[spacefreak]

From the article, Case Closed

Case Closed
From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
by Stephen F. Hayes
11/24/2003,

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which in some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."

One such confirmation came in a postwar interview with one of Saddam Hussein's henchmen. As the memo details:

4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

A decisive moment in the budding relationship came in 1993, when bin Laden faced internal resistance to his cooperation with Saddam.

5. A CIA report from a contact with good access, some of whose reporting has been corroborated, said that certain elements in the "Islamic Army" of bin Laden were against the secular regime of Saddam. Overriding the internal factional strife that was developing, bin Laden came to an "understanding" with Saddam that the Islamic Army would no longer support anti-Saddam activities. According to sensitive reporting released in U.S. court documents during the African Embassy trial, in 1993 bin Laden reached an "understanding" with Saddam under which he (bin Laden) forbade al Qaeda operations to be mounted against the Iraqi leader.

Another facilitator of the relationship during the mid-1990s was Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim (a.k.a. Abu Hajer al-Iraqi). Abu Hajer, now in a New York prison, was described in court proceedings related to the August 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as bin Laden's "best friend." According to CIA reporting dating back to the Clinton administration, bin Laden trusted him to serve as a liaison with Saddam's regime and tasked him with procurement of weapons of mass destruction for al Qaeda. FBI reporting in the memo reveals that Abu Hajer "visited Iraq in early 1995" and "had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence. Sometime before mid-1995 he went on an al Qaeda mission to discuss unspecified cooperation with the Iraqi government."

Some of the reporting about the relationship throughout the mid-1990s comes from a source who had intimate knowledge of bin Laden and his dealings. This source, according to CIA analysis, offered "the most credible information" on cooperation between bin Laden and Iraq.

This source's reports read almost like a diary. Specific dates of when bin Laden flew to various cities are included, as well as names of individuals he met. The source did not offer information on the substantive talks during the meetings. . . . There are not a great many reports in general on the relationship between bin Laden and Iraq because of the secrecy surrounding it. But when this source with close access provided a "window" into bin Laden's activities, bin Laden is seen as heavily involved with Iraq (and Iran).

Reporting from the early 1990s remains somewhat sketchy, though multiple sources place Hassan al-Turabi and Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden's current No. 2, at the center of the relationship. The reporting gets much more specific in the mid-1990s:

8. Reporting from a well placed source disclosed that bin Laden was receiving training on bomb making from the IIS's [Iraqi Intelligence Service] principal technical expert on making sophisticated explosives, Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed. Brigadier Salim was observed at bin Laden's farm in Khartoum in Sept.-Oct. 1995 and again in July 1996, in the company of the Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti.

9 . . . Bin Laden visited Doha, Qatar (17-19 Jan. 1996), staying at the residence of a member of the Qatari ruling family. He discussed the successful movement of explosives into Saudi Arabia, and operations targeted against U.S. and U.K. interests in Dammam, Dharan, and Khobar, using clandestine al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia. Upon his return, bin Laden met with Hijazi and Turabi, among others.

And later more reporting, from the same "well placed" source:

10. The Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti, met privately with bin Laden at his farm in Sudan in July 1996. Tikriti used an Iraqi delegation traveling to Khartoum to discuss bilateral cooperation as his "cover" for his own entry into Sudan to meet with bin Laden and Hassan al-Turabi. The Iraqi intelligence chief and two other IIS officers met at bin Laden's farm and discussed bin Laden's request for IIS technical assistance in: a) making letter and parcel bombs; b) making bombs which could be placed on aircraft and detonated by changes in barometric pressure; and c) making false passport [sic] . Bin Laden specifically requested that [Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed] , Iraqi intelligence's premier explosives maker--especially skilled in making car bombs--remain with him in Sudan. The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with bin Laden as long as required.

The analysis of those events follows:

The time of the visit from the IIS director was a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing. The bombing came on the third anniversary of a U.S. [Tomahawk missile] strike on IIS HQ (retaliation for the attempted assassination of former President Bush in Kuwait) for which Iraqi officials explicitly threatened retaliation.

IN ADDITION TO THE CONTACTS CLUSTERED in the mid-1990s, intelligence reports detail a flurry of activities in early 1998 and again in December 1998. A "former senior Iraqi intelligence officer" reported that "the Iraqi intelligence service station in Pakistan was Baghdad's point of contact with al Qaeda. He also said bin Laden visited Baghdad in Jan. 1998 and met with Tariq Aziz."

11. According to sensitive reporting, Saddam personally sent Faruq Hijazi, IIS deputy director and later Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, to meet with bin Laden at least twice, first in Sudan and later in Afghanistan in 1999. . . .

14. According to a sensitive reporting [from] a "regular and reliable source," [Ayman al] Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz.

[spacefreak]

That visit came as the Iraqis intensified their defiance of the U.N. inspection regime, known as UNSCOM, created by the cease-fire agreement following the Gulf War. UNSCOM demanded access to Saddam's presidential palaces that he refused to provide. As the tensions mounted, President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on February 18, 1998, and prepared the nation for war. He warned of "an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals" and said "there is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

The day after this speech, according to documents unearthed in April 2003 in the Iraqi Intelligence headquarters by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Hussein's intelligence service wrote a memo detailing coming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered by liquid paper that, when revealed, exposed a plan to increase cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to that memo, the IIS agreed to pay for "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The document set as the goal for the meeting a discussion of "the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The al Qaeda representative, the document went on to suggest, might provide "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden."

Four days later, on February 23, 1998, bin Laden issued his now-famous fatwa on the plight of Iraq, published in the Arabic-language daily, al Quds al-Arabi: "For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples." Bin Laden urged his followers to act: "The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."

Although war was temporarily averted by a last-minute deal brokered by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, tensions soon rose again. The standoff with Iraq came to a head in December 1998, when President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a 70-hour bombing campaign that began on December 16 and ended three days later, on December 19, 1998.

According to press reports at the time, Faruq Hijazi, deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, met with bin Laden in Afghanistan on December 21, 1998, to offer bin Laden safe haven in Iraq. CIA reporting in the memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee seems to confirm this meeting and relates two others.

