- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Links to Al Queda not substantiated
- Thread starter CaptnKirk
- Start date
Yeah, even the CIA disuputed there was an Al Qaeda connection w/ Iraq before the war. So now, at least in my mind, we have a number of discredited "facts" in Bush's various speeches pushing for war against Iraq:
1.) Iraq didn't try to buy uranium from Africa.
2.) The aluminum tubes were not for use in a nuclear program.
3.) There is no Al Qaeda link with Iraq.
So, what's left?
1.) Iraq didn't try to buy uranium from Africa.
2.) The aluminum tubes were not for use in a nuclear program.
3.) There is no Al Qaeda link with Iraq.
So, what's left?
1. Forged document show there was a false attempt to get uranium from nigeria. British intel is still standing by it the Iraq tried on multiple occasions to by Uranium from various countries. The CIA also still stands by it report that Iraq was trying to rebuild its nuke program.
2. IT is currently unknown what those imported tubes were used for. The UN nuke inspector admits they still could be used for a nuke program with modification. To this day no one knows what the illegal imported tubes were used for.
3. Several AL queda camps where removed from Iraq. At the very least Saddam provided safe harbor to al queda. Many members of Al queda have been picked up in Iraq.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
1. You have access to the British intel?
2. true enough, without getting into the "what ifs"
3. BS - there isn't overwhelming evidence, but there is *some*. "NO" would mean that no camps would have been found, no top Al Qaeda person would have been found in Baghdad, and that no meeting would have taken place between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
To answer you question: Plenty.
CkG
1.) So now that even the Bush Admin has disavowed the Uranium buy as flawed intel, you're still going to hang on to what the British are saying? Wow, what does it take to make you believe? If your mom tells you it's all a lie, will you finally admit it?
2.) I think it's pretty clear the aluminum tubes were discredited as well. Even if the true use is "unknown" that's not substantial proof of anything, right charrison?
3.) Did you even read the article that was linked to in this thread? Plus, the nothern border areas of Iraq are not necessarily under Saddam's control. If anything, blame the Kurds for allowing the Ansar al-Islam militants to camp there.
"There was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist operation," former State Department intelligence official Greg Thielmann said this week.
Intelligence agencies agreed on the "lack of a meaningful connection to al-Qaida" and said so to the White House and Congress, said Thielmann, who left State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research last September.
Another former Bush administration intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, agreed there was no clear link between Saddam and al-Qaida.
We have known since way before the war that the Bush Admin went to war in Iraq for reasons having nothing to do with WMD or terrorism specifically. Iraq was for many reasons seen as a primary target in the PNAC vision. Iraq was an unjust and illegal war of aggression waged by Neocons against the will of the American people who don't have the intelligence and information to think strategery for themselves. Now that we've punched the tar baby we will have all the domino arguments of Viet Nam floated in our face. We f*cked up royally and now we gotta pay the piper. Humpty Dumpty ain't going easily back together again. We're stretched thin, aren't doing Afghans right, and face the possible end of Rome. All because of a 5 to 4 Coup in the Supreme court. Our country has been infected with a Religious Ideological Disease and we need to get RID of it. It's name is Neoconservatism, the religion of fearful men without faith. Those who support Bush are supporting a mental perversion.
charrison - <<...and Blair has been cleared of misleading the country into war.>>
Damn! I must've been sleeping. When was he cleared?
Damn! I must've been sleeping. When was he cleared?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Charrison did well against your claims
The only thing I'd add is that YOU said there was "NO" link with Al Qaeda and I pointed out that there were, however small you may think they are, they are still links. "lack of a meaningful connection"(back in September) does not mean that there are NO links - look what has come to light since September - camps, humans, documents- yup there is NO connection I guess.
CkG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Yep - fall back to the PNAC. Can't support your claims of lies so you suggest conspiracy - typical.
CkG
Charrison did well against your claims
The only thing I'd add is that YOU said there was "NO" link with Al Qaeda and I pointed out that there were, however small you may think they are, they are still links. "lack of a meaningful connection"(back in September) does not
---------------------------------
Al
Quaeda is opperating in the US. I guess Bush supports Al Quaeda. Somebody should attack us.
