[typoon]

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=36124

The leaders says a handwritten secret memo to Saddam Hussein gives details of a visit by Atta to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before the attacks, reports the London Telegraph.

"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaida," said Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man presidential committee, according to the London paper.

"But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far," he said. "It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaida, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."

More indication that Iraq and Saddam DID have dealings with Al Qaeda and that it justifies Bush to call for military action in Iraq as part of the War on Terrorism.

[Zimphire]

LIES! LIES! I TELL YOU!

[christ]

Originally posted by typoon:
...it justifies Bush to call for military action in Iraq as part of the War on Terrorism.

No it doesn't.

He (apparently) didn't know then, and (apparently) had no evidence then.

This would come into the category of 'illegal search and seizure', which is not justified, as that road leads to chaos (or at least a police state in internal politics, and tyrannical international rule if across countries).

What is laughable is that the pro-war crowd have been saying for ages that 'it was not about WMD' (no evidence), 'it was not about al-Qaeda' (no evidence), it was 'all about humanitarian relief' (only hearsay evidence apparently required). Now some possible evidence emerges, all of a sudden 'Iraq is part of the War on Terror'.

Keep spinning.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by typoon:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=36124

The leaders says a handwritten secret memo to Saddam Hussein gives details of a visit by Atta to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before the attacks, reports the London Telegraph.

Hmmm... he left off training in Florida to go get some training in Baghdad for a few weeks. Interesting...I wonder what all the other evidence Allawi refers to in the article is? He states they are "uncovering it all the time"...

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by christ:
Now some possible evidence emerges, all of a sudden 'Iraq is part of the War on Terror'.

Keep spinning.

Revisit Bush's address to the UN in 2002, or Powell's subsequent testimony to the UN Sec. Council. The war in Iraq has always been part of the war on terror.

Heck, even read Bush's State of the Union address in January, 2003...

And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

Your portrayal that this is "all of a sudden" is the only spin here.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
This would come into the category of 'illegal search and seizure',

You mean the Fourth Amendment applies in international relations. Who knew!?

Well, at least that explains why everyone wants to exclude the evidence. It's "fruit of the poisoned tree." Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You mean the Fourth Amendment applies in international relations. Who knew!?

Well, at least that explains why everyone wants to exclude the evidence. It's "fruit of the poisoned tree."

Please don't include me in this group that wants to exclude evidence. I definitely want to see the evidence, and I have wanted to see it since January. You are supposed to provide the evidence before you take the action, not after the fact...

That's my only beef with the "Al-Qaeda connection" issue. Even if there is a connection (and there may well be), if they are just unearthing their corroborations now, then something is badly out of sequence here.

[christ]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Revisit Bush's address to the UN in 2002, or Powell's subsequent testimony to the UN Sec. Council. The war in Iraq has always been part of the war on terror.

Heck, even read Bush's State of the Union address in January, 2003...

Your portrayal that this is "all of a sudden" is the only spin here.

Oh no.

When Bush said those things, it was pointed out by the non-warmongers that there was no evidence, and all the pro-war crowd glossed over it, and fought hard that it was 'a generalisation', 'not specific', etc. etc. Dubya denied having a direct link, as did 'Condy and Rummy'

It seems that it is all about whatever you want it to be all about, and if you either go back far enough, or wait long enough, then the reason will either be forgotten or seem justified, but that doesn't mean that 'that's what we meant all along' will fly as an excuse.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You mean the Fourth Amendment applies in international relations. Who knew!?

Yup, you're right - I should have said "fruit of the poisoned tree". Just lazy I guess. So shoot me.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
Yup, you're right - I should have said "fruit of the poisoned tree". Just lazy I guess. So shoot me.

LOL! You are digging yourself in deeper. Fruit of the poisoned tree is the phrase used in Wong Sun. That's American criminal procedure. Why are you using these phrases in this context? Are you by any chance a big fan of US cop shows?

[BlackGriffen]

Wait a minute. We're only finding evidence now? The time for justifying the war was before the fcking war. You don't go to war, and pray you'll find evidence when you go fishing for it later.

Now, weighing the evidence. We have -

• Source with ulterior motives.
• Unknown/non-verifiable origin of document.
• Zero corroborating evidence.

Yeah, unless you already believe the argument, this is insufficient evidence. Even circumstantial corroboration would help a lot.

