| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  High THC Strains  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 Phred Fred's son   Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
EchoVortex writes:
Hayes is an editor at the Weekly Standard, the flagship journal of the "preventive" intervention school of thought espoused by Wolfowitz et al. And this is relevant to his work how? If we were to wait for an editor at Z-net (Chomsky's website) or moveon.org to investigate the connections, we'd wait forever, wouldn't we? His book does not have source references... Incorrect. It does indeed have source references. So does the link to techcentralstation I provided. They may not be the kind of references you would prefer (i.e. signed notes by Hussein and/or bin Laden) but to say they are unsourced is wrong. ... and has not been peer-reviewed by anybody in the intelligence community. Former CIA director (1993-1995) James Woolsey isn't considered a member of the intelligence community? Okay, then. The veracity of the sources he cites has not been confirmed at all. Hayes is careful to make clear where he is depending on a human intelligence source and he can't give the chain of transmission. He recognizes that sources of human intelligence can lie, exaggerate or be honestly mistaken, so the fact that something comes from a "well-placed source" doesn't mean that it is sound. This is not "analysis," it's propaganda. It's not meant to be analysis. It's a reporting of fact and Hayes leaves the reader free to decide what those facts mean. In an interview Hayes said:
Justin Logan's review does nothing to refute Hayes's reportage that I can see -- "The book is a thoroughly researched compilation of ?open source? reporting: that is, reporting that can be done by a freelance writer using the Internet and other public sources." So what's the problem? "This is largely a structural complaint, though, and one I?m sure Hayes could handle if he were asked to." Complaining about structure, not substance. "Hayes goes to great lengths to refute the claim that because Saddam was secular he could never have worked with religious extremists, but it?s hard to see how this data is otherwise relevant." It's relevant because that seems to be the sole objection the proponents of the "no-link" crowd ever offer in rebuttal to the evidence -- "Well, that just has to be wrong, because everyone knows Al Qaeda is religious and Hussein was not." "But how does Saddam?s strategic philandering in the 1990s contribute to the case for preemptive war?" Hayes is laying the groundwork, duh! He's starting with the first known contacts and working from there. "Osama bin Laden himself didn?t issue his fatwa declaring ?Jihad against Jews and Crusaders? until February of 1998. " And terrorist actions cannot take place absent a publicized fatwa? Lockerbie never happened? The World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was an illusion? Please, Justin! "Hayes is engaging in ?case creep? from preemptive grounds (used at the time) to preventive grounds (embraced in the wake of no WMD and no proven connection to al Qaeda)." Regardless of how Justin Logan characterizes Hayes's "case creep", how does this disprove any of the evidence Hayes presents? "There are likely bits and pieces of intelligence to refute each point Hayes makes." "Likely"? Assumption. "The book?s main weakness, though, is that it is something of a bait and switch. The careful reader will notice the subtitle and look through the book for proof that Saddam was collaborating with al Qaeda in a way that endangered America." Al Qaeda endangered America. No one disputes that. One would logically conclude that anyone aiding and abetting Al Qaeda contributes to that danger. "Hayes? thesis could effectively be recast as, ?Neither the media nor the government has adequately followed up on indications Saddam could have cooperated in some way with al Qaeda. The case remains open, and should be investigated further.? " Which is exactly what Hayes declares in the boxed quote I provide above. EchoVortex writes: I would add a few more points: Hayes reports that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague, but that story was debunked months ago. Incorrect. It has never been debunked. The sole "debunking" claim is that calls in the US were made from a cell phone registered to Attah during the time the Czech incident occurred. Have you ever lent your cell phone to someone? Ever left it behind while you travelled to a country where it wouldn't work anyway? Atta was actually in the United States at the time of this supposed meeting. Incorrect again. The US watchers have no idea where he was for a gap of seven days -- the 4th to the 11th. He was not spotted in the US by anyone at all during that stretch. He could have been in Czechoslovakia or even in Iraq. Why did Donald Rumsfeld visit with and shake hands with Saddam while he was gassing the Kurds? Does that mean that the US had a working relationship with Saddam to gas the Kurds? Way to miss the point entirely. Hussein and Rumsfeld were both representatives of the governments (however distasteful those governments may be) of two sovereign nations. Al Qaeda operatives are not. They are terrorists, pure and simple. I can't help but note that you haven't answered my questions about why Iraq (or anyone else for that matter) would meet multiple times with representatives of a terrorist organization. Did the two sides sound out the possibility of a collaboration? Yes, because to a certain extent the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Was there a collaboration? No. And you know this how? You had the meetings bugged? Are you naive enough to believe that every discussion leads to a deal? Are you naive enough to believe that multiple meetings over a period of years don't signify