Caddy, you call a bunch of people who publish a paper on taking over Iraq (wait till Corn tries to spin this) who are also the ones who went to war in Iraq a conspiracy. I feel so sorry for your mind. You can't even do two and two.
The only thing I'd add is that YOU said there was "NO" link with Al Qaeda and I pointed out that there were, however small you may think they are, they are still links. "lack of a meaningful connection"(back in September) does not
---------------------------------
Al
Quaeda is opperating in the US. I guess Bush supports Al Quaeda. Somebody should attack us.
Caddy, you call a bunch of people who publish a paper on taking over Iraq (wait till Corn tries to spin this) who are also the ones who went to war in Iraq a conspiracy. I feel so sorry for your mind. You can't even do two and two.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
No one should attack us because there are Al Qaeda here. We didn't attack Iraq solely for that reason either. There were links - and to say other wise is ignorace. The depth of the connection is the question - not wether or not there were links.
CkG
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Charrison did well against your claims
The only thing I'd add is that YOU said there was "NO" link with Al Qaeda and I pointed out that there were, however small you may think they are, they are still links. "lack of a meaningful connection"(back in September) does not mean that there are NO links - look what has come to light since September - camps, humans, documents- yup there is NO connection I guess.
CkG
To clarify, I said there was NO link because the intelligence officials both indicate there was "...no substantial pattern of cooperation..." and "...lack of a meaningful connection to al-Qaida..." -- I suppose you could interpret that as perhaps there was some small amount of contact, but nothing worth invading over. That's my take on it.
Look CAD, you and I and everyone else on either side of this issue can point to "evidence" supporting their argument. In the end, it breaks down to whether you (A) supported the war, or (B) didn't. It's pretty much a waste of time arguing about it, considering you and charrison aren't going to change your minds in the face of any amount of evidence. To be fair, those on the other side (i.e. against the war) aren't going to change their minds either. We can both sit around pointing to this statement, or this bit of evidence, or some anonymous source's statement - it's simply human nature to pick sides and then only pay attention to the data that supports your position.
In the end, however, we need to take an objective look at the case that was laid out against Iraq and try our best to determine the truth in whatever form that takes. In my mind (and probably a lot of other Americans), the case presented and the reasons cited need to either be substantiated by those who wanted to go to war, or discredited. One way of doing this (at least in the context of these forums) is to discuss and analyze the various news bits that arrise. I think you should at least be open to the possibility that there is something to these disclosures or discoveries, whether they support your position or not.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Charrison did well against your claims
The only thing I'd add is that YOU said there was "NO" link with Al Qaeda and I pointed out that there were, however small you may think they are, they are still links. "lack of a meaningful connection"(back in September) does not mean that there are NO links - look what has come to light since September - camps, humans, documents- yup there is NO connection I guess.
CkG
To clarify, I said there was NO link because the intelligence officials both indicate there was "...no substantial pattern of cooperation..." and "...lack of a meaningful connection to al-Qaida..." -- I suppose you could interpret that as perhaps there was some small amount of contact, but nothing worth invading over. That's my take on it.
Look CAD, you and I and everyone else on either side of this issue can point to "evidence" supporting their argument. In the end, it breaks down to whether you (A) supported the war, or (B) didn't. It's pretty much a waste of time arguing about it, considering you and charrison aren't going to change your minds in the face of any amount of evidence. To be fair, those on the other side (i.e. against the war) aren't going to change their minds either. We can both sit around pointing to this statement, or this bit of evidence, or some anonymous source's statement - it's simply human nature to pick sides and then only pay attention to the data that supports your position.
In the end, however, we need to take an objective look at the case that was laid out against Iraq and try our best to determine the truth in whatever form that takes. In my mind (and probably a lot of other Americans), the case presented and the reasons cited need to either be substantiated by those who wanted to go to war, or discredited. One way of doing this (at least in the context of these forums) is to discuss and analyze the various news bits that arrise. I think you should at least be open to the possibility that there is something to these disclosures or discoveries, whether they support your position or not.