BlackGriffen

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
LOL! You are digging yourself in deeper. Fruit of the poisoned tree is the phrase used in Wong Sun. That's American criminal procedure. Why are you using these phrases in this context? Are you by any chance a big fan of US cop shows?

Sorry I misunderstood - I thought you were offering me a correct term ("Fruit of the poisoned tree", of which I had never heard before today), which in my admitted ignorance I (stupidly) took for assistance. In hindsight, I should have known better.

I've never heard of Wong Sun.

I also have no clue what "371 U.S. 471 (1963)." means, but I assume it means something to you and your ilk.

No - I am not a fan of US cop shows. I used a term that embodied an easily understood principle, and then followed it up by making the fatal mistake of assuming that you would do anything other than misdirect and gloat.

I don't know why I would expect an American to extend the principles that he acts on to international relations. (Actually, after all this, I explicitly don't expect Americans to do that - I actually now expect them to trample over all foreigners as a matter of course, particularly, but not exclusively, when it benefits said Americans financially).

[Zimphire]

This just shows Bush was right after all.

And those who made fun of him for making such ties are WRONG.

I think we should bring back all the "Saddam had no ties to 9/11" threads.

It also probably means you will be seeing Bush in office for another 4 years because he was so RIGHT on the matter.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
Sorry I misunderstood - I thought you were offering me a correct term ("Fruit of the poisoned tree", of which I had never heard before today), which in my admitted ignorance I (stupidly) took for assistance. In hindsight, I should have known better.

I've never heard of Wong Sun.

I also have no clue what "371 U.S. 471 (1963)." means, but I assume it means something to you and your ilk.

No, of course you wouldn't have heard of Wong Sun. There is no reason why you should have. I just thought it was funny that you should (apparently with a straight face) think that the exclusionary rule of the US Fourth Amendment applies to international relations. Of course, it is completely irrelevant there.

I also thought it was a bit comical that an Englishman should use the American legal terminology. Behold! the power of Hollywood!

[christ]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
This just shows Bush was right after all.

And those who made fun of him for making such ties are WRONG.

Well, as he himself admitted that there was no evidence for such ties, it seems to have been a fair thing to do.

Is this how you believe that justice should be done? Invade a country in the hope that some evidence to support you will turn up sometime?

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, of course you wouldn't have heard of Wong Sun. There is no reason why you should have. I just thought it was funny that you should (apparently with a straight face) think that the exclusionary rule of the US Fourth Amendment applies to international relations. Of course, it is completely irrelevant there.

I also thought it was a bit comical that an Englishman should use the American legal terminology. Behold! the power of Hollywood!

Talking to an audience of mainly Americans, I assumed that it was a concept that would be readily understood. I reckoned wrong.

I also don't know what the "US Fourth Amendment" is.

I implied (fairly accurately, I thought) that I thought that Invading a country with no evidence of their involvement with terror, in the hope that evidence may turn up later (which may or may not have happened) was wrong, and that by analogy to 'illegal search and seizure', Americans may understand why it was wrong. It seems that I should not have used that analogy (Bad christ, bad),

Iit also seems that Americans (well, you and Zimph at least) don't think that it is wrong anyway - by inference you think that it is a good way to run international relations.

"Invade first, try and find evidence later" doesn't seem to ring true as a battle cry.

[Troll]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Revisit Powell's subsequent testimony to the UN Sec. Council.

I wouldn't go there if I were you because there are quite a few palm trees missing, not to mention a herd of mobile truck and train labs.

[thunderous_funker]

Politicians saying there is evidence is not the same as evidence.

When did Americans get so gullible?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
"Invade first, try and find evidence later"

I don't know if this is true or not, but it is quite possible that we are talking about two different types of evidence here. There is the information intelligence agencies provide to leaders and upon which leaders have to decide whether to act upon or not. Then there is stuff that a journalist might find on the ground once archives are opened up. Acting on the one obviously could lead to the other.

It's also possible that what the journalist finds get published in a newspaper, while the intelligence information remains classified. That's especially possible when Al-Queda is still very much out there. If intelligence sources have any kind of inside access to their planning, they are not going to splash it across the newspapers -- not even the Torygraph.

As I say, this is just speculation. I have no more access to the real information than you do. I guess the difference is that I am both aware of that fact, and unsurprised (indeed, untroubled) by it.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by christ:
Talking to an audience of mainly Americans, I assumed that it was a concept that would be readily understood. I reckoned wrong.