15. A foreign government service reported that an Iraqi delegation, including at least two Iraqi intelligence officers formerly assigned to the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan, met in late 1998 with bin Laden in Afghanistan.

16. According to CIA reporting, bin Laden and Zawahiri met with two Iraqi intelligence officers in Afghanistan in Dec. 1998.

17. . . . Iraq sent an intelligence officer to Afghanistan to seek closer ties to bin Laden and the Taliban in late 1998. The source reported that the Iraqi regime was trying to broaden its cooperation with al Qaeda. Iraq was looking to recruit Muslim "elements" to sabotage U.S. and U.K. interests. After a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Taliban leader [Mullah] Omar, arrangements were made for a series of meetings between the Iraqi intelligence officer and bin Laden in Pakistan. The source noted Faruq Hijazi was in Afghanistan in late 1998.

18. . . . Faruq Hijazi went to Afghanistan in 1999 along with several other Iraqi officials to meet with bin Laden. The source claimed that Hijazi would have met bin Laden only at Saddam's explicit direction.

An analysis that follows No. 18 provides additional context and an explanation of these reports:

Reporting entries #4, #11, #15, #16, #17, and #18, from different sources, corroborate each other and provide confirmation of meetings between al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. None of the reports have information on operational details or the purpose of such meetings. The covert nature of the relationship would indicate strict compartmentation [sic] of operations.

Information about connections between al Qaeda and Iraq was so widespread by early 1999 that it made its way into the mainstream press. A January 11, 1999, Newsweek story ran under this headline: "Saddam + Bin Laden?" The story cited an "Arab intelligence source" with knowledge of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. "According to this source, Saddam expected last month's American and British bombing campaign to go on much longer than it did. The dictator believed that as the attacks continued, indignation would grow in the Muslim world, making his terrorism offensive both harder to trace and more effective. With acts of terror contributing to chaos in the region, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait might feel less inclined to support Washington. Saddam's long-term strategy, according to several sources, is to bully or cajole Muslim countries into breaking the embargo against Iraq, without waiting for the United Nations to lift if formally."

INTELLIGENCE REPORTS about the nature of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda from mid-1999 through 2003 are conflicting. One senior Iraqi intelligence officer in U.S. custody, Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, "said that the last contact between the IIS and al Qaeda was in July 1999. Bin Laden wanted to meet with Saddam, he said. The guidance sent back from Saddam's office reportedly ordered Iraqi intelligence to refrain from any further contact with bin Laden and al Qaeda. The source opined that Saddam wanted to distance himself from al Qaeda."

The bulk of reporting on the relationship contradicts this claim. One report states that "in late 1999" al Qaeda set up a training camp in northern Iraq that "was operational as of 1999." Other reports suggest that the Iraqi regime contemplated several offers of safe haven to bin Laden throughout 1999.

23. . . . Iraqi officials were carefully considering offering safe haven to bin Laden and his closest collaborators in Nov. 1999. The source indicated the idea was put forward by the presumed head of Iraqi intelligence in Islamabad (Khalid Janaby) who in turn was in frequent contact and had good relations with bin Laden.

Some of the most intriguing intelligence concerns an Iraqi named Ahmed Hikmat Shakir:

24. According to sensitive reporting, a Malaysia-based Iraqi national (Shakir) facilitated the arrival of one of the Sept 11 hijackers for an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur (Jan 2000). Sensitive reporting indicates Shakir's travel and contacts link him to a worldwide network of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Shakir worked at the Kuala Lumpur airport--a job he claimed to have obtained through an Iraqi embassy employee.

One of the men at that al Qaeda operational meeting in the Kuala Lumpur Hotel was Tawfiz al Atash, a top bin Laden lieutenant later identified as the mastermind of the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole .

25. Investigation into the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 by al Qaeda revealed no specific Iraqi connections but according to the CIA, "fragmentary evidence points to possible Iraqi involvement."

26. During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in Dec 2000. Iraqi intelligence was "encouraged" after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training.

[spacefreak]

The analysis of this report follows.

CIA maintains that Ibn al-Shaykh's timeline is consistent with other sensitive reporting indicating that bin Laden asked Iraq in 1998 for advanced weapons, including CBW and "poisons."

Additional reporting also calls into question the claim that relations between Iraq and al Qaeda cooled after mid-1999:

27. According to sensitive CIA reporting, . . . the Saudi National Guard went on a kingdom-wide state of alert in late Dec 2000 after learning Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking U.S./U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia.

And then there is the alleged contact between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. The reporting on those links suggests not one meeting, but as many as four. What's more, the memo reveals potential financing of Atta's activities by Iraqi intelligence.


The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, [Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir] al Ani, on several occasions. During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office.

And the commentary:

CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague--in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000; data surrounding the other two--on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information.

It's not just Gross who stands by the information. Five high-ranking members of the Czech government have publicly confirmed meetings between Atta and al Ani. The meeting that has gotten the most press attention--April 9, 2001--is also the most widely disputed. Even some of the most hawkish Bush administration officials are privately skeptical that Atta met al Ani on that occasion. They believe that reports of the alleged meeting, said to have taken place in public, outside the headquarters of the U.S.-financed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, suggest a level of sloppiness that doesn't fit the pattern of previous high-level Iraq-al Qaeda contacts.

Whether or not that specific meeting occurred, the report by Czech counterintelligence that al Ani ordered the Iraqi Intelligence Service officer to provide IIS funds to Atta might help explain the lead hijacker's determination to reach Prague, despite significant obstacles, in the spring of

2000. (Note that the report stops short of confirming that the funds were transferred. It claims only that the IIS officer requested the transfer.) Recall that Atta flew to Prague from Germany on May 30, 2000, but was denied entry because he did not have a valid visa. Rather than simply return to Germany and fly directly to the United States, his ultimate destination, Atta took pains to get to Prague. After he was refused entry the first time, he traveled back to Germany, obtained the proper paperwork, and caught a bus back to Prague. He left for the United States the day after arriving in Prague for the second time.

Several reports indicate that the relationship between Saddam and bin Laden continued, even after the September 11 attacks:

31. An Oct. 2002 . . . report said al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The report also said that al Qaeda members involved in a fraudulent passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel.