at least the willingness to collaborate? If Hussein wasn't interested in pursuing his goals through the use of a terrorist organization, why did it take many meetings over years to pound that into bin Laden's thick skull? "Sorry, Osama old chap, but the answer is still no. It will always be no! Why on earth do you insist on pestering me about this?" From the 9/11 Commission report, p. 66: There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74 In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75 Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting,Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. So first bin Laden approaches Iraq. Then Iraq approaches bin Laden. I ask again -- approaches him for what?! His favorite shwarma recipe? Is it not interesting that the reversal of courtship occurs after bin Laden goes public with his declaration of war on the US? That appears to be the factor that made Hussein perk up his ears. Bottom line here is that there is an enormous amount of information from numerous sources detailing regular meetings between the two. Yet from this the "no-link" crowd concludes that the two groups were merely... what? Arguing over various passages in the Qu'ran? Naivete is a touching trait in young children. It's an amusing trait in posters to a message board. It's an alarming trait in adults charged with the security of a nation. pinky *edited to correct a name -------------------- 
Edited by pinksharkmark (07/23/04 02:51 PM)
| |||||||
|
DeepDish2 journeyman Registered: 01/14/02 Posts: 55 Last seen: 17 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Its amazing that you bash authors like Chomsky and then cite authors like Hayes in a futile attempt to prove a point that has been largely disproven by most people in the intelligence community. You could at least find someone with a strong intelligence backround. Here are some excellent questions brought up by an amazon.com reader. "Is the author a Middle Eastern scholar of any sort? What is his background in international terrorism and state systems? Does he even speak a word of Arabic? How much time has he spent in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan interviewing sources in Arabic and Pashto in order to unearth the connections this book is about? Was this book even peer reviewed?" Just because someone with an agenda gets a book published it by no means asserts factual correctness. At least show us some peer reviewed studies or primary sources.
| |||||||
 downforpot Stranger Registered: 06/25/01 Posts: 5,715 |
| ||||||
|
Old fags in the government lose their abstact thought abilities as they become older.
-------------------- 
http://www.myspace.com/4th25 "And I don't care if he was handcuffed Then shot in his head All I know is dead bodies Can't fuck with me again"
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
DeepDish writes:
Its amazing that you bash authors like Chomsky and then cite authors like Hayes in a futile attempt to prove a point that has been largely disproven by most people in the intelligence community. Source, please. Who in the "intelligence community" disputes -- much less "disproves" -- the fact that contacts between the two groups are well-known and have stretched back a decade at least? Read the book and you will see that many of Hayes's examples come from the intelligence community. How about the examples listed in the 9/11 Commission's report? Where do you think they got the information? Why *gasp* the intelligence community! Is the author a Middle Eastern scholar of any sort? Probably not. What has that got to do with his ability to research the many public reports from news media around the world, official statements on the record from various governments, and interview intelligence agents who speak English? What is his background in international terrorism and state systems? Who cares? What is Chomsky's background in politics? He's a freakin' language professor, for crying out loud. Yet no one seems to find it odd that he has been able to speak authoritatively (though almost always incorrectly) on political matters of record. Does he even speak a word of Arabic? Probably not. Does Richard Clarke? How much time has he spent in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan interviewing sources in Arabic and Pashto in order to unearth the connections this book is about? It was open source reporting. Almost none of what he reports was unearthed by him and him alone. Almost all of it has been published before. And let's not forget, folks -- he's a reporter. He's not a CIA field agent. There's no nedd for him to have gone to Afghanistan and talked to hills tribesman. The information has been out there for a very long time. Was this book even peer reviewed? Have any of Chomsky's books been peer reviewed? Was "All the President's Men" peer reviewed? Was "The Pentagon Papers" peer reviewed? Almost all of the incidents in his book have been published by the media at some point or other prior to the publication of the book. At least show us some peer reviewed studies or primary sources. How about the 9/11 Commission's report? Richard Clarke's book? Speeches by Clinton on file in archives? Publicized statements by ex-Ba'athist members? Statements by captured Al Qaeda members? What more do you want? Photocopies of drafts by CIA analysts? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Eightball whore consumer    Registered: 07/21/01 Posts: 3,013 Last seen: 12 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
al queda was as much connected to iraq as it was to the US.
but swap that 'q' for an 'n' and you're a winner -------------------- If you're frightened of dying and you're holding on.you'll see devils tearing your life away. But...if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels Freeing you from the earth.