I also don't know what the "US Fourth Amendment" is.

I implied (fairly accurately, I thought) that I thought that Invading a country with no evidence of their involvement with terror, in the hope that evidence may turn up later (which may or may not have happened) was wrong, and that by analogy to 'illegal search and seizure', Americans may understand why it was wrong. It seems that I should not have used that analogy (Bad christ, bad),

Iit also seems that Americans (well, you and Zimph at least) don't think that it is wrong anyway - by inference you think that it is a good way to run international relations.

"Invade first, try and find evidence later" doesn't seem to ring true as a battle cry.

Don't confuse lack of understanding with the nit-picky legalistic reflexes of a recruit fresh out of law school.

He understood quite well, I'm sure. Simey's a smart guy. He just loves to argue over the most irrelevant technicalities.

Adding my own two bits:

Requiring evidence before action = justification.
Searching for evidence after the action = rationalization.

BlackGriffen

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As I say, this is just speculation. I have no more access to the real information than you do. I guess the difference is that I am both aware of that fact, and unsurprised (indeed, untroubled) by it.

NEWSFLASH: Simey likes to be ignorant, no matter how vulnerable to manipulation that makes him.

All in good fun, Simey. I can't resist a good jab when the jaw is presented so beautifully.

BG

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by christ:
No it doesn't.

He (apparently) didn't know then, and (apparently) had no evidence then.

This would come into the category of 'illegal search and seizure', which is not justified, as that road leads to chaos (or at least a police state in internal politics, and tyrannical international rule if across countries).

Huh? That's a CONSTITUTIONAL right (search and seizure). Since Saddam isn't an American citizen, it doesn't extend to him. Nice try though.

Oops, Simey coverred this already... and much better than I did. Sorry to intrude.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Huh? That's a CONSTITUTIONAL right (search and seizure). Since Saddam isn't an American citizen, it doesn't extend to him. Nice try though.

You ever thought about law school?

BG

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

You ever thought about law school?

BG

I was prelaw/polisci for a couple years, then switched majors... moral convictions.

[boots]

No one has responded to the question of corroborating evidence.

One piece of paper from an unknown source with no supporting evidence is shaky at best. I'll reserve judgement on this.

[ebuddy]

Boots, no one has answered your question because it doesn't matter what the answer is. Seriously.

When this is said and done and WMD are found in Iraq and dated documents per Intel suggest our President had more than enough reason to invade and remove Saddam, we could literally show you the missiles outlined in the documents and you'd still be suspect. Why give naysayers any fuel now? I like the strategy of leading the opposition to the left side of the field and when the time is so, drop the quick toss right. Then you get to see the opposition squirm for a position and fall all over themselves. The best example I have of this is Howard Dean. It will only get better.

I'm glad for the secrecy. I see what people do with the truth and I'd just as soon let them find out the long and hard way. As for me, I'll sit back and gloat that I had also been right all along. It won't matter though. A new argument will come up and we'll just keep chugging along our marry little biased way. People who want to see things a certain way will only see it that way. If you happen to be open-minded, you're a neocon. Need I say more? It never ends.

[vmarks]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...14/wterr14.xml

That's the telegraph story.

For anyone attempting to find evidence to justify the war in Iraq, the discovery of a document that directly links Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks, with the Baghdad training camp of Abu Nidal, the infamous Palestinian terrorist, appears almost too good to be true.

Also read here: (free reg required)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...equestid=85631

It turns out that one of the 9/11's 19 hijackers' uncle was close with Nidal. This uncle worked as a double agent for Libya and the then East German intelligence service, The Stasi.

"It could, of course, be pure coincidence that the uncle of one of the hijackers had worked for two intelligence agencies and had relations with another group and ran a pharmaceutical company doing business related to chemicals in the Middle East," cautions Gunther Latsch, an investigative journalist at Der Spiegel and an expert on the Stasi.

I'm not much for conspiracy theories but with all the intelligence the public doesn't have privy to these kinds of reports are all we have to go on. This makes sense within the context of the Con Coughlin stories I link to, above. Atta hooks up with Ziad Jarrah (the nephew hijacker) who hooks Atta up with his uncle who hooks Atta up with Nidal in Baghdad who is under the protection of Saddam who has some kind of operational relationship to Nidal. These connections are part of the web of Islamic terrorism. -- And that includes Palestinian terrorists, thanks to Nidal, and Hussein's support of Palestinian terror.