The analysis that accompanies that report indicates that the report fits the pattern of Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration:

References to procurement of false passports from Iraq and offers of safe haven previously have surfaced in CIA source reporting considered reliable. Intelligence reports to date have maintained that Iraqi support for al Qaeda usually involved providing training, obtaining passports, and offers of refuge. This report adds to that list by including weapons and money. This assistance would make sense in the aftermath of 9-11.

Colin Powell, in his February 5, 2003, presentation to the U.N. Security Council, revealed the activities of Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Reporting in the memo expands on Powell's case and might help explain some of the resistance the U.S. military is currently facing in Iraq.

37. Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi's procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere.

38. According to sensitive reporting, a contact with good access who does not have an established reporting record: An Iraqi intelligence service officer said that as of mid-March the IIS was providing weapons to al Qaeda members located in northern Iraq, including rocket propelled grenade (RPG)-18 launchers. According to IIS information, northern Iraq-based al Qaeda members believed that the U.S. intended to strike al Qaeda targets during an anticipated assault against Ansar al-Islam positions.

The memo further reported pre-war intelligence which "claimed that an Iraqi intelligence official, praising Ansar al-Islam, provided it with $100,000 and agreed to continue to give assistance."

One of the most interesting things to note about the 16-page memo is that it covers only a fraction of the evidence that will eventually be available to document the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. For one thing, both Saddam and bin Laden were desperate to keep their cooperation secret. (Remember, Iraqi intelligence used liquid paper on an internal intelligence document to conceal bin Laden's name.) For another, few people in the U.S. government are expressly looking for such links. There is no Iraq-al Qaeda equivalent of the CIA's 1,400-person Iraq Survey Group currently searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.

Instead, CIA and FBI officials are methodically reviewing Iraqi intelligence files that survived the three-week war last spring. These documents would cover several miles if laid end-to-end. And they are in Arabic. They include not only connections between bin Laden and Saddam, but also revolting details of the regime's long history of brutality. It will be a slow process.

So Feith's memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee is best viewed as sort of a "Cliff's Notes" version of the relationship. It contains the highlights, but it is far from exhaustive.

One example. The memo contains only one paragraph on Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi facilitator who escorted two September 11 hijackers through customs in Kuala Lumpur. U.S. intelligence agencies have extensive reporting on his activities before and after the September 11 hijacking. That they would include only this brief overview suggests the 16-page memo, extensive as it is, just skims the surface of the reporting on Iraq-al Qaeda connections.

Other intelligence reports indicate that Shakir whisked not one but two September 11 hijackers--Khalid al Midhar and Nawaq al Hamzi--through the passport and customs process upon their arrival in Kuala Lumpur on January 5, 2000. Shakir then traveled with the hijackers to the Kuala Lumpur Hotel where they met with Ramzi bin al Shibh, one of the masterminds of the September 11 plot. The meeting lasted three days. Shakir returned to work on January 9 and January 10, and never again.

Shakir got his airport job through a contact at the Iraqi Embassy. (Iraq routinely used its embassies as staging grounds for its intelligence operations; in some cases, more than half of the alleged "diplomats" were intelligence operatives.) The Iraqi embassy, not his employer, controlled Shakir's schedule. He was detained in Qatar on September 17, 2001. Authorities found in his possession contact information for terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole , and the September 11 hijackings. The CIA had previous reporting that Shakir had received a phone call from the safe house where the 1993 World Trade Center attacks had been plotted.

[rezonate]

Source? Oh, the US, hmmm, sounds like bollocks to me, anyone else?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by rezonate:
Source? Oh, the US, hmmm, sounds like bollocks to me, anyone else?

Source is listed on the very first line. I'd be curious to see what evidence you have that is as thorough and to the contrary.

Somehow, you were able to read and respond to the article as fast as I could post it. It only took you a minute to read all that? Amazing. You should be commended on your reading speed.

[rezonate]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Source is listed on the very first line. I'd be curious to see what evidence you have that is as thorough and to the contrary.

Somehow, you were able to read and respond to the article as fast as I could post it. It only took you a minute to read all that? Amazing. You should be commended on your reading speed.

I have my sources, read it earlier

Those sources are as reliable as an unreliable thing. The US Government has as much credibility as Bush going to Mecca to pray.
I don't have the time, nor inclination to tear apart every little CIA. Secret Service, Bush admin, etc, etc. leaked memo, they serve a purpose, and it's usually pretty obvious.

[thunderous_funker]

Good thing we have them all in custody then.

Of course, now we only have to be concerned with Al'Queda's direct links to powerful members of the ruling regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Indonesia, Pakistan, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Iran and probably several others.

[mr. natural]

Wake me up when we find Saddam and Osama in bed together.



Oh, yeah, with all the WMD.

[RooneyX]

I never saw any of this first hand, there's no solid records or documents to be shown. It looks like conjecture and theory. A fiction writer could come up with better.

What can be solidly shown is Rumsfeld and Bush Sr. were good friends with Saddam, and that's on proper record. And Bin Ladin and his whole family have been too.

[thunderous_funker]

By the way, most of that "evidence" isn't new. Not to mention that a memo indicating we have evidence is not the same thing as real evidence.

We know Ansar Al'Islam had direct links to Al'Queda. Its practically a branch office. We also know they set up shop in the only part of Iraq that Saddam didn't control because he had a nasty habit of imprisoning, torturing and executing them over the years.

It wouldn't surprise me if elements of the IIS made deals with them, just like our friends in Pakistan continue to do. That doesn't quite mean that they are in cahoots.

Be that as it may, I'm not sure it really matters now. Just like arguing over the WMD doesn't really matter now. Its academic. We invaded. Can't go back now.

Of course, we could be talking about whether or not our invasion has ended the cooperation of Al'Queda and elements within the Ba'ath regime or strengthened them.

Whether or not they were cozy in Iraq before the war, we certainly know they have set up shop for good in Iraq now. One step forward, two steps back.

[mr. natural]

Posted by thunderous_funker:

Whether or not they were cozy in Iraq before the war, we certainly know they have set up shop for good in Iraq now. One step forward, two steps back.

