[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, the Washington Times is a rag founded by a cult, and is not halfway a reputable source.[/quote]
Opinions are like assholes and belly buttons…[/quote]
If you scroll down the page concerning the fate of Iraqi WMD you’ll discover that the 2008 financial crisis was caused by Russian and Chinese economic terrorist attacks. Seems legit to me.[/quote]
I’ve a hunch that what “seems legit to” you is what your professor told you the other day in class. Whatever that may be.
[/quote]
Have you read the article in question? It’s rather far fetched. It’s not like they have to produce a bibliography though.
Weekly Standard reporter Hayes marshals a wealth of evidence that, in contrast with the tenuous connections that have so far made news, point to ties between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda. Most intriguingly, Hayes finds links between Iraq and the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, one of whom apparently received shelter and financial support from Iraq after the attack. Hayes also gets confirmation by Czech officials of the alleged Prague meeting between September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent. Elsewhere, Hayes points to Iraqi intelligence documents that mention a “good relationship” with bin Laden. Other sources note an alleged agreement for Iraq to assist al-Qaeda in making chemical and biological weapons. Relying both on “open sources” like news articles, transcripts from the 1998 embassy bombing trials, as well as anonymous intelligence reports and informants, Hayes allows that some of these stories may prove unreliable. But he contends that the number, consistency and varied provenance of reports of high-level contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq throughout the past decade allows one to “connect the dots” into a clear pattern of collaboration. Despite the frustrating absence of source notes and no knowledge of what cooperative efforts ever came of these contacts, most readers will conclude from this volume that the Saddam?al-Queda thread has some play left in it.
Looking at the previous reviews of this book, the ones with few stars are obviously politically motivated. It’s doubtful that they’ve read the book, and some indulge in outrageous and even dystopian tangents that have no connection to the subject at hand. However, after the outcry for “connecting the dots” after 9-11 it doesn’t make sense to sweep other connected dots under the rug. Did Saddam Hussein have connections to terrorists? Indisputably. To argue otherwise is to hide one’s head (to speak diplomatically) in the sand. Was he connected to 9-11? Possibly. The important thing to understand is that author Stephen F. Hayes can only put forth “dots”. Like any good prosecuting attorney, he presents his case clearly, giving exhibits that build a case on circumstantial evidence. But to be fair, the “dots” that should have been connected to stop 9-11 (if it could be humanly stopped) are also tenuous, unless one sees them with the benefit of hindsight. I will not say whether Hayes (in the interest of full disclosure, it must be said he works for the Weekly Standard, which raises as much hackles as a worker for The New York Times to a so-called Neo-Con) proves his case. READ THE BOOK FOR YOURSELF, especially before you have the temerity to write a negative review. In fact, the reviews (all reviews) of this book, including positive ones, should be ignored because they are meaningless. If one thinks Iraq is the centerpiece on the war on terror, the reviews will be positive (though also one has to admit in those cases the book was probably read); if one adamantly refuses to admit Saddam Hussein had ties to terror at all (which is a foolish decision) and think the Iraq leg on the war on terror a diversion or a sideshow (which is at least an arguable position, though I don’t accept it) one probably isn’t going to read the book because a belief may sometimes be shaken when confronted with cold facts. The important thing to do with this book is READ it and give the facts a fair hearing, even if you reject them. If you ever said the phrase “connect the dots” in relation to 9-11, you must read this book. Your opinion may not be changed (dogma rarely is) but you will at least see what connecting dots amounts to. It’s done here to good advantage. Is the book true? How do I know – I’m not a CIA operative! But it is IMPORTANT. Here are the facts. Accept them or reject them. In the climate the world is in at present, with terrorists crossing oceans to kill innocents, even affecting elections in western countries, you’re doing yourself a disservice and even being dumb if you don’t at least give these dots a fair hearing before writing your reviews to denegrate the book.
