Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

goMac · Sep 8, 2006, 11:56 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/....ap/index.html

And for some humor:
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/phony.html

Hopefully this should put the last conspiracy theories to rest that Saddam was for some reason buddies with Al Qaeda.

analogika · Sep 8, 2006, 12:14 PM

Enter right wing spin artists.

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
v

Orion27 · Sep 8, 2006, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

CNN.com - Senators:�CIA dismissed�Saddam-al Qaeda ties before war - Sep 8, 2006

And for some humor:
America Remembers Again 9/6/06

Hopefully this should put the last conspiracy theories to rest that Saddam was for some reason buddies with Al Qaeda.

This is not news. 9/11 Panel: No Qaeda-Iraq Link, 'No Credible Evidence' Of Ties Cited By Cheney & Other Officials - CBS News

I guess the Bush Lied mantra is being resurrectd by Dems. Boring.....

BRussell · Sep 8, 2006, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Orion27

This is not news. 9/11 Panel: No Qaeda-Iraq Link, 'No Credible Evidence' Of Ties Cited By Cheney & Other Officials - CBS News

I guess the Bush Lied mantra is being resurrectd by Dems. Boring.....

I believe the report, or parts of it anyway, were declassified for the first time. What's being resurrected is the mantra that Bush didn't lie - just read this thread.

Shaddim · Sep 8, 2006, 01:05 PM

Welcome to 2004.

chabig · Sep 8, 2006, 01:50 PM

So you're admitting a "post-war" connection?

goMac · Sep 8, 2006, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Welcome to 2004.

I knew that Iraq wasn't involved in 2004. Some of our esteemed forum colleagues continue to debate otherwise though.

goMac · Sep 8, 2006, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by chabig

So you're admitting a "post-war" connection?

Post-Saddam there is Al Qaeda operating in Iraq.

Coincidence?

chabig · Sep 8, 2006, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

Post-Saddam there is Al Qaeda operating in Iraq.

Coincidence?

That's what the left thinks.

analogika · Sep 8, 2006, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by chabig

That's what the left thinks.

What? That there's al-Qaeda activity, or that it's a coincidence?

It's most certainly NOT a coincidence.

Millennium · 03:04 PM

Last I checked, this was never any secret. OBL has hated Saddam and his secular reforms for a long time, and would never have formed ties with the man. It was also no secret that Saddam wanted such ties, but he wasn't ever going to get them, and I suspect he knew that as well as anyone else.

analogika · Sep 8, 2006, 02:48 PM

Oh, absolutely.

Everybody has known this for at least four years.

Except spacefreak, Zimphire/Kevin, Y3a, et al. It has sinced dawned on most of even those British and Americans who once actually believed the Bushit. It's only news to those who keep regurgitating the same two sources of propaganda to make it seem like the Bush administration didn't knowingly lie their people into a war nobody would have wanted otherwise.

chabig · Sep 8, 2006, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

What? That there's al-Qaeda activity, or that it's a coincidence?

It's most certainly NOT a coincidence.

I agree with you. But the left argues that it IS a coincidence.

analogika · Sep 8, 2006, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by chabig

I agree with you. But the left argues that it IS a coincidence.

I don't know which particular left you seem to be talking about, but all the lefties I've ever met, and all the ones on this board, are very clear that the al-Qaeda presence in Iraq is a direct consequence of Bush's foolhardy crusade and the idiotic rhetoric associated with it.

Rumor · Sep 8, 2006, 02:52 PM

Bush decided to invade Iraq to distract everyone from the fact he couldn't find OBL.

ironknee · Sep 8, 2006, 03:23 PM

bush jr invaded iWaq because he thought bush sr should have taken saddam out in desert storm

this was a family conflict and we all are paying for it

placebo1969 · Sep 8, 2006, 04:05 PM

Halliburton!!

Karl Rove!!

Dick Cheney!!

Blood for oil!!

Did I miss anything?

Landos Mustache · Sep 8, 2006, 04:35 PM

OK so no WMD, no tie to Al Qaeda.... so why are the Americans there?

BRussell · Sep 8, 2006, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

OK so no WMD, no tie to Al Qaeda.... so why are the Americans there?

Perhaps because, in the words of one Republican, "There are some people, and I'm one of them, that believe George Bush was placed where he is by the Lord," Tomanio said. "I don't care how he governs, I will support him. I'm a Republican through and through."

There you have it: It doesn't matter what he does. He's God's president, so what he does is right a priori.

Millennium · Sep 8, 2006, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

OK so no WMD, no tie to Al Qaeda.... so why are the Americans there?