Is this "one step forward, two steps back" some sort of WoT dance routine that y'all in California thought up?

Oh, it's from DC, eh? Who would of thunk it. Then again, I'm sure Dubya learned some good break dance moves while living in Texas. I'm sure he saw Fat Barry some where there.

Anyway, thunderous, where's that bar you were talking about? I could use a good drink right now.

[eklipse]

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by eklipse:
[IMG]

ROFL

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by rezonate:
Those sources are as reliable as an unreliable thing. The US Government has as much credibility as Bush going to Mecca to pray.
I don't have the time, nor inclination to tear apart every little CIA. Secret Service, Bush admin, etc, etc. leaked memo, they serve a purpose, and it's usually pretty obvious.

Then by your own words, you'll only believe what you want to believe.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
ROFL

It's amazing that after all this time, people still can't comprehend the fact that the reasons for war were always: brutal dictator + connections to terrorists + unlimited financial means + serious weapons + capacity to develop weapons + constant defiance of UN resolutions = he's gotta go.

[MacGorilla]

Case closed...heh

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's amazing that after all this time, people still can't comprehend the fact that the reasons for war were always: brutal dictator + connections to terrorists + unlimited financial means + serious weapons + capacity to develop weapons + constant defiance of UN resolutions = he's gotta go.

I agree. And that's why he must get voted out of office next year.

[mr. natural]

It's amazing too that after all this time people still can't comprehend the fact since this preposterous "Mission Accomplished" began & ended: Brutal Dictator Saddam is still on the loose + as is Osama + they still have unlimited financial means (thanks to our continued oil addiction) + serious weapons that kill us daily now that we are parked in their back-yard + capacity in the form of more enraged suicidal maniacs willing and able to die to harm us even more seriously + continued defiance of our arrogant we'll show you the way Democracy dictates = Regime Change Begins At Home!

[Echelon]

I get the impression that you folks want America to fail in Iraq, and imho it's b/c Bush is the Big Cheese. If it were Clinton, you'd want America to come out on top because you'd want it to be a victory for Clinton.

Funny (also pathetic and cowardly) how you're willing to sacrifice your countrymen and America's future to promote 'regime change' at home.

[BlackGriffen]

Spacefreak, that's like citing the bible as evidence of the bible's validity.

Third party sources please, not an internal memo saying, "We were right, and here are all the sources that you can't have access to that prove it."

BlackGriffen

[Wiskedjak]

I'd believe an internal memo, if I actually SAW said memo. Somebody saying THEY saw said leaked memo isn't enough for me to believe it's validity ... especially if their website is no longer active.

I'm sorry, but just because somebody SAYS the case is closed doesn't make the case closed.

[Echelon]

I hate Saddam and I'd tear off Usama's head with my teeth if I got the chance, but I'll really need to see some serious evidence of a link before I'll believe it.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Echelon:
I get the impression that you folks want America to fail in Iraq, and imho it's b/c Bush is the Big Cheese. If it were Clinton, you'd want America to come out on top because you'd want it to be a victory for Clinton.

Funny (also pathetic and cowardly) how you're willing to sacrifice your countrymen and America's future to promote 'regime change' at home.

ditto

[tie]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
From the article, Case Closed

Give me proof, or I'll assume it's a lie. Why? Because everything else, absolutely everything about Iraq has been a lie. Supposedly, we had evidence that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Niger. Bush said so in his State of the Union speech, which ought to be a better source for information than some secret memo that may or may not exist. And? It was a lie.

This has become one of those "don't cry wolf" kinds of issues. The Bush administration is extremely guilty of it. Actually, so are you, spacefreak -- you've prematurely jumped on most of the WMD rumors that have all turned out to be false.

[The Mick]

Originally posted by Echelon:
I get the impression that you folks want America to fail in Iraq, and imho it's b/c Bush is the Big Cheese. If it were Clinton, you'd want America to come out on top because you'd want it to be a victory for Clinton.

Funny (also pathetic and cowardly) how you're willing to sacrifice your countrymen and America's future to promote 'regime change' at home.

I think you have grossly misrepresented the opinions of the anti-war crowd here. None of us want to see any more American soldiers die in Iraq. We did not want this ridiculous Middle-East freedom tour in the first place. We wanted to see real evidence of this imminent threat to our safety. We never saw the evidence, the threat appears to have been practically nonexistent, and now we are stuck in Iraq watching good American men and women die. Do you really think I am happy about it? Hell no! I'm mad as hell! I choose to focus my anger toward the man in charge of this whole debacle; George W Bush.

I'm going to hold him accountable for bogging us down in this guerilla war, but don't say I'm happy to see people die, that's flat out wrong.

[rezonate]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Then by your own words, you'll only believe what you want to believe.

Not at all, but when I read documents like this, then realise who the source is, I have my suspicions, the US Gov. IMO, is not even nearly a credible authority. Same goes with the old Iraqi Gov. Both are tainted, and knowing the USs intentions, and past history, I'd be skeptical of such things.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by tie:
Give me proof, or I'll assume it's a lie.

Try reading the first three posts. Why don't you give me some proof to the contrary.

Bush said so in his State of the Union speech, which ought to be a better source for information than some secret memo that may or may not exist. And? It was a lie.

British intelligence still stand by their findings.

This has become one of those "don't cry wolf" kinds of issues. The Bush administration is extremely guilty of it. Actually, so are you, spacefreak -- you've prematurely jumped on most of the WMD rumors that have all turned out to be false.

Read the Kay report. It's absolutely undeniable that WMD programs were ongoing. UN inventories (not Bush) showed Saddam had many tons of agents. When documented UN inspections list bio/chem agents, that's quite different than being a rumor.

Nice try.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Third party sources please, not an internal memo saying, "We were right, and here are all the sources that you can't have access to that prove it."

Ok...what other nation's intelligence agencies do you prefer, since the CIA & FBI is apparently not good enough for you?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Spacefreak, that's like citing the bible as evidence of the bible's validity.

Actually, it's more like citing the bible for evidence that Jesus hung around with Joseph.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Echelon:
I get the impression that you folks want America to fail in Iraq, and imho it's b/c Bush is the Big Cheese. If it were Clinton, you'd want America to come out on top because you'd want it to be a victory for Clinton.