Connect the dots. Make a judgement.
Because the way the dots were presented doesn't mean the dots still don't connect
CkG
No one should attack us because there are Al Qaeda here. We didn't attack Iraq solely for that reason either. There were links - and to say other wise is ignorace. The depth of the connection is the question - not wether or not there were links.
-----------------------------------
Like I said, Caddy, your logic is of such a non-existent nature that arguing with you is a waste of time. You are pedantic and sadly pathetic.
Caddy: No one should attack us because there are Al Qaeda here.
We made that as part of our claim against Iraq. It is also true for us.
Caddy: We didn't attack Iraq solely for that reason either.
We also have WMD. Bush started an illegal war. There are lost of reasons we attacked that also apply to us.
Caddy: There were links - and to say other wise is ignorace.
There are links today in the US. - and to say other wise is ignorance.
Caddy: The depth of the connection is the question - not wether or not there were links.
Oh you're kidding, right? The depth is what counts but there were links.
Prove to me the depth of the links in Iraq are deeper than those in the US. Whose flight schools trained the suicide pilots? US schools, right. What government let them into the country? Oh man, we got sin written all over us, just like Iraq. The depth of connection only matters when there is significance to the depth. No depth here, none there. It's was a lie to justify a PNAC war you can't tell people the truth about. Stups like you might have said no.
-----------------------------------
Like I said, Caddy, your logic is of such a non-existent nature that arguing with you is a waste of time. You are pedantic and sadly pathetic.
Caddy: No one should attack us because there are Al Qaeda here.
We made that as part of our claim against Iraq. It is also true for us.
Caddy: We didn't attack Iraq solely for that reason either.
We also have WMD. Bush started an illegal war. There are lost of reasons we attacked that also apply to us.
Caddy: There were links - and to say other wise is ignorace.
There are links today in the US. - and to say other wise is ignorance.
Caddy: The depth of the connection is the question - not wether or not there were links.
Oh you're kidding, right? The depth is what counts but there were links.
Prove to me the depth of the links in Iraq are deeper than those in the US. Whose flight schools trained the suicide pilots? US schools, right. What government let them into the country? Oh man, we got sin written all over us, just like Iraq. The depth of connection only matters when there is significance to the depth. No depth here, none there. It's was a lie to justify a PNAC war you can't tell people the truth about. Stups like you might have said no.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
This has been hashed through many times. All three claims have been refuted.
The CIA did not believe Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program, but they fudged it a bit under pressure from the White House. From an interview with senior CIA Analyst, Ray McGovern: "I have done a good bit of research here, and one of the conclusions I have come to is that Vice President Cheney was not only interested in ?helping out? with the analysis, let us say, that CIA was producing on Iraq. He was interested also in fashioning evidence that he could use as proof that, as he said, ?The Iraqis had reconstituted their nuclear program,? which demonstrably they had not."
And: "Cheney knew, and Cheney was way out in front of everybody, starting on the 26th of August, talking about Iraq seeking nuclear weapons. As recently as the 16th of March, three days before the war, he was again at it. This time he said Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. It hadn?t. It demonstrably hadn?t. There has been nothing like that uncovered in Iraq."
The IAEA reported that "extensive field investigation and document analysis" had failed to turn up any evidence that Iraq intended the aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons and that they apparently were intended for use in rockets. The agency said it could find "no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."
CIA Analyst McGovern said, "The aluminum tubes, you will remember, were something that came out in late September, the 24th of September. The British and we front-paged it. These were aluminum tubes that were said by Condoleezza Rice as soon as the report came out to be only suitable for use in a nuclear application. This is hardware that they had the dimensions of. So they got that report, and the British played it up, and we played it up. It was front page in the New York Times. Condoleezza Rice said, 'Ah ha! These aluminum tubes are suitable only for uranium-enrichment centrifuges.'
