problems with your analysis Mr. Eichenlaub regarding the Prague meeting. The head of the Czech Foreign Relations and Information Agency stated he believed no meeting did take place between Atta and al-Ani, an assertion he made in 2002 and still stands by today.

“A member of no political party, Bublan has no master to please, a fact that was perhaps most evident when back in 2002 he became the first Czech official to announce that alleged 9/11 bomber Mohammad Atta probably never met with an Iraqi spy in Prague. The Bublan disclosure embarrassed then-Prime Minister Milos Zeman and Interior Minister Stanislav Gross, who had informed the public and the U.S. government about Atta's secret rendezvous, a theory discredited this year by the 9/11 Commission in the United States.”

http://www.praguepost.com/P03/2004/Art/0826/news1.php

He was the head of one of the Czech Republic’s three intelligence bureaus, and had direct oversight for foreign and asymmetrical threats.

• “Intelligence regarding international terrorism and other asymmetric security threats endangering security interests and international obligations of the Czech Republic“

http://www.uzsi.cz/index.php@lang=2&show=001000001.html

The only evidence of the “Atta in Prague” meeting is the testimony of a lone BIS informer, who did not disclose this evidence until after 9/11 when Atta’s face was plastered all over the world. Al-Ani had already been ejected from the country because of suspicious activity (unrelated to the meeting), so it was probably easy for this informer (obviously opposed to the Saddam regime) to put a well-known and now dead terrorist, with a possible enabler of terrorist activity in the Czech Republic.

The evidence against the meeting is, if not staggering, compelling: No record of any flight by Atta in or out of the Czech Republic during the time period in question, no record of any entry to Czech Republic by Atta at anytime after June 2000, no record of any aliases being used by Atta to enter Czech Republic, no physical evidence of the meeting, no recordings of the meetings, and no photographs of the meeting, no other witnesses to the meeting, al-Ani’s testimony (under interrogation) that no meeting took place, no documents of the meeting in the Iraqi embassy, or anywhere in Baghdad, and no other Iraqis working with the IIS, or the embassy, confirm the meeting ever took place.

What is more logical? That a BIS informer, prejudiced against the Saddam Hussein regime, believes he saw a meeting between al-Ani, and Atta from a distance, and then remembers the meeting only after 9/11 (six months later) or that said informer was mistaken.

James,
Thanks for the reply. To be honest I haven't really spent a whole lot of time and that particular issue and will concede that though I know Deroy Murdock and Edward Jay Epstein have spent a lot of time on it and, based on what I've seen from them in the past, I had deferred to their work on the topic. I was bascially saying that as far as I know it wasn't a "closed" deal and Murdock and Epstein had written somewhat recently again on why they believed so.

I'll cast no illusions right now as to being thoroughly read up on that one. Thanks for the links though, I'll check them out.

Holy Cow..."What does Congressman-elect Chris Carney know about Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?"

Probarly a whole lot. I quess the average Joe does not know the Global War on Terrorism is an on going investigation. I'm sure many people have read the Duelfer Report and Senate Intelligence Reports on their spare time like I have. It's pretty easy reading since most of its blacked out!

That's my observation.

Like a good police investigation you don't give out pertinent information to the public. If the criminal finds out that the police are on to him he might flush the evidence down the crapper, burn the evidence or bury it out in the woods somewhere.

When our troops went into Iraq many sites in questions were deliberately vandalized. It was very systematic according to the Duelfer Report. If your a good Iraqi intelligence officer or scientist...you will destroy your compound to keep information away from the enemy.

Another fact. Many al Queda associates are at large and have NBC know how. You don't want to annouce to the world what type of chemical weapons you have discovered. Many people from Saddam's Regime are at large too.

You want to track them down with good leads.

http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/terroristscorecard/

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2003/pipc10042003.html

This war did not start in March 2003 folks. It started in the First Gulf War in 1990. Saddam is still in war with us even while he sits in his jail cell.

I think their is a connection between al Queda and Iraqi Intelligence. It's not a neo-con thing....its a woman's intuition.

That's my observation.

Harold,

I got it, it is the Jews fault. Everything is the Jews fault. Why do the Palestinians teach their kids to hate Jews and dress their kids in suicide bomb outfits.

You belive in the propaganda of the Jewish haters.

You are just an uninformed useful idiot

FROM MOHAMMED, INHABITANT OF BAGHDAD, December 30th 2006, http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

ABOUT SADDAM'S EXECUTION

"[Saddam]deserved to die—our people are still suffering from his crimes till this moment, maybe not in person anymore but through the murderous terrorist machine he built and expanded over years; his orphans are still murdering our people in cold blood trying to deny us the right to build a model of life away from the culture of death the dictator created."

SEEMS ALL IRAQIS KNOW SADDAM'S REGIME HAD NUMEROUS TIES WITH TERRORISM

http://70.168.46.200/Released/10-10-06/CMPC-2003-006431.pdf

Please take the time to educate yourselves before you pretend to talk about the facts. You liberals really cling to each others opinions without regard for facts. Actually, you seem to just want to be one of the "in crowd".

I know and worked with Carney.

He is a patriot and honest man above a Democrat. Unfortunately those don’t seem to be the ingredients of a re-elected politician. Hopefully the 10th district of Pennsylvania will appreciate his loyalty to the people.

God Bless America

http://70.168.46.200/Released/10-10-06/CMPC-2003-006431.pdf

Please take the time to educate yourselves before you pretend to talk about the facts. You liberals really cling to each others opinions without regard for facts. Actually, you seem to just want to be one of the "in crowd".

I know and worked with Carney.

He is a patriot and honest man above a Democrat. Unfortunately those don’t seem to be the ingredients of a re-elected politician. Hopefully the 10th district of Pennsylvania will appreciate his loyalty to the people.

God Bless America

No strike related to Iraq have been admitted by the US government.

In 1993, Ramzi Youssef made the WTC to explod. Youssef, with an iraqi passport, fled to Iraq where he was harbored a while.

The US government is still denying any Iraqi involvment in the 1993 attack.

Wake up. The intelligence community will never admit the enemy n-1 stroke back while the USA were so weak because of the Clinton's policy.

Iraq is certainly behind the 1993-1998-2000 and 2001 attacks, but the US government will never admit it.

Intelligence even says Iraq was secular, although everyone knows Saddam got religion in the 1990's, built several mosques, added a sentence of the Koran on the Iraqi flag and wrote a Koran with his own blood.

Real Kilroy-

Did Carney replace Curt Weldon? I'm not familiar with the districts in PA. That would be a bit ironic if that were true given all the people that wanted Weldon out of the picture.

The "Blue Dogs" might just turn the democrats around. Don't hold your breath though.

-XRDC

Hard to believe the pro-Saddamist argument that radical Islamic Jihadist are everywhere around the world BUT Iraq.

I'll add to drzz's comment that in his numerous speeches secular Saddam also frequently praised Allah throughout the 1990's as well as printed the Islamic symbol The Cresent on his dinars.