Funny (also pathetic and cowardly) how you're willing to sacrifice your countrymen and America's future to promote 'regime change' at home.

So true.

[theolein]

Spacefreak, I understand your reasons for pointing out these notes, and I'll be the first of the so called "left wing marxist commies" here to admit that it makes interesting reading. I have no idea how good or bad or biased or unbiased the Weekly Standard is (It's slashdotted right now) as a news source, but I'll assume that these "internal memos" are at least to some degree accurate. I should point out that these memos sound more like documents that the CIA was, until recently, unwilling to provide the Senate committee investigating 9/11 with, and as such probably constitute a leak, once again, by someone wishing to place the spotlight on the CIA.

But let's take a look at the contents.

I think it does underscore the point that there were, at the very least, extensive contacts between Al Qaida and Iraq until 1999 and perhaps even 2000.

It also seems to show, from what I can see, that there was a significant faction within Al Qaida itself that was against any contacts with the secular Hussein government, but that these were overruled until 1999 at least.

It doesn't show nor does it discount that any WMD were transferred, not that it really matters because the amounts of WMDs claimed by Powell in front of the UN were huge (thousands of liters of Anthrax solution) and could not have been easily transported. Added to this the only recorded use of bioweapons in a terrorist attack in the US until now, in the fall of 2001, have been definitely proven to be of US Army reasearch origin. The anthrax that Iraq was known to posess was refined using aluminum silicate powder to mill it into finer spores, which wasn't present in the anthrax used in the US.

So what do these memos show? They show that intelligence was very detailed on Al Qaida as far back as 1990. I continue to wonder why so little action was taken against Al Qaida when so much of their movements and planning was known? Is this the fault of the CIA, Clinton and Bush governments? It was known on so many occaisions, it seems, what Al Qaida was up to, and it definitely seems, that there must have been more information about 9/11 known before the attacks happened.

I'm not saying that the Bush administration willfully ignored the information, or in some bizarre conspiracy, wanted them to happen in order to gain power, but, it seems as if everyone was content to ignore significant intelligence until it was too late.

What would worry me far more than contacts between Al Qaida and Saddam would be the contacts between the Pakistani IIS (Internal Intelligence Services) and Al Qaida prior to 9/11. If there was ever a chance that Al Qaida had access to nuclear weapons, it was then.

[soiled.panties]

Originally posted by The Mick:
I think you have grossly misrepresented the opinions of the anti-war crowd here. None of us want to see any more American soldiers die in Iraq. We did not want this ridiculous Middle-East freedom tour in the first place. We wanted to see real evidence of this imminent threat to our safety. We never saw the evidence, the threat appears to have been practically nonexistent, and now we are stuck in Iraq watching good American men and women die. Do you really think I am happy about it? Hell no! I'm mad as hell! I choose to focus my anger toward the man in charge of this whole debacle; George W Bush.

I'm going to hold him accountable for bogging us down in this guerilla war, but don't say I'm happy to see people die, that's flat out wrong.

don't say I'm happy to see people die, that's flat out wrong.

I find it offensive people imply that.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Echelon:
I get the impression that you folks want America to fail in Iraq, and imho it's b/c Bush is the Big Cheese. If it were Clinton, you'd want America to come out on top because you'd want it to be a victory for Clinton.

Funny (also pathetic and cowardly) how you're willing to sacrifice your countrymen and America's future to promote 'regime change' at home.

I personally agree that there are some people here who seem to get a big laugh of "I told you so" every time some American soldiers die in Iraq, as a way of proving their point that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was wrong. I personally find that distasteful. On the other hand I see people like you who make no mention of the scores of Iraqi dead (I'm not referring to guerillas who plant roadside bombs here) who have been unwitting victims in this conflict. And I find that as distasteful as the previous. A life is not magically worth more just because it comes from Akron, Ohio and not Nasirya, Iraq.

I read this in your location: Every computer and telecom system in the world, spying and sneaking at the behest of the English-speaking countries.

I personally come from a nominally English speak ing country, and I'll say this: You sure as hell aren't speaking for me. A statement like that makes you seem like an childish, unintelligent, backward, moron who is incapable of learning another language, much less understanding any foreign intelligence which would obviously not be in English. In other words, the NSA would have no use for you when you grow up, simply because you're too bigoted to learn another language.

Secondly, statements like that make you seem EXACTLY like those bastards that make up Al-Qaida: For them it's only a Moslem who is woth something (preferably one who sacrifices himself for their cause) and for you it's only Anglo-Saxons that are worth something (preferably those who sacrifice themselves for your cause).

Thirdly, why don't you join your army if you feel so strongly about it? Be an example to others etc.

Fourthly, it may have escaped your attention, but 18 Italian soldiers were killed this week in Iraq, supporting the US occupation. I suppose in your eyes that they're not worth anything because they're not English speaking. I suppose the same goes for the Spanish, Polish, Ukranian, Dutch and other nations involved there. perhaps they should just leave?

fifthly, you wonder what is the real problem with your country? It's attitudes like yours, with no interest or concept of a world that ends beyond your borders. That is what makes all the foreigners angry: Your country treating the rest of the world like it's playground.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Try reading the first three posts. Why don't you give me some proof to the contrary.

Posts are not proof. Just because you say something doesn't make it true. Show us proof of your proof.

[mr. natural]

I'm not about to pick apart every allegation in this "Case Closed" article, but I would like to point out a very substantial claim that has been roundly refuted.

The Boston Globe published an article on Sept. 9th in which serious doubts were laid bare about Mohammed Atta's doings in Czechoslovakia.

In particular, current intelligence officials reiterated yesterday that a reported Prague visit in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent had been discounted by the CIA, which sent former agency Director James R. Woolsey to investigate the claim. Woolsey did not find any evidence to confirm the report, officials said, and President Bush did not include it in the case for war in his State of the Union address last January...

Multiple intelligence officials said that the Prague meeting, purported to be between Atta and senior Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, was dismissed almost immediately after it was reported by Czech officials in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and has since been discredited further.