It gets more interesting:

Two Iraqi Military defectors, an unnamed former Lt. General and a Captain Sabah Khodada recently gave details of an Iraqi school at Salman Pak which includes training for the hijacking of passenger airliners and other modes of transportation. The former Iraqi General said that there was a old Boeing 707 resting next to rail tracks on edge of Salman Pak being used in terrorist training, the existence of this aircraft has been confirmed by UN. Inspectors.

http://www.intelmessages.org/Message...sages/826.html


Investigative (intelligence) findings are not always "a-ha!!!" moments but more the effect of numerous connections that when weighed together, tip the scale to the point where they all can't be coincindences. The problem we have and the problem real world intelligence agencies have (on a much more magnified scale) is that we have to weed out the patsies and and find the brains and just as importantly the money behind the scenes. Was Saddam really orchestrating the moves of Atta, Nidal and the others? We don't know. If the memo in Coughlin's report is authentic then it appears he was, to some extent. It's likely that he put the players in touch with each other or merely "allowed" Nidal and Atta to meet, knowing they were planning something. He may not have thought of hijacking planes with boxcutters and flying them into the Towers, Pentagon, and the unknown fourth target, but knew that Bin Laden was planning something big and wanted a piece or recognized an opportunity and seized it. After all, Salman Pak was in Iraq.


It seems to me that everyone claiming Hussein had no involvement in 9/11 is a little too eager to let him off the hook.

[boots]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Boots, no one has answered your question because it doesn't matter what the answer is. Seriously.

Wasn't my question. Someone else asked it early on in the thread and it got ignored. I just reminded people it was on the table.


It may very well be that there was intelligence we aren't privy to. However, one can easily question the quality of the intelligence based upon the "stove-pipe" actions that this administration have used in gathering intelligence. We hire people to analyze intel for a reason. Also, most of the discussion so far smacks of rationalization since we were told by the president on a couple of occasions that there wasn't a firm link...and one probably wouldn't be found.


However, I still stand by the statement that I want to see corroborating evidence before I will believe this document.

Vmarks has an excellent post toward this end....

[petehammer]

Newsflash (AP): It turns out that Iraqi children were actually manufacturing Sarin gas at school, so we were correct to bomb them.

Also, in Afganistan, it turns out that the wedding party we bombed was planning another 9/11 attack.

So, thank God for retroactive reasoning!

[Gee-Man]

Bump...

No one has responded to the question of corroborating evidence.

One piece of paper from an unknown source with no supporting evidence is shaky at best. I'll reserve judgement on this.

This was a wise decision. It appears that this new "evidence" is highly questionable:

http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3741646&p1=0

...senior U.S. law-enforcement and intelligence officials, said the claims of an Atta trip to Iraq in the months before the September 11 attacks were highly implausible—and contradicted by a wealth of information that has been collected about Atta's movements during the period he was plotting the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

What's even more interesting about this article is that it claims that there is a new "business" in Iraq of creating and selling faked documents, attempting to prey off the dearth of evidence supporting some of the pre-war claims.

The evidence de-bunking this particular memo seems pretty solid. Plus, if this were the real deal, we'd have seen an explosion of coverage by now, with pundits around the world asking questions about whether Bush is certain to win re-election and so forth, now that we have solid "evidence" linking Al-Qaeda and Iraq. But of course, that didn't happen - it's been almost a week, and no corroborating stories have appeared, no bombshells have been dropped.

[christ]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
LIES! LIES! I TELL YOU!

Looks like Zimph was (inadvertently) right.

[version]

Oh right, were these documents found in the same way of those that allegedly showed George Galloway taking back handers from Saddam? Oh yeah, it is, and they were found to be forged.

[version]

That article is utter nonsense, btw. Show me just once, just once where the CIA even knew of Atta's journey's? Show me where the rest of those so-called hijackers even existed, cause I have the statement form the CIA saying how most of them have turned up alive, yet Bush-whacked is still peddling this crud.

You right-wing power hungry neo-cons are so quick to take the line when it suits you, but not for a second even question the origin of the said documents. Looks like the sceptical part of your brains has gone into shutdown mode.

But, like everythign else the US Admin. has show us, ie, the faked Bn-Laden tape, the fake Galloway documents, the fake WMD documents, it'll be show in time that these are just convenient fakes too.

[Lerkfish]

Forgery is apparently all it takes to convince the Bush administration of what it already wishes to believe.