This is a very short book and smaller than half the size of a typical magazine page, so it didn’t take long to read it over lunch hour today. But the contents more than make up for its size. If you have read any of Hayes’ articles in the Weekly Standard over the last year or so, you won’t find a lot of new material here, but he does connect a few more dots, but also exposes the sad truth about journalists today- they are lazy and have a political agenda to discredit any evidence which does not fit the mantra of the liberals that there was no connection between Hussein and bin Laden. Hayes cites numerous examples of Saddam’s funding of terrorists all over the Middle East, and complements Laurie Mylroie’s books which links Iraq to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi native who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center, moved back to Iraq after the bombing and actually was paid by Saddam, as newly discovered records show. The supposedly “discredited” link of Iraqi intelligence meeting in Prague with Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers is examined in full, with the CIA “sources” who dismiss the claim looking more like the incompetents that they are. Hayes does a good job of dissecting stories published by the NY Times and the Washington Post which confirm their political agenda rather than objective reporting. One small example is their citing of al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida alias Abu Zubayadah, alias Abd al-Hadi Al-Wahab, alias Zain Al-Abidin, alias Muhahhad Hussain, alias Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, alias Tariq, alias Abu-al Hasanat, alias Noorud Din, alias Dawood, alias Kamil, alias Badar alias Al Mujahid,a Palestinian born at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Zubaida has been the source of numerous pieces of information gleaned during his interrogation by the CIA and FBI at Guantanamo after his capture in Pakistan in 2002. Every threat cited by him (which actually resulted in an increase in the threat level being raised to orange last year) has turned out to be totally false. But he is cited as the source of “credible” intelligence by the Times and Post when he denies that there was any link between Iraq and al Qaeda, even though other al Qaeda leaders have said there were links. Now why should a thug who has been proven to be lying in everything he has told interrogators suddenly become credible when he said there was no connection. Yet his denial has become one of the cornerstones in the mantra that there was no linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda? Hayes cites numerous examples which shows the partisan political agenda of the left-wing media which refuses to be bothered by the facts, and their reliance on their “sources” in the US intelligence community. This is the same community whose failure is laid bare by the hole in the ground where the WTC once stood in New York.
I am certain that there will be numerous reviews written by Bush haters who will never hold this book in their hands, but objective observers who want to understand why Iraq was one of the “Axis of Evil” countries cited by Bush last year should get this book. Hopefully Hayes will write about Iran’s recent embarrassing admissions about their nuclear program after denying its existence to the IAEA for the last decade.[/quote]
So if information existed that could tangibly link Al Qaida to the Iraqi government, why didn’t the Bush administration use it to their political advantage?[/quote]
Oh methinks they did. Prof Alinsky Jr. didn’t fill you in on that one?[/quote]
Is deflecting the question the same as answering it? The book you referenced is predicated on a supposed leaked document in 2003. Why didn’t the Bush administration use its contents (which ostensibly were a concrete link between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaida) during the run up to the Iraq War, or the 2004 presidential election? Why didn’t former President Bush write of it in his book Decision Points? Yes, I own this and have read it.
I’m still waiting on that list of reputable scholars and/or practitioners of IR who believe Obama’s foreign policy to be “the stupidest in American history.” If it’s a universally held belief, it shouldn’t be difficult to find. But hey, you aren’t familiar with the classics in the discipline. Why would you know of any contemporary scholars outside of a google search? You’re going to brush this aside and hope it gets lost in a sea of posts because your assertion is little more than empty rhetoric rife with ideological fundamentalism and can’t be supported empirically.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, the Washington Times is a rag founded by a cult, and is not halfway a reputable source.[/quote]
Opinions are like assholes and belly buttons…[/quote]
That isn’t an opinion. A moonie rag carries as much water as a kid’s finger-painting.[/quote]
Forget the ‘moonie rag’. Haaretz is Israel’s oldest newspaper and is left leaning liberal. The article describes how western intelligence agencies utilised private companies to take satellite photos of locations specified by other sources as the location of Saddam’s stockpiles in Syria? The second in command of the Iraqi airforce stated they were flown out in 2002 while Bush II was blustering.
Weekly Standard reporter Hayes marshals a wealth of evidence that, in contrast with the tenuous connections that have so far made news, point to ties between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda. Most intriguingly, Hayes finds links between Iraq and the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, one of whom apparently received shelter and financial support from Iraq after the attack. Hayes also gets confirmation by Czech officials of the alleged Prague meeting between September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent. Elsewhere, Hayes points to Iraqi intelligence documents that mention a “good relationship” with bin Laden. Other sources note an alleged agreement for Iraq to assist al-Qaeda in making chemical and biological weapons. Relying both on “open sources” like news articles, transcripts from the 1998 embassy bombing trials, as well as anonymous intelligence reports and informants, Hayes allows that some of these stories may prove unreliable. But he contends that the number, consistency and varied provenance of reports of high-level contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq throughout the past decade allows one to “connect the dots” into a clear pattern of collaboration. Despite the frustrating absence of source notes and no knowledge of what cooperative efforts ever came of these contacts, most readers will conclude from this volume that the Saddam?al-Queda thread has some play left in it.