The CIA reported to Congress last year that it could not substantiate the claim, while American records indicate Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time, the officials said yesterday. Indeed, two intelligence officials said yesterday that Ani himself, now in US custody, has also refuted the report. The Czech government has also distanced itself from its original claim.

Furthermore, this Boston Globe article also suggests:

The claims [of bio/chem training missions] are based on a prewar allegation by a "senior terrorist operative," who said he overheard an Al Qaeda agent speak of a mission to seek biological or chemical weapons training in Iraq, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to the United Nations in February.

But intelligence specialists told the Globe last August that they have never confirmed that the training took place, or identified where it could have taken place.

If one reviews closely the Case Closed article it is full of innuendoes and open-ended speculations, just re-hashed. Some of these speculations, like this Atta one, have been refuted by reputable individuals, like Woolsey, and others, which makes me at least highly skeptical of the whole thing.

I am not about to claim that there never were any contacts between Iraq & Al Qaeda, but overall my response is: So What!

It changes little about my principled dissent against this whole damn mess that Bush et al have rushed headlong into, without any inkling about how to get us out.

Which brings me to my final points:

I take offense at the suggestion by Echelon, and as mindlessly seconded by Spliffdaddy and Spacefreak, that I (or anyone else here who has clearly articulated similar principled dissent and skepticism about this venture) would be cheering this war on if Clinton was in office. I'd want him out of office too at the next election.

I also take extreme offense at the suggestion that my principled dissent is "pathetic" or "cowardly." Frankly bub, your "impression" in this matter is dead wrong, as it suggests that my dissent is unpatriotic.

You don't know Jack Sh!t about me and my views on the matter, nor the personal loss I suffered on 9/11.

At this point, all I can say is that you're the true coward and pathetic one in my eyes.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
... especially if their website is no longer active.

Oh, it's active alright...but for some reason, once this memo hit their pages...

The page cannot be displayed

HTTP Error 500-13 - Server too busy
Internet Information Services

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
I'm not about to pick apart every allegation in this "Case Closed" article, but I would like to point out a very substantial claim that has been roundly refuted....The Boston Globe published an article on Sept. 9th in which serious doubts were laid bare about Mohammed Atta's doings in Czechoslovakia.

The article I posted mentions these doubts

CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague--in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000; data surrounding the other two--on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information.

It's not just Gross who stands by the information. Five high-ranking members of the Czech government have publicly confirmed meetings between Atta and al Ani. The meeting that has gotten the most press attention--April 9, 2001--is also the most widely disputed. Even some of the most hawkish Bush administration officials are privately skeptical that Atta met al Ani on that occasion. They believe that reports of the alleged meeting, said to have taken place in public, outside the headquarters of the U.S.-financed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, suggest a level of sloppiness that doesn't fit the pattern of previous high-level Iraq-al Qaeda contacts.

Of course, there are 37 other points of note regarding the Saddam-Al Qaeda relationship, many of which are stated as having multiple corroborations from seperate sources.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

The memo and article also notes that these are the "cliffs notes" version of a much more exhaustive report being put together. So, if the case is so tight in the government's eyes, we should see something grander.

Originally posted by mr. natural:
I take offense at the suggestion by Echelon, and as mindlessly seconded by Spliffdaddy and Spacefreak, that I (or anyone else here who has clearly articulated similar principled dissent and skepticism about this venture) would be cheering this war on if Clinton was in office. I'd want him out of office too at the next election.

The post that offends you began with "The impression I get is..." , which is an opinion, and it was written following many non-substantiative replies.

I'm sorry you took offense to my agreeing with Echelon's impressions. Had the replies up to that point talked about the content of the post, rather than sound-bite rhetoric like "Those sources are as reliable as an unreliable thing", "A fiction writer could come up with better", and "Wake me up when we find Saddam and Osama in bed together with all the WMD.", perhaps the impression would have been different. I do, however, commend you on at least commenting and arguing the content of the article.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Posts are not proof. Just because you say something doesn't make it true. Show us proof of your proof.

All I can show you is the article based on an October 27, 2003 memo sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration.

If the insane surge in traffic to the Weekly Standard's site would subside (looks like a DOS-style attack), where this story on this breaking memo breaking is hosted, you'd see that the article I posted is the same as the article written. ie- I'm not just saying something.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
(snip)...........I take offense at the suggestion by Echelon, and as mindlessly seconded by Spliffdaddy and Spacefreak, that I (or anyone else here who has clearly articulated similar principled dissent and skepticism about this venture) would be cheering this war on if Clinton was in office. I'd want him out of office too at the next election.

I also take extreme offense at the suggestion that my principled dissent is "pathetic" or "cowardly." Frankly bub, your "impression" in this matter is dead wrong, as it suggests that my dissent is unpatriotic.

You don't know Jack Sh!t about me and my views on the matter, nor the personal loss I suffered on 9/11.

At this point, all I can say is that you're the true coward and pathetic one in my eyes.

OMG. Echelon scored a direct hit.

Dude, he never mentioned any names - I don't know why you took his comments so personally.

It seems as if he was right about a few folks here.

[Echelon]

Originally posted by theolein:
I read this in your location: Every computer and telecom system in the world, spying and sneaking at the behest of the English-speaking countries.

I personally come from a nominally English speak ing country, and I'll say this: You sure as hell aren't speaking for me. A statement like that makes you seem like an childish, unintelligent, backward, moron who is incapable of learning another language, much less understanding any foreign intelligence which would obviously not be in English. In other words, the NSA would have no use for you when you grow up, simply because you're too bigoted to learn another language.

Secondly, statements like that make you seem EXACTLY like those bastards that make up Al-Qaida: For them it's only a Moslem who is woth something (preferably one who sacrifices himself for their cause) and for you it's only Anglo-Saxons that are worth something (preferably those who sacrifice themselves for your cause).

Thirdly, why don't you join your army if you feel so strongly about it? Be an example to others etc.