Don't we have whole intel departments who can detect forgeries? Why are they not being used? especially in light of what has already transpired with previous embarrassing forgeries, I would think that would be the FIRST thing to do: verify any document's authenticity.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Forgery is apparently all it takes to convince the Bush administration of what it already wishes to believe.

The last time I checked, the Telegraph was not the Bush Administration.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The last time I checked, the Telegraph was not the Bush Administration.

ever heard of Perle?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ever heard of Perle?

Yes. And he's not in the Bush Administration.

[version]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The last time I checked, the Telegraph was not the Bush Administration.

Really? So who was it that propagated the so-called Bin laden confession tape? Think it was Bush, and still to this day he clings on to it, even though it has been dismissed by many experts.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes. And he's not in the Bush Administration.

LOL! good one: he's a neocon, which you already know. They control or heavily influence US foreign policy at the moment.

same thing.

[chris v]

I happen to have, in my possesion, documents showing Donald Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam Hussein.

Can we have him sent to Gitmo?

CV

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL! good one: he's a neocon, which you already know. They control or heavily influence US foreign policy at the moment.

same thing.

You know, it couldn't be something more along the lines that the President and his appointed officials are in charge of his foreign policy, could it? Or is that just too simple?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


You know, it couldn't be something more along the lines that the President and his appointed officials are in charge of his foreign policy, could it? Or is that just too simple?

actually, I agree with you:

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz are in charge of his foreign policy....and they are also neocons.

He is surrounded by a group with a common philosophy, AND, as we discovered months ago, he eschews any other source of information except what channels through them.
At the time, Bush supporters lauded this, saying he needed time to do his job instead of actually read newspapers......

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz are in charge of his foreign policy....and they are also neocons...

You forgot Powell and Rice... not neocons. There goes your theory all to hell.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
He is surrounded by a group with a common philosophy, AND, as we discovered months ago, he eschews any other source of information except what channels through them.
At the time, Bush supporters lauded this, saying he needed time to do his job instead of actually read newspapers......

OMG! You mean the president packed his cabinet with advisors he trusts and who agree with him? That has never happened before! I mean, Republicans surrounding a Republican president? What is the world coming to? This is the end of the Republic!

Lerk: all presidents lean heavily on their advisors. That's why they have them. They also all get their information after their advisors have done the first cut. It doesn't matter how important a person is, there are only 24 hours a day and the president does not have time to read gibberish. His information is condensed.

There is a thing called the Early Bird. It's a newspaper put together for senior government officials (it's a short list). Important newspaper stories are clipped and put in the Early Bird. So Bush and every other president does see a sample of what the newspapers are putting out. But he doesn't have time to read them cover to cover. That's what he has staff for.

He also has access to much better information than any journalist. You shouldn't be shocked that he prefers his sources to the wit and wisdom of Maureen Dowd and her ilk. Maybe that hurts your professional pride, but there you are. You inform the public, but government mostly does their own research.

[christ]

Classic Simey 'bait and switch'

Lerk: Torygraph and administration are related
Simey: No they are not ('bait')
Lerk: Perle
Simey: not administration
Lerk: neocon, supports administration
Simey: (feigns shock) supporters support President! ('switch')

Now we can argue about whether advisors should have positions of authority, which Simey apparently feels comfortable arguing, rather than the point that the Torygraph is related to the administration, which he apparently wants to avoid.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
Classic Simey 'bait and switch'

Lerk: Torygraph and administration are related
Simey: No they are not ('bait')
Lerk: Perle
Simey: not administration
Lerk: neocon, supports administration
Simey: (feigns shock) supporters support President! ('switch')

Now we can argue about whether advisors should have positions of authority, which Simey apparently feels comfortable arguing, rather than the point that the Torygraph is related to the administration, which he apparently wants to avoid.

Lerk's point seemed to be that this newspaper article based on an allegedly forged document was what convinced the Bush Administration. Now he seems to be arguing that the real danger of the Bush Administration is that they don't read newspapers. That's a little inconsistent, but there you are.

Most likely, the newspaper got the document, and published it. Bush has his own sources.

And the Pearl connection is weak. If he's on the board, the response is so what? Boards of Directors are mostly rubber stamps. They certainly don't usually have editorial control of newspapers. At most, you could use that to discredit the Telegraph. But to suggest that the Telegraph runs US foreign policy is loopy.