Looking at the previous reviews of this book, the ones with few stars are obviously politically motivated. It’s doubtful that they’ve read the book, and some indulge in outrageous and even dystopian tangents that have no connection to the subject at hand. However, after the outcry for “connecting the dots” after 9-11 it doesn’t make sense to sweep other connected dots under the rug. Did Saddam Hussein have connections to terrorists? Indisputably. To argue otherwise is to hide one’s head (to speak diplomatically) in the sand. Was he connected to 9-11? Possibly. The important thing to understand is that author Stephen F. Hayes can only put forth “dots”. Like any good prosecuting attorney, he presents his case clearly, giving exhibits that build a case on circumstantial evidence. But to be fair, the “dots” that should have been connected to stop 9-11 (if it could be humanly stopped) are also tenuous, unless one sees them with the benefit of hindsight. I will not say whether Hayes (in the interest of full disclosure, it must be said he works for the Weekly Standard, which raises as much hackles as a worker for The New York Times to a so-called Neo-Con) proves his case. READ THE BOOK FOR YOURSELF, especially before you have the temerity to write a negative review. In fact, the reviews (all reviews) of this book, including positive ones, should be ignored because they are meaningless. If one thinks Iraq is the centerpiece on the war on terror, the reviews will be positive (though also one has to admit in those cases the book was probably read); if one adamantly refuses to admit Saddam Hussein had ties to terror at all (which is a foolish decision) and think the Iraq leg on the war on terror a diversion or a sideshow (which is at least an arguable position, though I don’t accept it) one probably isn’t going to read the book because a belief may sometimes be shaken when confronted with cold facts. The important thing to do with this book is READ it and give the facts a fair hearing, even if you reject them. If you ever said the phrase “connect the dots” in relation to 9-11, you must read this book. Your opinion may not be changed (dogma rarely is) but you will at least see what connecting dots amounts to. It’s done here to good advantage. Is the book true? How do I know – I’m not a CIA operative! But it is IMPORTANT. Here are the facts. Accept them or reject them. In the climate the world is in at present, with terrorists crossing oceans to kill innocents, even affecting elections in western countries, you’re doing yourself a disservice and even being dumb if you don’t at least give these dots a fair hearing before writing your reviews to denegrate the book.
This is a very short book and smaller than half the size of a typical magazine page, so it didn’t take long to read it over lunch hour today. But the contents more than make up for its size. If you have read any of Hayes’ articles in the Weekly Standard over the last year or so, you won’t find a lot of new material here, but he does connect a few more dots, but also exposes the sad truth about journalists today- they are lazy and have a political agenda to discredit any evidence which does not fit the mantra of the liberals that there was no connection between Hussein and bin Laden. Hayes cites numerous examples of Saddam’s funding of terrorists all over the Middle East, and complements Laurie Mylroie’s books which links Iraq to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi native who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center, moved back to Iraq after the bombing and actually was paid by Saddam, as newly discovered records show. The supposedly “discredited” link of Iraqi intelligence meeting in Prague with Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers is examined in full, with the CIA “sources” who dismiss the claim looking more like the incompetents that they are. Hayes does a good job of dissecting stories published by the NY Times and the Washington Post which confirm their political agenda rather than objective reporting. One small example is their citing of al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida alias Abu Zubayadah, alias Abd al-Hadi Al-Wahab, alias Zain Al-Abidin, alias Muhahhad Hussain, alias Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, alias Tariq, alias Abu-al Hasanat, alias Noorud Din, alias Dawood, alias Kamil, alias Badar alias Al Mujahid,a Palestinian born at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Zubaida has been the source of numerous pieces of information gleaned during his interrogation by the CIA and FBI at Guantanamo after his capture in Pakistan in 2002. Every threat cited by him (which actually resulted in an increase in the threat level being raised to orange last year) has turned out to be totally false. But he is cited as the source of “credible” intelligence by the Times and Post when he denies that there was any link between Iraq and al Qaeda, even though other al Qaeda leaders have said there were links. Now why should a thug who has been proven to be lying in everything he has told interrogators suddenly become credible when he said there was no connection. Yet his denial has become one of the cornerstones in the mantra that there was no linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda? Hayes cites numerous examples which shows the partisan political agenda of the left-wing media which refuses to be bothered by the facts, and their reliance on their “sources” in the US intelligence community. This is the same community whose failure is laid bare by the hole in the ground where the WTC once stood in New York.