Fourthly, it may have escaped your attention, but 18 Italian soldiers were killed this week in Iraq, supporting the US occupation. I suppose in your eyes that they're not worth anything because they're not English speaking. I suppose the same goes for the Spanish, Polish, Ukranian, Dutch and other nations involved there. perhaps they should just leave?

fifthly, you wonder what is the real problem with your country? It's attitudes like yours, with no interest or concept of a world that ends beyond your borders. That is what makes all the foreigners angry: Your country treating the rest of the world like it's playground.

nice personal attack you twit. Impressive how you magically extract an entire personality profile and belief system from a small paragraph of words. The effort required to spew your nauseous tirade would have been better spent asking me questions or requesting detailed clarifications or explanations, rather than venting your twisted political and ideological frustrations and impotence on me.

[Echelon]

and for general public knowledge: my nik isn't something directed against others or English-speaking countries. If you kept up with what the EU does, you'd know that some time ago it condemned something it suspects is real: a concerted, cooperative effort by the English-speaking countries (US, Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zealand) to conduct intelligence & information gathering activities worldwide. I'm taking a humourous crack at that.

[Spliffdaddy]

Alright. theo is NOT gonna let that go unanswered.

I've got popcorn, Olde English 40's, and a blunt.

Let the entertainment begin!

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by theolein:
I read this in your location: Every computer and telecom system in the world, spying and sneaking at the behest of the English-speaking countries.

I personally come from a nominally English speak ing country, and I'll say this: You sure as hell aren't speaking for me. A statement like that makes you seem like an childish, unintelligent, backward, moron who is incapable of learning another language, much less understanding any foreign intelligence which would obviously not be in English. In other words, the NSA would have no use for you when you grow up, simply because you're too bigoted to learn another language.

http://archive.aclu.org/echelonwatch/faq.html

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
All I can show you is the article based on an October 27, 2003 memo sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration.

What you have is an article that claims to be based on a secret memo sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller. That is not proof or evidence. Proof would be the memo itself, not an article based upon it. All you've got is speculation.

[mr. natural]

posted by spacefreak:

The article I posted mentions these doubts

And the article I posted not only "mentions" these doubts but tends to refute them on a solid basis in that it even has quotations by real live and named people -- something which is missing in large part from this "article" based on a "Memo."

There are numerous conflicts in this story still. Nor has this administration made sorting out these and untold other WoT conflicts a priority. In fact I tend to think they consider all the confusion and bamboozlement as to their advantage. And so far, I think they are right.

Futhermore, until such time when it becomes a proper "Report," and one that is actually published and reported on more widely rather than just a "leaked" PR piece in The Weekly Standard -- a neo-con toad-stool scribe (and one that can not even sustain itself on circulation or advertising like most authentic newspapers can) -- I will refrain from rejoicing with glee over this announcement.

Hence my skepticism as evidenced by my initial sarcastic retort about waiting to find Saddam & Osama in bed with all the allegedly missing bio/chem WMD.

I did and do acknowledge that Iraq and Al Qaeda probably had contacts with one another, but this does not in and of itself make the case for this war, or is it "Mission Accomplished," we are presently in.

I still say: SO WHAT?

We are not necessarily any safer, and in fact American citizens dressed in army fatigues are being killed almost daily (as well as innocent others) in a rushed war that may not end well at all.

Osama, the instigator of all this WoT sh!t, whom Bush promised was his number one priority, is still on the loose. Meanwhile Afghanistan is a mess and looking worse. And we think we can fix Iraq as a beacon of Middle East muslim democracy!?

America's relations with our allies and others is at an all time low, etc.

This may be your idea of an ennobled American foreign policy and domestic security arrangements, but it sure as hell ain't mine. This is where we part company.

But there is a huge difference between mocking this "news" as I did, And suggesting that we who might do so on well founded principles and good reasons are somehow either "pathetic" or "cowardly" in the manner that Echelon did. That is utterly shameful, and obviously offensive as noted by me and others. It may well be just an "opinion" as you call it, but that makes it no less unscrupulous, and it is one you seconded.

I don't impugn your patriotism in such fashion, nor can I recall anyone here who dissents against Bush and his plans as doing so against you all who support Bush.

Nor is it right to do so just because some within this administration thinks it is either, and doesn't give you or anyone license to get away with it even if they do.

However, your apology is noted.

It is among the highest privileges and acts of patriotism I have as an American citizen to question and be skeptical of those in power. Especially this administration which has given me little reason to believe or act otherwise.

Obviously you think differently than I do about Bush et al. So be it.

But anyone who thinks my dissent is unpatriotic, or will somehow cause our "failure" or denigrates the loss of life, be they American or otherwise, is welcome to visit me at my home where I can and will personally fix their wagon!

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Osama, the instigator of all this WoT sh!t, whom Bush promised was his number one priority, is still on the loose.

How do you know? Why is it that Mr. Osama, a fabled propagandist and longtime user of Arab media outlets, has not so much as had his picture taken while holding up a newspaper headline (to show he was alive on a particular date)?

The fact is, you don't know. No one has heard from him since the Tora Bora bombings. He very well could be buried deep in a cave underneath tons of rubble.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Meanwhile Afghanistan is a mess and looking worse. And we think we can fix Iraq as a beacon of Middle East muslim democracy!?

America's relations with our allies and others is at an all time low, etc.

Afghanistan is looking a whole lot better than it was a few years ago. Your claim of otherwise is pure ignorance.

There is no reason Iraq cannot have a stable government with democratic principles. Japan and Germany are doing OK. South Korea as well (and we don't hear them asking us to remove our troops).

That you would prefer 25 million Iraqis to live under a brutal, murderous dictator - one that slaughters hundreds of thousands of its own citizens - is as inhumane as inhumane gets. Or if your opinion is that Iraqis can't handle democracy, I'd say that is quite bigoted of you.

As for our allies, these relationships always wax and wane, and friends will disagree on issues at times. But claiming our relations are at an all time low is ridiculous. France, Germany, and Russia may have disagreed on our iraq policy (perhaps because they were making billions in illegal, behind-the-back-of-the- UN business deals), but they are not stopping travel to the US, or setting up an embargo, or preparing for a war. They all still send their representatives to live like kings in the US and do their business at the UN, and they all enjoy the billions upon billions in trade profits provided by us, the American people.

You also need to understand that the world is a constant power stuggle between powers. It always has been that way, and it always will be. There will always be a leading power or a few. You seem to prefer that the US not be a world leader because you refuse to trust the ability and intellect of your fellow citizens or the leadership of their chosen representatives.