There was every reason to believe WMD were there, particularly with Saddam's refusal to cooperate with investigators. It turns out there were none, but this was an honest mistake that anyone could have made. Either that, or the US deliberately colluded with Saddam, giving him some kind of reward to make him act exactly like someone trying desperately to hide WMD from investigators, which seems even less plausible than the honest-mistake theory.

So that's why we went there. Why are we still there? Because we made a mess that still has to be cleaned up. This is now a matter of honor; abandoning the people we made to suffer will not make their lives any better. Are soldiers dying because of this? Yes; that was the price of our mistake, and although that is not a thing to be trivialized, it does not absolve us of our responsibility to fix the problems that we have made.

goMac · Sep 8, 2006, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

I don't know which particular left you seem to be talking about, but all the lefties I've ever met, and all the ones on this board, are very clear that the al-Qaeda presence in Iraq is a direct consequence of Bush's foolhardy crusade and the idiotic rhetoric associated with it.

I was being sarcastic.

voodoo · Sep 8, 2006, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

There was every reason to believe WMD were there, particularly with Saddam's refusal to cooperate with investigators. It turns out there were none, but this was an honest mistake that anyone could have made.

Yet I did not make that mistake.. and I don't even have access to any intelligence agency. Just common sense.

Afterwards, according to the various intelligence agencies, I'd have reached the same conclusion. At least by their information.

So, no. It was not an honest mistake. Just a mistake. A big one. And an intentional one.

V

Spliffdaddy · Sep 8, 2006, 07:09 PM

another re-play of old news.

meh.

BRussell · Sep 8, 2006, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Last I checked, this was never any secret. OBL has hated Saddam and his secular reforms for a long time, and would never have formed ties with the man. It was also no secret that Saddam wanted such ties, but he wasn't ever going to get them, and I suspect he knew that as well as anyone else.

According to the report, the opposite was true: Bin Laden wanted contacts with Saddam, but Saddam rejected them because he distrusted the threat that Islamic fundamentalism posed to his regime.

Kevin · Sep 18, 2006, 06:18 AM

Again misleading title. You can't seem to get these topics to say the correct wording gomac. Why is that? (0 for 2 now)

"There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his al Qaeda associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. "

There was however training camps in Iraq that Saddam claimed he had no control over.

Lets not forget

"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on

And no, this is not a spin. It's just pointing out facts a few of you are ignoring.

Probably on purpose.

analogika · Sep 18, 2006, 07:23 AM

Kevin Wants To Believe.™

Kevin · Sep 18, 2006, 07:25 AM

analog please show where what I said was a lie. And if you can't, your post doesn't make sense.

Wiskedjak · Sep 18, 2006, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

There was however training camps in Iraq that Saddam claimed he had no control over.

Were there not Al Qaeda training in the US that the US had no control over?

Kevin · Sep 18, 2006, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Were there not Al Qaeda training in the US that the US had no control over?

Did we know about them?

Saddam knew about his.

That was a clever spin. However, faulty.

besson3c · Sep 18, 2006, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

There was every reason to believe WMD were there, particularly with Saddam's refusal to cooperate with investigators. It turns out there were none, but this was an honest mistake that anyone could have made. Either that, or the US deliberately colluded with Saddam, giving him some kind of reward to make him act exactly like someone trying desperately to hide WMD from investigators, which seems even less plausible than the honest-mistake theory.

So that's why we went there. Why are we still there? Because we made a mess that still has to be cleaned up. This is now a matter of honor; abandoning the people we made to suffer will not make their lives any better. Are soldiers dying because of this? Yes; that was the price of our mistake, and although that is not a thing to be trivialized, it does not absolve us of our responsibility to fix the problems that we have made.

I disagree. There was not "every reason" to believe that there were WMD there. Do you remember the UN weapons inspectors? Do you remember that they only found some empty cannisters and some rusty missles that could barely reach Kuwait? If any, this would have given us some reason to believe that the WMD were *not* there.

If you are going to agree to UN weapons inspections/involvement, and then skirt your way past these checks, you damn well better be right.

The US was wrong, and there is no sense in even trying to justify this, it would just rub salt in our wounds. It upsets me that this country went from loved to disliked so quickly, partially because we simply got it wrong, and now some of us try to rewrite history and justify our mistakes even further. We messed up, it is not unreasonable to demand some accountability.

I also realize that many Democrats authorized war too, so I'm not suggesting that this is a partisan issue.

Kevin · Sep 18, 2006, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I disagree. There was not "every reason" to believe that there were WMD there. Do you remember the UN weapons inspectors? Do you remember that they only found some empty cannisters and some rusty missles that could barely reach Kuwait? If any, this would have given us some reason to believe that the WMD were *not* there.