I am certain that there will be numerous reviews written by Bush haters who will never hold this book in their hands, but objective observers who want to understand why Iraq was one of the “Axis of Evil” countries cited by Bush last year should get this book. Hopefully Hayes will write about Iran’s recent embarrassing admissions about their nuclear program after denying its existence to the IAEA for the last decade.[/quote]
OK, let’s take look at this.
I asked you to link to a reputable source which proved your claim and refuted the April 2007 DOD materials which said that no actual link between AQ and Iraq existed.
Instead, you posted a 2004 book–written years before the argument finally crumbled in full–along with a review from Publisher’s Weekly–hardly a bastion of intellectual criticism, yeah?–and some AMAZON USER REVIEWS.
Now, let’s take a look at a real review of the book. You may know that Gideon Rose is the editor of Foreign Affairs and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Here’s what he wrote, in 2004, about the “reputable evidence” you have provided:
This, remember, was in the year 2004–before the 2007 DOD declassification.
Now, to recap, you posted–as credible evidence of a claim–an outdated and entirely irrelevant 2004 book, along with some user reviews, which was panned by people of very high qualification and repute, and which since has been rendered insignificant by actual intelligence documentation.
Now, you must know that I could quote from any number of commissions and reports here, particularly ones that were released as time went on and information became clear. Surely you know that by the time the DOD document was declassified in 2007, the intelligence community had made their position very clear. An example:
[quote]
Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa’ida to provide material or operational support.
Prewar assessments expressed uncertainty about Iraq’s complicity in [the 2002 presence of Zarqawi and associates in Iraq], but overestimated the Iraqi regime’s capabilities to locate them. Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.[/quote]
In sum, what we have is your claim, based on half-suggestions that are more than a decade old, evidenced by half-sources (accompanied, I will add again, by Amazon User Reviews), also a decade old, that were flimsy and derided by experts from the outset, and, in the wake of declassifications and new findings, are now entirely useless vis-a-vis the specific question of AQ/Hussein links.
More generally, what we have here is a microcosm of the larger debate. We have one side willing to grasp at hunches and offer them, plainly, as fact, using shit sources that predate the investigation’s milestone findings and declassifications. I could go through literally everything you’ve written in this thread (probably starting with “almost universally considered the stupidest,” which is downright laughable) and do this same thing to it, but this has taken far too much of my time already.
King Adullah: ‘we had information that he(Zaqawi) entered Iraq from a neighbouring country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information but they didn’t respond.’
The 2006 report you cite was not bipartisan. It was endorsed by only two Republicans.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
King Adullah: ‘we had information that he(Zaqawi) entered Iraq from a neighbouring country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information but they didn’t respond.’
[/quote]
Cite?
Anyway, so King Abdullah “had information” that Z entered Iraq–a fact with which my evidence agrees–and absolutely no evidence that there was any official cooperation between Hussein and AQ.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
There’s a lot of things I don’t understand about GWB. Like “No Child Left Behind,” “Medicare Part D,” John Roberts, the Patriot Act, growing the size of the government behemoth, etc. I’m sure he’s a great guy but he’s not necessarily a conservative and definitely not a libertarian leaning conservative.
That said, I think he’s smarter than you and I and your professors put together.
[/quote]
And if anyone doubts how smart he is just remember that he won two wars. How many presidents can say they are 2-0 when it comes to war?
The 2006 report you cite was not bipartisan. It was endorsed by only two Republicans.[/quote]
Please cite this.
Anyway, it means exactly nothing. I’m surprised 2 R’s signed on, if this is correct, and that fact seems to me to bolster its credibility.
Either way, we’re not talking about Huffpo here. And we’re certainly not talking about an outdated, derided book written by a fixture of partisan opinion journalism.