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
The best single source describing the relationship is Steven Hayes' book, "The Connection"
That really sounds like the title of an unbiased, fair and balanced source doesn't it. He's really starting with an open mind isn't he. Up to your usual standard of unbiased source at the very least.. Are you naive enough to believe that multiple meetings over a period of years don't signify at least the willingness to collaborate? The CIA didn't believe it did they. They could find no evidence of Iraq links with Al-qaeda either. Rest assured if they could have done you wouldn't need to read "The connection" to hear about it. So first bin Laden approaches Iraq. Then Iraq approaches bin Laden Slow down pinkie, don't bust a nut yet. What EVIDENCE do any of these "claims" have? Is the EVIDENCE as reliable as the "legion" of reports that Iraq had WMD capabilities? Or are you simply going on the word of a drunken Iraqi exile in a bar talking shit? Bottom line here is that there is an enormous amount of information from numerous sources detailing regular meetings between the two There was an enormous amount of information from numerous sources detailing the Iraqi WMD program too. The trouble is it was all horseshit. Don't confuse "an enormous amount of information" with the truth. Naivete is a touching trait in young children. It's an amusing trait in posters to a message board Believe me, it stopped being amusing a long time ago. You spent months "debating" about the non-existent WMD, are you going to spend months "debating" about the non-existent Saddam-Bin Laden connection? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Evolving Resident Cynic  Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
Uh, Pinky... I know both our member names start with an 'E' but EchoVortex and I aren't the same person... at least I think we weren't before my last dose of meds and electo shock treatment, now I'm not so sure. -------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Oops. Not the first time I've done that, either. Corrected.
My apologies. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Alex123 snivels:
That really sounds like the title of an unbiased, fair and balanced source doesn't it. He's really starting with an open mind isn't he. Up to your usual standard of unbiased source at the very least.. ROFL! You really are too much, sometimes, Alex! What would you suggest for a title? "The Link"? "Multiple Meetings?" Give me a break! I suppose you discard everything in "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them" because of its title? Sure you do. Seriously, when you start a rant by whining over a title, it shows you've shot your wad before you even started typing. The CIA didn't believe it did they. ROFL! This is too rich! Alex123 of all people now decides that the CIA is an unimpeachable source -- on this topic alone, though. Can we say "ironic"? Besides, "the CIA" has said no such thing. Half the reports of the meetings came from the CIA, for crying out loud. I understand your frustration at being proven wrong yet again, but please try to retain at least a smidgen of objectivity for the sake of your own dignity. What EVIDENCE do any of these "claims" have? Read the freaking book. You spent months "debating" about the non-existent WMD, are you going to spend months "debating" about the non-existent Saddam-Bin Laden connection? Which non-existent WMDs would those be, Alex? The increasing number of sarin and mustard gas shells being found in Iraq? Up to about thirty-five now at last count. Or the non-existent WMDs which Saddam was known to have, admitted to having, can provide no record of their destruction, but have not yet been found (except for three dozen artillery shells filled with nasty goo) within the borders of Iraq. Despite my repeated requests over the months, you have yet to tell us what happened to them. All you have ever done is to say there are none. No source, no proof, no evidence, no theory as to where they went -- just the baldfaced assumption that there are none. Are we to accept as unimpeachable proof the word of a drunken Englishman talking shit? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
DeepDish2 journeyman Registered: 01/14/02 Posts: 55 Last seen: 17 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
From what I gather this book is based heavily Douglas Feith's memos written as head of the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Unit under Dick Cheney. Feith's agency sent his report, one which claimed ties between Osama and Saddam, to Cheney who then wanted to use it for propoganda purposes. From MSNBC.