Do you also remember said inspectors not getting access to everything? Clinton himself said throughout the ENTIRE inspection process Iraq did not comply fully.

The US was wrong,

It wasn't just the US besson. If you want, I can list all the countries and people that believed Iraq had WMDs.

Canada being one of them.

tie · Sep 18, 2006, 02:05 PM

I admit that there was no pre-war connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. However, the point of the war was to preempt attacks on the US which might result from such a connection. Considering that Al Qaeda has developed a strong presence in Iraq, it seems entirely prescient of Bush to have ordered the invasion when he did. Imagine the danger if Saddam were still in power and Al Qaeda was all over the country as it is now!

Pendergast · Sep 18, 2006, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by tie

I admit that there was no pre-war connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. However, the point of the war was to preempt attacks on the US which might result from such a connection. Considering that Al Qaeda has developed a strong presence in Iraq, it seems entirely prescient of Bush to have ordered the invasion when he did. Imagine the danger if Saddam were still in power and Al Qaeda was all over the country as it is now!

I am not sure Al Qaeda would have been all over Iraq as it is now...

Even the Taliban opposition in Afghanistan today is fragmentary and consituted from tribes that were previously againts the Talibans. But that is another topic.

medicineman · Sep 18, 2006, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I disagree. There was not "every reason" to believe that there were WMD there. Do you remember the UN weapons inspectors? Do you remember that they only found some empty cannisters and some rusty missles that could barely reach Kuwait? If any, this would have given us some reason to believe that the WMD were *not* there.

If you are going to agree to UN weapons inspections/involvement, and then skirt your way past these checks, you damn well better be right.

The US was wrong, and there is no sense in even trying to justify this, it would just rub salt in our wounds. It upsets me that this country went from loved to disliked so quickly, partially because we simply got it wrong, and now some of us try to rewrite history and justify our mistakes even further. We messed up, it is not unreasonable to demand some accountability.

I also realize that many Democrats authorized war too, so I'm not suggesting that this is a partisan issue.

What the weapon inspectors found is not germane to the agrument. They were not there to find weapons, but to witness the destruction, or otherwise confirm destruction, of previously known weapons in accordance with the UN resolutions. That they were hindered in that small area of discovery was sufficient cause for further action.

itai195 · Sep 18, 2006, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by tie

I admit that there was no pre-war connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. However, the point of the war was to preempt attacks on the US which might result from such a connection. Considering that Al Qaeda has developed a strong presence in Iraq, it seems entirely prescient of Bush to have ordered the invasion when he did. Imagine the danger if Saddam were still in power and Al Qaeda was all over the country as it is now!

I swear tie, I can no longer tell when you are being sarcastic and when you aren't. That's pretty impressive!

finboy · Sep 18, 2006, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by placebo1969

Halliburton!!

Cue scary LOTR music.

You left out "they're spying on us!"

voodoo · Sep 18, 2006, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by medicineman

What the weapon inspectors found is not germane to the agrument. They were not there to find weapons, but to witness the destruction, or otherwise confirm destruction, of previously known weapons in accordance with the UN resolutions. That they were hindered in that small area of discovery was sufficient cause for further action.

It was sufficient cause for the US, and not France. That is so amusing to see the face of people like you in the mud because of this when the French could do better. And they aren't very good at anything.

Save your rhetoric for those stupid enough to buy it. If you could find a way to trip and fall down a flight of stairs, that would be great to.

Ciao babe!

And by babe I mean dick. You're name is Dick, right?

V

besson3c · Sep 18, 2006, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by tie

I admit that there was no pre-war connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. However, the point of the war was to preempt attacks on the US which might result from such a connection. Considering that Al Qaeda has developed a strong presence in Iraq, it seems entirely prescient of Bush to have ordered the invasion when he did. Imagine the danger if Saddam were still in power and Al Qaeda was all over the country as it is now!

Couldn't "such a connection" be eventually possible in just about any country? Sure, some would be more likely than others, but it is foolish to spend trillions of dollars chasing an organization that has no central location when there are techniques to cut them off at the source (hint: unilateralism is not one of those techniques).

besson3c · Sep 18, 2006, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by medicineman

What the weapon inspectors found is not germane to the agrument. They were not there to find weapons, but to witness the destruction, or otherwise confirm destruction, of previously known weapons in accordance with the UN resolutions. That they were hindered in that small area of discovery was sufficient cause for further action.

Don't you remember all that talk of a "Smoking Gun" people were talking about them possibly finding? They weren't simply there to do a post-mortem of attacks made during the last Gulf War, I'm pretty certain.

medicineman · Sep 18, 2006, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Don't you remember all that talk of a "Smoking Gun" people were talking about them possibly finding? They weren't simply there to do a post-mortem of attacks made during the last Gulf War, I'm pretty certain.

