[quote]pushharder wrote:
Smh, your history books about the Iraq War apparently begin discussing the topic in 2001 and not in 1991 like the real ones do.
You would do well to shop around next time when it comes to buying books about a subject you want to debate.[/quote]
I understand the entire timeline well. There is nothing about '91 that justifies '03, and '91 was not a relevant part of the case for war in '02-'03.
Even the assassination attempt I find to lack vindicatory (made that word up) power. I do find that piece of your argument to be more convincing than the rest, but I don’t believe that an invasion a decade and two presidents later, in the middle of much bigger problems, is justified. By the way, we did send some bombs over thataway in retaliation at the time. Now, it wasn’t enough–I agree–but that doesn’t really excuse anything later.
I gave you a more comprehensive outline and you got cute with an ellipsis. How very journalistic integrity-esque of you.[/quote]
No. You Gish Galluped me and I chose a single item to study it as a microcosm of your entire collection of evidence. I said this specifically, and I acknowledged all along that I had chosen one of your points in order to make my own point.
Before I put the ellipsis in, I told you that I was going to repost the relevant quote of yours, acknowledging that it was an item froma laundry list.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
She believes in werewolves. Werewolves! [/quote]
I hope you are not really this dumb and that is an attempt at humor.
[/quote]
OK, technically it’s WerwÃ???Ã??Ã?¶lfe . And it is 100% true.
Edit: it’s not letting me post the German word properly. [/quote]
The werewolf= Der Werwolf
[/quote]
That’s singular. I was spelling it in the plural but it won’t let me type an umlaut.
Regardless, she believes in them. Maybe she read about them in the Washington Times. [/quote]
Do you really not know the werewolves in question referred to former Nazi SS officers who allegedly kept up resistance after the wars end and not the werewolf of fables?
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.
This ^ and your hard data on Obama as “almost universally” considered worse than Bush (among other, but, again, we will keep it at Bush for simplicity’s sake) with regard to foreign policy records–these are both pending.
Note that you have now explained that the latter point does not include A] Scholar/expert opinion in the U.S. or B] World opinion as measured country-by-county by one of the most respected polling firms. So, I don’t know what data you’ve got, but it sure as hell needs to be pretty specific in order to both justify the claim and skirt the criteria by which Bismark/smh’s evidence were disqualified.
Talk about moving goalposts indeed. I’m going to quote that list [b][i]AND EMPHASIZE THE RELEVANT EXCERPT[/b][/i] in a minute.[/quote]
[/quote]
Except YOU chose to make the decision as to what was relevant. And you were wrong.[/quote]
What? You made a claim, I refuted it. There were no decisions. I can refute anything anybody says. What is unfortunate is that you presented it as fact to begin with.
By the way, I would not have had to choose if I hadn’t been attacked by a Gish Gallup.
Again, the point–and I have really, really proved it–is that your side doesn’t hold up to even just a little bit of inspection. Misinformation, outdated hunches, outright inaccuracy, innuendo as fact…it all falls apart in the face of somebody who’s got the patience to waste his time proving things that have already been proved again and again.
It’s just that that is a frustrating thing to do. That’s literally the only reason I don’t jump in and join this fight every time it suggests itself.
Talk about moving goalposts indeed. I’m going to quote that list [b][i]AND EMPHASIZE THE RELEVANT EXCERPT[/b][/i] in a minute.[/quote]
[/quote]
Except YOU chose to make the decision as to what was relevant. And you were wrong.[/quote]
By the way, the word “relevant” here meant “the excerpt that is under present consideration,” not “the excerpt that is most important to you.” This is obvious.
There sure is a whole hell of a lot of willful misunderstanding going on around here.
Talk about moving goalposts indeed. I’m going to quote that list [b][i]AND EMPHASIZE THE RELEVANT EXCERPT[/b][/i] in a minute.[/quote]
[/quote]
Except YOU chose to make the decision as to what was relevant. And you were wrong.[/quote]
By the way, the word “relevant” here meant “the excerpt that is under present consideration,” not “the excerpt that is most important to you.” This is obvious.
There sure is a whole hell of a lot of willful misunderstanding going on around here.[/quote]
The al Qaeda connection was the LAST in the list. Do you understand why?[/quote]
Rape, murder, and jaywalking?
“I said that last!” is not a defense. You said it, I refuted it. I can do it again and again.
You know how lame this kind of thing is. “That one was last!” Come on. You made a claim, I destroyed it.
The larger point being that your laundry list of “facts” included things that weren’t facts. That is bad argumentation under any possible definition.