[theolein]

Not too want to get involved in this too deeply, but I find it a bit troubling when the SAME newspaper (The Telegraph) comes up with YET ANOTHER scoop proving that the war was somehow vindicated for the original reasons, as opposed to the ones proposed after the war had officially ended. Let me recall which scoops those were.

IIRC, the Telegraph is the same paper that came up with the scoop, immediately after the troops had overrun Baghdad and there was still considerable acrimony between the Coallition and France, Russia and Germany, that Russian intelligence had been supplying aid to Iraqi intelligence including help for assasins who were going to carry out hits in the UK (English newspaper->hits in the UK, why not hits elsewhere?). They claimed that they had single handedly found the evidence with just a cursory glance through the mountains of papers strewn around Saddam's buildings. Nice coincidence, wasn't it? That piece of news caused a huge uproar on this very board (Do the search yourselves) and was quoted by almost every news source across the planet. Yet, the UK, which by rights should have been highly angered by this relevation and which should have badly influenced relations between Russia and the UK, didn't even bother to comment officialy on this. About two or three days later it dropped below the radar and was NEVER heard of again.

Recently, the same paper, the Telegraph, came up with so called proof of WMD that had been in Iraq all along, and that Tony Blair's 45 minute claim had been true all along. They did this by apparently tracking down the source of that claim to some Iraqi informant, who had been a Colonel in the army. Irrespective of the fact that it was known that information passed on by Iraqi informers was to be treated with a grain a salt, and with NO corroboration from any other source whatsoever, this information (if indeed this guy was the actual source) was used as fact. No WMD have been found. None of the type of operational WMD that he claimed to have seen had been found. And no one found it strange that he was complaining that he had not gotten the favourable treatment he expected when he had originally given that story. Likewise, that story, from last week I think, has now dropped below the radar, even though it was likewise mentioned in quote all over the place. The UK government hasn't been trumpeting this story as a "We told you so". And that bothers no one?

Now, a week later, we have yet another so called scoop from the VERY SAME paper, claiming that Mohammed Atta, whose movements prior to 9/11/2001 are fairly well known now, somehow managed to make it to Baghdad and back with no problems in a very short space of time. It IS KNOWN that Atta was in Prague in the Czech republic for a few days in summer of 2001. It was originally claimed that he had met an Iraqi intelligence officer there. BOTH the US and the Czech governments have long since claimed that there is NO evidence that he met any Iraqi there. There has been no evidence EVER, that Atta had ever been to Iraq. Afghanistan yes, but Iraq no. Now they are claiming that Atta was trained by Iraq EVEN THOUGH THE 9/11 HIJACKERS HAD BEEN LEARNING TO FLY PLANES IN THE US!!!!!!!!!

Why on earth would Atta learn to highjack planes in Iraq? What training had they done in Afghanistan then, origami techniques? Why on earth do we have to go through these same hoops every time some very dubious newspaper with an incredibly bad record of factual evidence in its reporting comes up with yet another leep of the imagination?

My god, next we are going to here that Saddam and Hillary Clinton were in fact one and the same person, or we are going to hear that the WMDs were in fact spirited out of the country by friendly green men in Moslem UFOs.

I am someone who supports the overthrowing of Saddam, basically because the man was and is as dangerous as hell and a bloodthirsty psychopath, but I do not understand this constant need to justify, in retrospect, all manners of things such as the WMD claim and Al Qaida connections simply in order to save face.

All that said, I think those who desperately need to believe that all roads of evil led through Baghdad will continue to believe that, even after the next time Al Qaida blows up a bunch of tourists somewhere on the other side of the world.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by christ:
Classic Simey 'bait and switch'

Lerk: Torygraph and administration are related
Simey: No they are not ('bait')
Lerk: Perle
Simey: not administration
Lerk: neocon, supports administration
Simey: (feigns shock) supporters support President! ('switch')

Now we can argue about whether advisors should have positions of authority, which Simey apparently feels comfortable arguing, rather than the point that the Torygraph is related to the administration, which he apparently wants to avoid.

classic Simey.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
classic Simey.

Classic Lerk.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by version:

You right-wing power hungry neo-cons are so quick to take the line when it suits you, but not for a second even question the origin of the said documents. Looks like the sceptical part of your brains has gone into shutdown mode.

You're the same guy that insists that Israelis were behind the 9/11 attacks. Lecturing others on skepticism after having made that claim is pretty humorous.