"Then they gave the tubes to the Department of Energy labs, and to a person, each one of those nuclear scientists and engineers said, 'Well, if Iraq thinks it can use these dimensions and these specifications of aluminum tubes to build a nuclear program, let ?em do it! Let ?em do it. It?ll never work, and we can?t believe they are so stupid. These must be for conventional rockets.'
"And, of course, that?s what they were for, and that?s what the UN determined they were for."
There was ONE training camp in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq where we found evidence that some al Qaeda members received some training. It was NOT an al Qaeda camp. It was NOT hosted or supported by Iraq. While there is evidence of one or two contacts between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, there is no evidence that Iraq supported al Qaeda or that it worked with al Qaeda.
On the other hand, there is solid evidence that Osama bin Laden scorned Iraq and its secular governement, and that he had no respect for Saddam Hussein. There is no evidence of any direct contact between ObL and Iraq -- ever. The CIA told the White House there was "scant" evidence of any connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. The al Qaeda leaders we captured in Afghanistan unanimously denied any connections with Iraq, saying they wanted nothing to do with Hussein.
There have been maybe three or four al Qaeda members picked up in Iraq. This is less than the number apprehended in many other states in the region. It is far less than the number picked up in the United States. The simple fact is that al Qaeda members are scattered all over the globe. That we found a handful in Iraq is irrelevant.
Again, from CIA Analyst McGovern, "They looked around after Labor Day and said, 'OK, if we?re going to have this war, we really need to persuade Congress to vote for it. How are we going to do that? Well, let?s do the al Qaeda-Iraq connection. That?s the traumatic one. 9/11 is still a traumatic thing for most Americans. Let?s do that.' But then they said, ?Oh damn, those folks at CIA don?t buy that, they say there?s no evidence."
From The Independent, February 9, 2003: "The BBC received a Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) document which showed that British intelligence believes there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qa'ida network. The classified document, written last month, said there had been contact between the two in the past, but it assessed that any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideologies."
Finally, from Today's Toronto Star:
No, all of the intel re. Iraq and uranium leads back to the same forged Niger paper. So far, the British has refused to turn over their "additional evidence" to either the CIA or the IAEA, stating that it is not their own intelligence, but information they got from other countries' intel agencies. In every case researched so far, this intelligence has tracked back to the same forged document. In short, all the countries are reporting the same lie.
The CIA did not believe Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program, but they fudged it a bit under pressure from the White House. From an interview with senior CIA Analyst, Ray McGovern: "I have done a good bit of research here, and one of the conclusions I have come to is that Vice President Cheney was not only interested in ?helping out? with the analysis, let us say, that CIA was producing on Iraq. He was interested also in fashioning evidence that he could use as proof that, as he said, ?The Iraqis had reconstituted their nuclear program,? which demonstrably they had not."
And: "Cheney knew, and Cheney was way out in front of everybody, starting on the 26th of August, talking about Iraq seeking nuclear weapons. As recently as the 16th of March, three days before the war, he was again at it. This time he said Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. It hadn?t. It demonstrably hadn?t. There has been nothing like that uncovered in Iraq."
The tubes were NOT suitable for use in uranium-enrichment centrifuges. They were made of the wrong material -- anodized aluminum -- and they were of the wrong dimensions. Everyone except the Bush administration agreed that this was the case. These tubes WERE suited for use in conventional rockets, and were, in fact, the same type of tube Iraq had purchased in the past for this purpose.
The IAEA reported that "extensive field investigation and document analysis" had failed to turn up any evidence that Iraq intended the aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons and that they apparently were intended for use in rockets. The agency said it could find "no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."
CIA Analyst McGovern said, "The aluminum tubes, you will remember, were something that came out in late September, the 24th of September. The British and we front-paged it. These were aluminum tubes that were said by Condoleezza Rice as soon as the report came out to be only suitable for use in a nuclear application. This is hardware that they had the dimensions of. So they got that report, and the British played it up, and we played it up. It was front page in the New York Times. Condoleezza Rice said, 'Ah ha! These aluminum tubes are suitable only for uranium-enrichment centrifuges.'