It is not your patriotism that is being questioned, but rather your judgement .

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
What you have is an article that claims to be based on a secret memo sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller. That is not proof or evidence. Proof would be the memo itself, not an article based upon it. All you've got is speculation.

Originally posted by mr. natural:
And the article I posted not only "mentions" these doubts but tends to refute them on a solid basis in that it even has quotations by real live and named people -- something which is missing in large part from this "article" based on a "Memo."

Futhermore, until such time when it becomes a proper "Report," and one that is actually published and reported on more widely rather than just a "leaked" PR piece ...

Suit yourselves. I do fully expect Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller to make a statement that this memo leak is indeed false if that is the case.

[mr. natural]

Posted by spacefreak:

The fact is, you don't know. No one has heard from him since the Tora Bora bombings. He very well could be buried deep in a cave underneath tons of rubble.

You're right, I don't know, anymore than you do. Whoopee!

But the facts, jack, are like this.

Dated Sept. 8th:

[A]uthorities [say] there is new information from electronic intercepts and intelligence on the ground that shows bin Laden is very much alive, somewhere in the rugged terrain of Waziristan...

The problem has been that bin Laden has gone quiet," said former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, who is also an ABCNEWS consultant. "He is not using electronic communications devices. And there haven't been any recent sightings of him."

Earlier this year, electronic intercepts led the U.S. to another region of Pakistan, Baluchistan, where authorities thought they had found bin Laden moving in a convoy of trucks.

"They thought they were very close to locating him and fixing his position about two months ago," said Cannistraro. "But they failed in the end to locate him."

IIRC, they even tore open the Tora Bora caves to do DNA tests. If he was dead, we'd know about it. Bush would definitely want to tell us that. And I'll be glad when Osama is dead, but until then, all the intel leaks I've read says he's alive.

Your supposition of "he could" be dead doesn't quite jibe with the facts on the ground -- that they are looking for him but can't find him.

posted by spacefreak:

Afghanistan is looking a whole lot better than it was a few years ago. Your claim of otherwise is pure ignorance.

Says you. Been to Afghanistan recently, have you?

This reporter has been there and the story he tells isn't all rosy.

Nor is this report from today, and this one from a few daze ago.

This week, a high-ranking United Nations delegation warned after visiting Afghanistan that the country remained at high risk from warlords and their followers.

My eye-glasses may be scratched, but yours are apparently rose tinted.

On their trip last week, the Council delegates also heard complaints that two years after the American-led invasion of Afghanistan, women were still victims of abuse and discrimination. Mr. Pleuger described frequent death threats against women's rights activists and a high rate of suicide among women.

Yup, everything is peaches and cream in Afghanistan.

Posted by spacefreak:

There is no reason Iraq cannot have a stable government with democratic principles. Japan and Germany are doing OK. South Korea as well (and we don't hear them asking us to remove our troops).

That you would prefer 25 million Iraqis to live under a brutal, murderous dictator - one that slaughters hundreds of thousands of its own citizens - is as inhumane as inhumane gets. Or if your opinion is that Iraqis can't handle democracy, I'd say that is quite bigoted of you.

I've never said or implied that "Iraq cannot have a stable government with democratic principles." However, I don't believe for a minute that we can impose such a thing in the manner we are presently attempting. If you'll recall, we preemptively attacked a sovereign nation this time around. This isn't Japan, or Germany, or even South Korea; nor is this 1945 or even the 1950's. Apart from these examples, the historical evidence doesn't favor our odds of success (I recently heard or read a review of similar type guerilla wars and in every instance the occupying power eventually lost the war).

As to the other part of your post, about what I would "prefer" for the Iraqis, is utter nonsense. When you stop projecting your own feeble rationalizations on me, perhaps then I will enlighten you about my "preferences." Until then, I see no point.

The fact is that this *humanitarian* argument as made here and now doesn't hold much water with me. There are and have been any number of other humanitarian crises I could point to that haven't bothered us in the least (particularly in Africa) -- certainly not to the degree that this one has now has been made out to be; but that didn't stop us from supporting Saddam when he was actually gassing folks.

In addition, does this now mean you are in favor of stepping in wherever a dictator rules, people are oppressed, tortured, etc. I mean, where do you draw the line? Kinda silly if you ask me to draw a line anywhere, except to say we will save everyone so oppressed or none at all based on such humanitarian rationalizations as you think to try and clobber me with.

Who is fooling whom here?

As to our allies, you can believe if you want that things are fine, but your own words belie such a belief. As if all that mattered is whether or not citizens of various nationality can travel freely between states, or how much money is traded between us. The fact is we are hamstrung in Iraq without their support, financially and otherwise.

Secondly, it is condescending statements, like this, "They all still send their representatives to live like kings in the US and do their business at the UN, and they all enjoy the billions upon billions in trade profits provided by us, the American people," which cause a lot of people around the world to resent us. And the recent poll numbers in this regard are clear, but if you want to pretend you haven't seen them, I would suggest that your glasses are not only rose colored but incredibly blinkered as well.

Posted by spacefreak:

You seem to prefer that the US not be a world leader because you refuse to trust the ability and intellect of your fellow citizens or the leadership of their chosen representatives.

I'm afraid these are just more projections of your own feeble rationalizations. You see, unlike you who seems to prefer that the US bullies it way around the globe, I do prefer that we actually use our innate *intellectual abilities* to lead constructively, instead of just brutalizing whomever we see fit with our military (and economic) brawn. The latter is easy, but ultimately self-defeating (not to mention woefully stupid & tragic), while the former is much harder and not something we are at all well practiced in the art of doing well; and certainly not by any *leadership* as we've got now, foisted on us by judicial decree.

Ultimately, spacefreak, you have your philosophy of how the world is and will be, and I have mine. You can question my judgment if it pleases you. But I'll be right here to question yours too.

However, I will let history judge who was right in these affairs. And just like my pseudonym was known to say: In this unfolding history your opinion "don't mean sheeit!"

[Zimphire]

AAHhahah

ALl the "Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda" losers now have to eat some crow.

Just yet another thing the "other side" has been wrong about.