"When the document was sent to the CIA, however, Tenet told a congressional committee in March that Cheney was mistaken about its reliability. And Daniel Benjamin, former director of counterterrorism at the National Security Council, wrote in Slate that, far from proving Saddam-Osama ties, "the document lends substance to the frequently voiced criticism that some in the Bush administration have misused intelligence to advance their policy goals" "There was a lot of seeking and wanting going on, and perhaps there were even meetings. But the fact that meetings occurred has never been the issue—at least not among serious critics—nor has it been disputed that some jihadists lived in or traveled through Iraq. (There were more meetings with Iranian authorities, as well as more terrorists living in or transiting Iran, but that seems to interest neither Feith nor Hayes.) What is disputed is that the meetings went anywhere. It would not be surprising to find out that the two sides had a de facto cease-fire, as has been alleged. But we're still waiting to see real cooperation in the form of transfers of weapons and other materiel, know-how, or funds; the provision of safe haven on a significant scale; or the use of Iraqi diplomatic facilities by al-Qaida terrorists. The Feith memo mentions a few instances of possible Iraqi assistance to al-Qaida on bomb-building and weapons supply to affiliated groups, but nothing like the kind of evidence that, in Hayes' words, "is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources." "It should be clear now why the Feith document needs a lot more attention: The memo is, Hayes' declarations to the contrary, cherry-picking—the selective use of intelligence. It lends credence to Seymour Hersh's reporting in The New Yorker about political appointees ignoring career analysts and dredging out whatever suits them. This is perilous business. Making a judgment about Iraq-al-Qaida ties on the basis of the sections presented by Hayes would be like accepting a high-school biology student's reading of a CAT scan." Link So what it appears Hayes has written, is a badly referanced, blatantly inaccurate work of pseudoademic standards. But don't take my word for it, read the article above. Perhaps you could enlighten us on how it is any different from Micheal Moore's work. I think your fireman example would be appropriate in this situation, because that is exactly what Hayes has constructed Better put on your tinfoil hat my man, I hear the spotted Bin Laden in the Dominican around in March of 95 and Hayes next book is going to be the Domincan/Iraq/Al-queda connection.
| |||||||
|
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 18 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
|
And this is relevant to his work how? If we were to wait for an editor at Z-net (Chomsky's website) or moveon.org to investigate the connections, we'd wait forever, wouldn't we?
Relevant because he sets out with his conclusion as his assumption and then goes from there. Believe it or not, pinky, this is not how legitimate research is carried out. Investigating the connection is the job neither of Hayes nor of other ideologue magazine/war peddlers, but the job of intelligence and law enforcement professionals--who have officially ruled out such a link, even though their bosses in the Bush administration would have a lot to gain politically if such a link were demonstrated. Incorrect. It does indeed have source references. So does the link to techcentralstation I provided. They may not be the kind of references you would prefer (i.e. signed notes by Hussein and/or bin Laden) but to say they are unsourced is wrong. As Logan points out, he goes from assertion to assertion without making it clear exactly where each assertion orginates. Totally worthless. Former CIA director (1993-1995) James Woolsey isn't considered a member of the intelligence community? Okay, then Not any more. 2004 isn't 1995. Furthermore, writing a blurb is not the same thing as fact-checking and vetting all of the claims in a book-length manuscript. So what's the problem? The problem is that the "open source" information he uses is not information that has been witnessed first-hand by the journalists reporting it: it is a tissue of conjectures leaked by anonymous people in the espionage community, none of whom is accountable for anything he says. "Likely"? Assumption. A very well-founded assumption given the fact that the 9/11 Commission, which has seen all of those conflicting bits of data, has ruled there was no significant collaboration. Also well-founded given the fact that there was plenty of contrary data to the idea that Iraq possessed WMD, contrary data that was ignored by the Bush administration. Incorrect. It has never been debunked. The sole "debunking" claim is that calls in the US were made from a cell phone registered to Attah during the time the Czech incident occurred. Have you ever lent your cell phone to someone? Ever left it behind while you travelled to a country where it wouldn't work anyway? The FBI investigated this story thoroughly and dismissed it. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0501-05.htm But after months of investigation, the Czechs said they were no longer certain that Atta was the person who met al-Ani, saying "he may be different from Atta," the administration official said. More recently, FBI and CIA analysts who went over thousands of travel records concluded that "there was no evidence Atta left or returned to the U.S." at the time he was supposed to be in Prague, the official said. That determination was first disclosed in Newsweek magazine this week. "We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts," FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III said in a speech in San Francisco last month, setting out for the first time the extent of the investigation and its results. "Thousands of leads" is certainly a lot more than just a few cell phone calls, pinky. You're barking at the moon. Way to miss the point entirely. Hussein and Rumsfeld were both representatives of the governments (however distasteful those governments may be) of two sovereign nations. Al Qaeda operatives are not. They are terrorists, pure and simple. I can't help but note that you haven't answered my questions about why Iraq (or anyone else for that matter) would meet multiple times with representatives of a terrorist organization. Were both sides meeting in an official capacity as representatives of their organizations? Did YOU have the meetings bugged? There may have been factions in both sides who wanted a collaboration and tried to pave the way for that, while other factions didn't see the point, and at the end of the day neither organization went ahead with it, although they still left the door open to future possibilities. The question is, what would both sides have to gain or lose in such a collaboration? Bin Ladin enjoyed safe haven in Afghanistan and already had plenty of money. Perhaps he wanted WMD, but Saddam didn't have WMD. Hussein for his part perhaps wanted to help a terrorist organization to strike at the United States, but Hussein's primary interest has always been Hussein and the maintenance of his own power. If the link were ever discovered it would have put his continued rule in a very precarious position. So first bin Laden approaches Iraq. Then Iraq approaches bin Laden. I ask again -- approaches him for what?! His favorite shwarma recipe? Is it not interesting that the reversal of courtship occurs after bin Laden goes public with his declaration of war on the US? That appears to be the factor that made Hussein perk up his ears. Bottom line here is that there is an enormous amount of information from numerous sources detailing regular meetings between the two. Yet from this the "no-link" crowd concludes that the two groups were merely... what? Arguing over various passages in the Qu'ran? Not regular meetings, occasional meetings. Did the participants of those meetings discuss ways of working together? Probably. Did they have the authority to speak as representatives of decision-makers in their respective organizations? Who knows, perhaps. Did any of those discussions result in collaborative projects? There is no concrete proof of a single such project. Naivete is a touching trait in young children. It's an amusing trait in posters to a message board. It's an alarming trait in adults charged with the security of a nation. Just as alarming are people who cling to discredited fabrications and sheer speculation as justifications to launch wars of invasion and occupation. The war in Iraq has done nothing to improve the security of the United States--according to many in the intelligence world, just the opposite. And that is the only "bottom line" worth bothering with.
| |||||||
|
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 18 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
|
Which non-existent WMDs would those be, Alex? The increasing number of sarin and mustard gas shells being found in Iraq? Up to about thirty-five now at last count. Or the non-existent WMDs which Saddam was known to have, admitted to having, can provide no record of their destruction, but have not yet been found (except for three dozen artillery shells filled with nasty goo) within the borders of Iraq.
Good lord, man, do you have an honest bone in your entire body? Or did you just forget to mention that those shells all date from before the 1991 Gulf War and are completely unusable?
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
ROFL! You really are too much, sometimes, Alex!
Oh come on pink, did you really think you were going to get a fair and balanced assessment from a book called "The Connection"? Or did you expect you were going to hear what you so desperately wanted to believe? Alex123 of all people now decides that the CIA is an unimpeachable source As usual you're missing the point. The CIA were clearly even less confident about the Saddam-Bin Laden "intelligence" than they were about "WMD". Nothing to do with whether they are "unimpeachable" or not. Besides, "the CIA" has said no such thing. What are you talking about? If the CIA had even the slightest reason to believe their intelligence was worth a damn the "Saddam-Bin Laden" link would have pushed to the hilt pre-war. Surely even you can see this? Read the freaking book Do you have any other sources apart from "The Connection"? Or have you just read "The Connection" and sat on your ass stewing about Saddam-Bin Laden link ever since? Read other sources. Approach these things with an open mind. You spent months "debating" me about the non-existent WMD's. Learn from your mistakes. Open your mind to the truth. Which non-existent WMDs would those be, Alex? Oh for christ's sake pinky. Wake up and smell the bullshit. The WMD arn't there. Is the truth so terrifying for you to face? You were wrong. Deal with it. No source, no proof, no evidence, no theory as to where they went You don't STILL believe in WMD do you?  No evidence there are no WMD in Iraq? Where have you been for the last 15 months? Oh..I forgot..you were eeading "The Connection".. Are we to accept as unimpeachable proof the word of a drunken Englishman talking shit? Ah..the standard pinky tactic of attempting a piss-poor flame when all your arguments have been exposed as horseshit. How camp you are. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Good lord, man, do you have an honest bone in your entire body? Or did you just forget to mention that those shells all date from before the 1991 Gulf War and are completely unusable?
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
DeepDish writes:
From what I gather this book is based heavily Douglas Feith's memos written as head of the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Unit under Dick Cheney. Quite a bit of information in the book is from that memo, yes. Much more information is not. What I find so fascinating is that the Al Qaeda-Iraq link was widely accepted in the intelligence community, the diplomatic community, and the press -- until Bush startedd threatening to invade Iraq. Then all of a sudden those opposed to the invasion got collective amnesia. They forgot all about the Gore and Clinton statements, the articles in The Guardian, Time, and Newsweek. It's illuminating to see so many apparently otherwise normal people exhibit wishful thinking on this point. "Okay, okay, we admit there were dozens of meetings between these folks, but it doesn't mean anything." I ask again, what were they meeting about? I repeat -- read the book. Or read a few back issues of Time and Newsweek. Very little of what Hayes lists hasn't already been listed elsewhere. It is mostly a collection and review of information already out there, just collected in one place. That's the whole meaning of "open-source" reporting. More than once I came across a reference to an article I recognized having read earlier. If the reason you are dismissing Hayes's reporting is because you are under the impression that it is nothing more than a rehash of the Feith memo, you do yourself a disservice. Read the book. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
EchoVortex writes:
Relevant because he sets out with his conclusion as his assumption and then goes from there. Read the book. As the various critiques posted here so far illustrate, no rational person is denying the fact that Iraq and Al Qaeda had numerous contacts over the years. The argument is over the meaning of those contacts. One possible explanation is that they were studying the Qu'ran together. Another possible explanation is that they were exchanging shwarma recipes. Another possible explanation is that they were discussing ways of harming the West. Seeing as how Iraq knowingly sheltered (even to the extent of providing housing and a monthly stipend) internationally famous terrorists (Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas ring a bell with anyone here?), the third possibility is not far-fetched at all. Except to those who opposed the war, of course. And I repeat, Hayes is not the first journalist to report on these connections -- not by a long shot. Are the reporters for Time and Newsweek and the freaking Guardian of all papers also prejudiced? Investigating the connection is the job neither of Hayes nor of other ideologue magazine/war peddlers, but the job of intelligence and law enforcement professionals--who have officially ruled out such a link, even though their bosses in the Bush administration would have a lot to gain politically if such a link were demonstrated. No one in the intelligence communities has ruled out a link. All of them agree the meetings occurred. However, since none of them had hidden tape recorders at these meetings, none of them is willing to go on record as saying that such and such or so and so topic was discussed at a given meeting. And neither does Hayes. As Logan points out, he goes from assertion to assertion without making it clear exactly where each assertion orginates. Totally worthless. Not in every single case, no. In some cases, yes. Read the book. And no, it does not make it "totally worthless". As Logan himself points out, it is something Hayes could fix. I note you ignored the source listing at the techcentralstation.com listing. As I have stated repeatedly, Hayes is not the first nor is he the only journalist to publish these links. I merely said his book is the best single source for exploring the known contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It is certainly not the only one. It is convenient to have them all in a single book, but a Google search on the right key words leads to you most of what is in the book anyway. Try it some time. Not any more. 2004 isn't 1995. Well, I guess that demolishes all the Ritter-worshippers then, doesn't it? It also demolishes any arguments based on statements from ex-government employees, too. Besides, if you had read the book, you'd know that the first meetings occurred before 1995. The problem is that the "open source" information he uses is not information that has been witnessed first-hand by the journalists reporting it: it is a tissue of conjectures leaked by anonymous people in the espionage community, none of whom is accountable for anything he says. ROFL! There goes the credibility of Woodward and Bernstein, then, as well as the credibility of every book ever written on the Cold War and countless other examples. Dude, you are really reaching now. Of course these reports aren't from people who were actually present at these meetings, duh! A very well-founded assumption given the fact that the 9/11 Commission, which has seen all of those conflicting bits of data, has ruled there was no significant collaboration. Has seen all of it? Assumption. You forget the brief of the 9/11 Commission was not to investigate the relationship of Al Qaeda and Iraq, but to review events leading up to the attacks of September 11, 2001. I think it's fairly obvious by now to just about anyone who has been following events that there is as yet no compelling evidence to believe Iraq had a hand in the planning or execution of that attack. Why then should the Commission waste time investigating links to Lockerbie or embassy bombings that happened a decade ago? The FBI investigated this story thoroughly and dismissed it. That article is over two years old. The Czech authorities stand by their story to this day. They remain convinced it was Atta. And let's not forget it was the Czechs who actually spotted him, not the FBI. All the FBI can say with certainty is that no one in the US saw him from April 4 to April 11. He could have been anywhere. "Thousands of leads" is certainly a lot more than just a few cell phone calls, pinky. You're barking at the moon. And yet with all those thousands of leads checked, the FBI still doesn't know where he was during that time period. Who's barking at the moon here? Were both sides meeting in an official capacity as representatives of their organizations? Did YOU have the meetings bugged? There may have been factions in both sides who wanted a collaboration and tried to pave the way for that, while other factions didn't see the point, and at the end of the day neither organization went ahead with it, although they still left the door open to future possibilities. That is indeed a possibility. It is also a possibility that an agreement to co-operate was reached at the very first meeting. Why is it okay to dismiss the second possibility out of hand? The question is, what would both sides have to gain or lose in such a collaboration? You can't be serious. Hussein clearly hated the US and doubtless would have seen the benefits of having a group attack his enemies while he was able to hide behind a cloak of plausible deniability. Bin Ladin enjoyed safe haven in Afghanistan and already had plenty of money. Iraq as a safe haven has more advantages than Afghanistan. Bin Laden may be a fanatic, but he is obviously a shrewd fanatic. Putting all your eggs in one basket is usually not a good idea. I'm sure he could see the advantage of having multiple safe havens. And yes, Osama at one time had plenty of money. How much of that remains today? Hussein had access to essentially unlimited sums of money that a fugitive would not. Hussein for his part perhaps wanted to help a terrorist organization to strike at the United States, but Hussein's primary interest has always been Hussein and the maintenance of his own power. If the link were ever discovered it would have put his continued rule in a very precarious position. I can't believe you are writing this! Hussein has always been an exceedingly reckless gambler. See his invasion of various countries and his mishandling of the destruction of his WMD program. Did any of those discussions result in collaborative projects? There is no concrete proof of a single such project. Correct. What's your point? Just as alarming are people who cling to discredited fabrications and sheer speculation as justifications to launch wars of invasion and occupation. Hang on a minute here. I seem to recall your raking Bush over the coals for refusing to act on "speculation" and thus allowing 9/11 to take place. Consistency is not one of your strong points, is it? It's no speculation that Iraq harbored terrorists. See Abu Nidal et al, as well as Hussein's support for Hamas (and other) suicide bombers. Yet somehow we are to believe that this active protection of and aid to terrorist groups excluded the largest of them all -- Al Qaeda. Uh huh. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
EchoVortex writes:
Good lord, man, do you have an honest bone in your entire body? Or did you just forget to mention that those shells all date from before the 1991 Gulf War and are completely unusable? Good lord man, do you have an honest bone in your body? Or did you just forget to mention the binary sarin artillery shell from the IED that went off, producing sarin that sickened the troops working on the device? As for when the stuff was produced -- pre 1991 or post 1991, that is irrelevant. The articles of the signed conditional ceasefire agreement required Iraq to destroy all their chem and bio stocks and dismantle their WMD programs. Clearly Iraq did neither. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Alex123 writes:
Oh come on pink, did you really think you were going to get a fair and balanced assessment from a book called "The Connection"? Standard Libbie tactic. Screw up your eyes as tight as you can and refuse to even read a book because the title is not to your liking. That's a pretty fair and balanced way of handling things. Do you have any other sources apart from "The Connection"? Yes. I did provide a second link for you, and I did give you instructions on how Google could be used to find more. You live in England, right? I presume you have a way to find back issues of... oh, I don't know... The Guardian, for example? "Approach these things with an open mind." "Open your mind to the truth." This from a man who judges the worth of a meticulously-researched book from its title. Can we say "irony"? You don't STILL believe in WMD do you? No evidence there are no WMD in Iraq? Where have you been for the last 15 months? I can't help but note that you were entirely silent over the shells found in Iraq. Standard Libbie tactic. "Sarin shell found? That's not a stockpile!" "Oh, a few dozen more found? Well.... that's still not a stockpile!" And I can't help but note you continue to evade my question -- what happened to the rest of the stuff, Alex? Where is it? Even you who delight in crowing over Scott Ritter's proclamation that "98% of his known stocks have been destroyed" (even though everyone else's figures range from 90% to at best 95%) have never told us what happened to the rest of it. Where is it, Alex? Once you've told us that, tell us your source for that information. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
DeepDish2 journeyman Registered: 01/14/02 Posts: 55 Last seen: 17 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Quite a bit of information in the book is from that memo, yes.
Well Pinky the memo has been shown to be the major tie used to justify the connection, and an incorrect one. So tell me, why should anyone waste their time reading a book, in which quite a bit of the information is based around a report THAT ISN'T BACKED by any credible intelligence analysts. Even the DOD has dismissed this report. In fact the DOD issued a statment saying that Hayes prebook article for the weekly standard was incorrect. If either the memo or Hayes article had the least bit of truth to them why wouldn't the admnistration run with it, after all they have so much to gain. If a credible and strong Al-queda/Iraq connection could be proven the war would seem much more justified in the eyes of many people. Instead in January Colin Powell came forth and declared that there was no concrete evidence of a connection. link The 9/11 panel said there was no concrete link, along with weapons inspector David Kay, and the UN. Now maybe, just maybe, the entities listed above have access to intelligence that you or I or even Steven Hayes has. Maybe they are in a better position to make assesments then someone who is simply gathering all the secondary sources he can find that will prove his point, regardless of wether they are factually sound or not. Even Moore, who you constantly critize, does not stoop this low.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
DeepDish writes:
Well Pinky the memo has been shown to be the major tie used to justify the connection, and an incorrect one. The "major tie" used to justify the connection made by whom? Not by Hayes. "Shown by" whom? Read the book. Yes, some of the reports are also referenced in the Feith memo. Most are not. What part of "most are not" are you having a hard time grasping? The 9/11 panel said there was no concrete link... Incorrect. Read their report. You don't even have to read the whole report, just read the excerpt EchoVortex provided. I repeat (why must I do this?) I personally do not feel there is compelling evidence that Iraq had much if anything to do with the specific 9/11 attack. That doesn't change the facts we are discussing. Iraq and Al Qaeda as well as other terrorists and terrorist organizations have a long history of linkage. This is not speculation, it's not made up. It's factual knowledge that's been out there for years, readily checkable in the archives of the mainstream press. I repeat (why do I have to do this) it was a fact that Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal were welcomed guests in Iraq. It is a fact that at least one of the WTC bombers took shelter in Iraq and received a house and pay as well. It is a fact that Hussein encouraged Palistinean suicide bombers. Now, if someone wants to argue that the reason behind this sheltering and the multiple well-documented meetings over more than a decade have some innocent implication, they are of course free to offer such arguments. That doesn't change the fact that such sheltering and meetings occurred. I personally am not naive enough to believe the reason for these actions had nothing to do with terrorism. Even Moore, who you constantly critize, does not stoop this low. Oh, please. Moore makes stuff up out of thin air. To compare the two destroys any possible shred of credibility you might have had. And I repeat (why must I do this) -- Hayes's book is far from the only source for this stuff. It's just the most convenient. I note no one yet has made a single comment on the information at the techcentralstation.com link. No, it's easier to dismiss a book because of its title. No need to actually read the darn thing. Too much bother. I constantly find it amazing the lengths to which the head-in-the-sand crowd will go to dredge up a reason -- any reason -- to avoid looking at evidence. Just exactly what is so patently absurd about the possibility that Iraq was helping out terrorist groups? You'd think I'd suggested the moon was made of cork or something. Hell, Afghanistan helped out Al Qaeda. So did Sudan. Libya admitted their involvement in the Lockerbie case. No one is disputing these facts. Why on earth am I being treated like a drooling retard for suggesting that Iraq did likewise? Just why is this eminently reasonable possibility being jumped on as if it was the most absurd suggestion ever made on this board? It's because you are all so convinced that deposing Hussein by force is wrong on the face of it that you have completely closed off even the possibility of anything -- anything that might support it. None of you are being objective about this. Your inherent prejudice about the "immorality" of invading Iraq has subverted your rationality and objectivity. If you don't want to read the book, then by all means don't read the book. If you don't want to read the link to techcentralstation.com (or any of a hundred others out there on Google) don't read the link. But don't expect anyone who has looked into the situation to lend any credence to your arguments, which basically consist of, "Hussein and Al Qaeda would never have co-operated because one was secular and the other religious, so all these reports are either made up by drunken defectors, or incompetent CIA analysts, or sensationalizing journalists in the mainstream press. Abu Nidal's corpse isn't really Abu Nidal's corpse. It's someone else. Same with Abu Abbas -- it's just some dude with the same name. Hussein didn't fork over cash to suicide bombers' dependents -- he just said he did, just like he said he destroyed all his WMDs. Uhhh... wait a minute... let's rephrase that last. Ummm....". pinky --------------------
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: High THC Strains Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission (  1 2 all ) |
 Clean |
3,239 | 21 | 04/30/04 03:09 PM by sir tripsalot |
|
 |
The 9-11 Commission Charade |  Ancalagon |
602 | 1 | 08/25/04 10:20 AM by CJay |
|
|
McCain: Bush 'Stonewalling' 9/11 Commission |  Learyfan |
1,173 | 13 | 07/11/03 10:03 AM by Learyfan |
|
 |
Whistleblower Explodes 9-11 Commission Report |  SquattingMarmot |
835 | 2 | 08/05/04 09:25 AM by Learyfan |
|
|
Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble - Part 1: The 9-11 Commission |  usefulidiot |
1,296 | 4 | 12/18/04 11:43 AM by usefulidiot |
|
 |
9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up | Learyfan |
2,884 | 18 | 08/20/05 07:17 PM by zappaisgod |
|
 |
No "Real" questions asked by 9/11 Commission |  Swami |
874 | 14 | 04/09/04 04:27 PM by infidelGOD |
|
 |
To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
JohnnyRespect |
5,306 | 70 | 06/30/03 05:17 PM by luvdemshrooms |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 5,201 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 13 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