I do. This is not to quibble with you. It was just a side note.

Spliffdaddy · Sep 18, 2006, 07:00 PM

Why is it such a stretch to suggest that Al Quaeda was in Iraq?

Name a country that Al Quaeda is *not* in.

Yeah, tough one.

Pendergast · Sep 18, 2006, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Why is it such a stretch to suggest that Al Quaeda was in Iraq?

Name a country that Al Quaeda is *not* in.

Yeah, tough one.

Well, that it is now is not a proof that it was.

And even that they were in Iraq, does not mean they were as many as they are now.

Spliffdaddy · Sep 18, 2006, 08:11 PM

So you shouldn't have a problem naming a country where Al Quaeda doesn't exist.

Seriously, I can't think of any.

They've blown up civilians in pretty much every country so far.

goMac · Sep 18, 2006, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So you shouldn't have a problem naming a country where Al Quaeda doesn't exist.

Seriously, I can't think of any.

They've blown up civilians in pretty much every country so far.

Well, before the US invaded they didn't exist in Iraq. The only reason they do now is because we put their allies in power.

dcmacdaddy · Sep 18, 2006, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So you shouldn't have a problem naming a country where Al Quaeda doesn't exist.

Seriously, I can't think of any.

They've blown up civilians in pretty much every country so far.

How many people have Al Qaeda killed in the following countries? All my research says 0. If you've got links to stories detailing Al Qaeda killings, or even the verifiable presence of Al Qaeda, in one of the countries below please share. Thanks!

Canada
Japan
Korea
China
Burma
Cuba
Haiti (Hell, the WHOLE Caribbean basin)
Mexico
All of South America
Norway
Finland
Ireland
Czech Republic
Russia
Mongolia
India
Sri Lanka
Greece
South Africa
Cote D'Ivoire
Libya
Qatar

That will do for starters.

Spliffdaddy · Sep 18, 2006, 08:25 PM

That's nice.

Now how many of those countries have no AL Quaeda members?

dcmacdaddy · Sep 18, 2006, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

That's nice.

Now how many of those countries have no AL Quaeda members?

You tell us. You are the one making the claim about Al Qaeda's presence in "pretty much every country so far" through terrorist attacks. You are the one arguing that Al Qaeda IS a pervasive, world-wide phenomena? So, how about some evidence to backup your claim.

OH, and FYI, the inability to prove a negative statement (Al Qaeda is not in a country) does NOT imply that the converse is true (Al Qaeda *is* in a country). That type of reasoning employs a logical fallacy. If you want to claim that Al Qaeda is in countries all over the world then you need to provide evidence to that effect. Anyone trying to dis-prove your claim would be engaging in a logical fallacy as well by trying to dis-prove an un-proven claim.

So, got some evidence for us of the presence of Al Qaeda in any of the countries I listed above.
I know for a fact Al Qaeda IS known to be in two of them. Can you guess which two they are?

goMac · Sep 18, 2006, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

OH, and FYI, the inability to prove a negative statement (Al Qaeda is not in a country) does NOT imply that the converse is true (Al Qaeda *is* in a country). That type of reasoning employs a logical fallacy. If you want to claim that Al Qaeda is in countries all over the world then you need to provide evidence to that effect. Anyone trying to dis-prove your claim would be engaging in a logical fallacy as well by trying to dis-prove an un-proven claim.

Methinks Spliffdaddy failed Discreet Math in College.

Spliffdaddy · Sep 18, 2006, 08:53 PM

Here's a list of countries with active *known* Al Qaeda organizations....

Algeria, Morocco, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Burma, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Indonesia, Kenya, Tanzania, Azerbaijan, Dagestan, Uganda, Ethiopia, Syria, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Bosnia, the West Bank, China, Pakistan, the Philippines, Malaysia, the United States, Britain, France and Canada.

voodoo · Sep 18, 2006, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

OH, and FYI, the inability to prove a negative statement (Al Qaeda is not in a country) does NOT imply that the converse is true (Al Qaeda *is* in a country). That type of reasoning employs a logical fallacy.

A-ha! You would think so, but see the US government has elevated its logic above such petty pesant rationale.

See if Al-Qaida cannot be found in a country it is then reasonable to assume that they are in that country, but have managed to find new and hitherto unknown ways to hide there.

It's simple really.

Like, let's say you suspect your wife is cheating on you because your last wife did and you're paranoid.. so you have her followed only to find that she never meets other men.

Well that just means that she has ways to meet men that are so insidious that it confirms it for sure. She's having an affair!

That there is no evidence confirms it! Rummie's Unknown Knowns.

V