The point remains: A “facts” is offered, and then it’s buried under a pile of reputable refutation, and it turns out it isn’t a “fact” at all but more like a hunch that wasn’t even really credible back in the day but is now completely discredited by, among other things, the DOD itself.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
King Adullah: ‘we had information that he(Zaqawi) entered Iraq from a neighbouring country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information but they didn’t respond.’
[/quote]
Cite?
Anyway, so King Abdullah “had information” that Z entered Iraq–a fact with which my evidence agrees–and absolutely no evidence that there was any official cooperation between Hussein and AQ.
Yes cite? Of the senate members of that intelligence committee only two left leaning Republicans endorsed it. No one made claims that Saddam offered any material support to Zaqawi. Nonetheless they [b]let Zaqawi, the second most wanted terrorist in the world recuperate in a hospital and then set up training camps for suicide bombers in the Sunni triangle[b].
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
King Adullah: ‘we had information that he(Zaqawi) entered Iraq from a neighbouring country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information but they didn’t respond.’
[/quote]
Cite?
Anyway, so King Abdullah “had information” that Z entered Iraq–a fact with which my evidence agrees–and absolutely no evidence that there was any official cooperation between Hussein and AQ.
Yes cite? Of the senate members of that intelligence committee only two left leaning Republicans endorsed it. No one made claims that Saddam offered any material support to Zaqawi. Nonetheless they [b]let Zaqawi, the second most wanted terrorist in the world recuperate in a hospital and then set up training camps for suicide bombers in the Sunni triangle[b].
[/quote]
Except that you don’t have evidence that they let him do anything.
Now, cite this: Of the senate members of that intelligence committee only two left leaning Republicans endorsed it.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
King Adullah: ‘we had information that he(Zaqawi) entered Iraq from a neighbouring country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information but they didn’t respond.’
[/quote]
Cite?
Anyway, so King Abdullah “had information” that Z entered Iraq–a fact with which my evidence agrees–and absolutely no evidence that there was any official cooperation between Hussein and AQ.
Yes cite? Of the senate members of that intelligence committee only two left leaning Republicans endorsed it. No one made claims that Saddam offered any material support to Zaqawi. Nonetheless they [b]let Zaqawi, the second most wanted terrorist in the world recuperate in a hospital and then set up training camps for suicide bombers in the Sunni triangle[b].
[/quote]
Except that you don’t have evidence that they let him do anything.
Now, cite this: Of the senate members of that intelligence committee only two left leaning Republicans endorsed it.[/quote]
Okay let’s assume that King Abdullah was lying and the Ba’athists didn’t know that he and two dozen followers were there. So what? They were there. After Saddam’s capture numerous senior Iraqi officials joined the insurgency.
Rice and Obama, both two sides of the same mad American super-rich exceptionalism coin.
America should not have invaded Iraq, it should not collect the phone calls and emails of everyone in the world (American or otherwise), it should not drone thousands of innocent men, women and children to death in foreign countries.
Neither China or Russia are any threat to world peace. At all.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
King Adullah: ‘we had information that he(Zaqawi) entered Iraq from a neighbouring country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information but they didn’t respond.’
[/quote]
Cite?
Anyway, so King Abdullah “had information” that Z entered Iraq–a fact with which my evidence agrees–and absolutely no evidence that there was any official cooperation between Hussein and AQ.
Yes cite? Of the senate members of that intelligence committee only two left leaning Republicans endorsed it. No one made claims that Saddam offered any material support to Zaqawi. Nonetheless they let Zaqawi, the second most wanted terrorist in the world recuperate in a hospital and then set up training camps for suicide bombers in the Sunni triangle.
[/quote]
Except that you don’t have evidence that they let him do anything.
Now, cite this: Of the senate members of that intelligence committee only two left leaning Republicans endorsed it.[/quote]
Okay let’s assume that King Abdullah was lying and the Ba’athists didn’t know that he and two dozen followers were there. So what? They were there.[/quote]
So what–so another “fact” is, it turns out, not really a fact.
[quote]
After Saddam’s capture numerous senior Iraqi officials joined the insurgency.[/quote]
Well I’m not exactly nominating them for an award, am I?
This point has no bearing on the rub: Fact A was offered, fact A was buried by refutation.