"Then they gave the tubes to the Department of Energy labs, and to a person, each one of those nuclear scientists and engineers said, 'Well, if Iraq thinks it can use these dimensions and these specifications of aluminum tubes to build a nuclear program, let ?em do it! Let ?em do it. It?ll never work, and we can?t believe they are so stupid. These must be for conventional rockets.'
"And, of course, that?s what they were for, and that?s what the UN determined they were for."
This is simply false.
There was ONE training camp in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq where we found evidence that some al Qaeda members received some training. It was NOT an al Qaeda camp. It was NOT hosted or supported by Iraq. While there is evidence of one or two contacts between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, there is no evidence that Iraq supported al Qaeda or that it worked with al Qaeda.
On the other hand, there is solid evidence that Osama bin Laden scorned Iraq and its secular governement, and that he had no respect for Saddam Hussein. There is no evidence of any direct contact between ObL and Iraq -- ever. The CIA told the White House there was "scant" evidence of any connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. The al Qaeda leaders we captured in Afghanistan unanimously denied any connections with Iraq, saying they wanted nothing to do with Hussein.
There have been maybe three or four al Qaeda members picked up in Iraq. This is less than the number apprehended in many other states in the region. It is far less than the number picked up in the United States. The simple fact is that al Qaeda members are scattered all over the globe. That we found a handful in Iraq is irrelevant.
Again, from CIA Analyst McGovern, "They looked around after Labor Day and said, 'OK, if we?re going to have this war, we really need to persuade Congress to vote for it. How are we going to do that? Well, let?s do the al Qaeda-Iraq connection. That?s the traumatic one. 9/11 is still a traumatic thing for most Americans. Let?s do that.' But then they said, ?Oh damn, those folks at CIA don?t buy that, they say there?s no evidence."
From The Independent, February 9, 2003: "The BBC received a Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) document which showed that British intelligence believes there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qa'ida network. The classified document, written last month, said there had been contact between the two in the past, but it assessed that any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideologies."
Finally, from Today's Toronto Star:
Bottom line, most of the evidence used to sell this war to Congress and the American public was phony. Bush and his minions lied to invade Iraq. We can only speculate about their real motives, but they were not the same as their stated motives.
Yes, and Tenet will be the fall guy while the rest of the administration goes about with as much spin and diversion as they can muster. This needs to remain on the front page until the truth is known, and these ratbastyards are thrown out of power. People need to make informed decisions when they vote. This is important in that choice.
what fall guy?, Bush said he looked forward to working with Tenet in the future, so no one is falling for him
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
It will be interesting to see what happens with Tenet. As I've been digging through all of these articles lately, I've seen several that suggest the CIA warned Bush and his minions about the al Qaeda threat before Septmber 11. One report reportedly mentioned hijacking explicitly in connection with al Qaeda. However, Bush-lite was scheduled to take his August vacation, and did not act on this information himself. He also did NOT direct his staff to do anything about it. He did NOT direct the FAA to do anything to improve security.
If this information is true, the theory is Tenet is safe because he knows too much. If he talks, it would bring down the Bush administration.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I said that the question is the depth. I (to the best of my recollection
) made no claims that it was sufficiently deep enough to go to war. I only was refuting the part where he said there were NO links. Get that though your skull. You consistently twist my statement to imply more than what was said. WE are in agreement that the link's depth needs to be there to be used as a reason. Cripes CkG
I was only refuting the fact that there was any relevance to your refutation. After all, what do you know you didn't tripple space your post. And don't try to deny you did tripple space. I got you dead to rights.
So Beamer you *can* do nutshell summaries if you want.
btw I must have missed an Acronymn Memo...PNAC?
Pointing out that there was a link, no matter how small, is irrelevant. It's like saying that Saddam and Kevin Bacon can be connected. Sure, if you really think that matters. We've got all kinds of intelligence officials saying there was no link worth talking about. Geeze, we can all argue semantics until the cows come home...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter