Iraq - Al Qaeda Connection

[delayjf]

Interesting reading.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=2

[46zilzal]

Interesting reading.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=2
CONSIDER THE SOURCE! the Weekly Standard?
owned by News Corporation, which also owns Fox News. It is viewed as a leading neoconservative magazine. Its current editors are founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes.

Wikipedia:"The American Conservative also points out how much the Weekly Standard pushed for war against Iraq and that Saddam was tied to al Qaeda."

[Greyfox]

Interestng article delayif, thank you.

I wonder if we'll ever really know the truth.
My own impression is that Saddam was anti-terrorists. He would have shot them. But I've been wrong before.
However, I am convinced that there is a huge connection between
Iraq and Al Qaeda. It's called the Arabian border.

[PaceAdvantage]

CONSIDER THE SOURCE! the Weekly Standard?Are you telling me every single link you've ever posted was from a 100% completely unbiased and fair source? Stop your whining.

[46zilzal]

The established MOUTHPIECE for the neocon philosophy is about as reliable as Bob's card.

[46zilzal]

according to Wikipedia most of this connection was based upon a single memo source:"Hayes gave this verdict on the Feith Memo:

CIA Director George Tenet was asked about the Feith Memo at a Senate hearing in March and distanced his agency from the Pentagon analysis. He submitted another version of the document to the committee with some "corrections" to the Pentagon submission. My understanding is that there were but a few such adjustments and that they were relatively minor (although my book challenges two of the most interesting reports in the memo). Some of the stuff — telephone intercepts, foreign-government reporting, detainee debriefings, etc. — is pretty straightforward and most of the report tracks with what Tenet has said publicly; it just provides more detail. That said, there were two items that seemed to require more explanation and, when weighed against available evidence, seem questionable.

The arguments raised by Hayes about the Saddam/al-Qaeda relationship have mostly discounted; they have been rejected by almost all counterterrorism experts and intelligence analysts, as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and by the Bush administration itself. What Hayes called "perhaps the government's strongest indication that Saddam and al Qaeda may have worked together on September 11,"[7] for example, has been described by some other analysts as a mere confusion over names that sounded alike.

http://www.slate.com/id/2092180

[hcap]

It has already been discredited-factually. The article has been around since 06/07/2004.

Besides, if Hayes has any proof why hasn't the administration jumped all over this? Especially now with the popularity of the war at an all time low, the repugs tanking, and elections approaching.

[harnesslover]

CONSIDER THE SOURCE! the Weekly Standard?
owned by News Corporation, which also owns Fox News. It is viewed as a leading neoconservative magazine. Its current editors are founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes.

Wikipedia:"The American Conservative also points out how much the Weekly Standard pushed for war against Iraq and that Saddam was tied to al Qaeda."

This coming from a guy that posts links to opinion journals and spins them as fact.. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[delayjf]

http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/iraq_alqaeda_connection.htm

Another story on the connection.

why hasn't the administration jumped all over this
Perhaps for National security reasons, they can't. If you've won the election and know this will come out someday to vindicate you, would you leak classified information that might jeopardize on going operations just so you can say "I told you so"?

[kenwoodallpromos]

I'm glad you brought it up! IMHO Tenemt is the worst of the worse in the whole Iraq war mess!

[delayjf]

It has already been discredited-factually.
Oh really, according to this 07 article, the IG inspectors were only critical of the process Hayes used, they were not able to disprove all aspects of his report.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/274miudm.asp

[46zilzal]

Oh really, according to this 07 article, the IG inspectors were only critical of the process Hayes used, they were not able to disprove all aspects of his report.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/274miudm.asp
Keep slitting hairs and retrofitting the evidence and you can prove anything.

[skate]

Wikipedia:"The American Conservative also points out how much the Weekly Standard pushed for war against Iraq and that Saddam was tied to al Qaeda."


so did the NYT:lol: ...along with every other source:(

[46zilzal]

so did the NYT ...along with every other source:(
And that makes it so.....hmmmmm

Wrong is wrong without being popular or timely it remains the same. 2 and 2 will never be anything but 4 no matter how many others say it isn't so.

[skate]

Keep slitting hairs and retrofitting the evidence and you can prove anything.

hey, that's why you use this. you think you fool anyone but yourself?

[skate]

And that makes it so.....hmmmmm

Wrong is wrong without being popular or timely it remains the same. 2 and 2 will never be anything but 4 no matter how many others say it isn't so.

ok

now, back to square #1

[46zilzal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

[skate]

ok


ill wait.

your reference starts out by saying "before the final report".
just saying...



and and and, thats not sq. one.

[46zilzal]

ok


ill wait.

your reference starts out by saying "before the final report".
just saying...
As if the findings of Tuesday would somehow be different today.

[hcap]

Oh really, according to this 07 article, the IG inspectors were only critical of the process Hayes used, they were not able to disprove all aspects of his report.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/274miudm.asp
You can't argue from a position of strength using the same publication that employs Hayes. The Weekly Standard is and has been a strong supporter of the War since jump and is a Neocon publication. Hardly objective. Maybe I should get some stuff from the World Socialist Party? Not only that, but Hayes is now Cheneys "official biographer".

And we have had this same argument before about the Hayes article. You post from your sources and I post from mine. At least you search for some external links and try to use facts. Unlike some others.You know I can do the same. Maybe I will later, but my initial point-why doesn't the administration jump all over this-still is strong. You responded "Perhaps for National security reasons, they can't." Not buying that. And my same argument would apply to the theoretical secret smuggling of WMDs to Syria or whatever country you propose.

Bush and the republicans are not doing well. Haven't for a while. It just does not make any sense that if any of this was true--the Hayes article, or the secret smuggling, some of it could NOT be released officially without prohibitive national security concerns. The political gains would be outstanding and set back the Dems like nothing else.

And Cheneys' biographer as well. Pu-Leese :rolleyes:

skate quoting 46 46zilzal
Wikipedia:"The American Conservative also points out how much the Weekly Standard pushed for war against Iraq and that Saddam was tied to al Qaeda."so did the NYT ...along with every other source Not all sources have the same ideological roots for one, and secondly NO not every other source. 10,000,000 people marched against the war before it began. And "Though the bush and blair claimed they acted according to international law, an overwhelming majority of the world’s governments and people thought otherwise. The Security Council voted only 4 out of 15. However, for a resolution to pass a supermajority of 9 out of 15 votes are needed. Only four countries announced they would support a resolution backing the war"

Also most major publications like the NYT has repudiated and admitted their uncritical coverage of pre-war events. Not the Weekly Standard. I might add that there was some very critical coverage from the Knight Rider organization, and some strong objections by many reporters including such as Walter Pincus.

[delayjf]

Pictures back up informants story about Al Qaeda training camp ins Salman Park.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/cold/photos_prove_connection_between_iraq_and_al_qaeda_ terrorists.guest.html

[46zilzal]

Pictures back up informants story about Al Qaeda training camp ins Salman Park.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/cold/photos_prove_connection_between_iraq_and_al_qaeda_ terrorists.guest.html
Yet another "impartial" observer. When you get Reuters, BBC, AP, Asian Times, CNN, and CBC all reporting something, there occurs what is required for evidence to be accepted: SUBSTANTIATION.

[delayjf]

here is what the Clinton Justice Department's indictment against bin Laden had to say:

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

[46zilzal]

here is what the Clinton Justice Department's indictment against bin Laden had to say:

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
Wrong is wrong, no matter who's mouth it exits.

[delayjf]

Yet another "impartial" observer

The impartiality of Limbaugh is not the issue, the question is, are the photos authentic?? :confused:

[delayjf]

Wrong is wrong, no matter who's mouth it exits.
Thats fine, but true or not, it Kind of blows the whole Bush lied, Bush docter evidense, theory right out of the water.

[46zilzal]

Thats fine, but true or not, it Kind of blows the whole Bush lied, Bush docter evidense, theory right out of the water.
Yes but who got thousands killed for the lie? Only the rutabaga and Darth Vader under the direction of the Rummy.

[hcap]

http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/IAEA/iaea-inspex-013103.htm

Press Statement on Inspection Activities in Iraq

UNMOVIC/IAEA

January 31, 2003

An UNMOVIC biological team performed aerial inspections over a number of sites for the first time. These sites involved Falluja II and III, the Agricultural and Biological Research Centre, Tuwaitha and the Agricultural and Biological Research Centre, Tuwaitha and former biological research facilities at Salman Park.

An UNMOVIC chemical team inspected the commercial headquarters of the Agricultural Supply Company in Baghdad. This company is involved in receiving and distributing agricultural chemicals.

An UNMOVIC missile team visited the 7 Nissan Factory. The factory produces a wide range of shell bodies and fuses for rockets. The team obtained clarifications on the present status of Al Fatah research and development activities, among other things.

An UNMOVIC multidisciplinary team inspected the Abu Ghraib Ammunition Factory west of Baghdad. Although only a limited number of personnel were on site, the inspection proceeded smoothly. The inspection included the production area, quality control, computer system and several warehouses.

.................................................. ..........................................

No mention of current activity at Salman Park.
Sabah Khodada -- defected from the Iraqi army and came to the U.S. in May 2001. Before the date of this posting. The inspectors were there inspecting until they were forced to leave. And the inspections continued. Until we invaded. Salman Park was never cited EXCEPT as a former biological research facility.Either by the Inspectors or US.!!!! In addition, why oh why when after we invaded, US forces did not hold, photograph and ship all the evidence at this so-called training camp out to the White House for instant gratification?? Remember no WMDs found. Bush sure needed some confirmation of his rationalizations for war. And why not publish the same photos that Limpbag posted on March 14, 2003. Are you saying the US intel organization was scooped by a radio personality??????????? :rolleyes:

The info was never conclusive and the defectors were not creditable.
The entire Salman Park story and substantial collaborative ties to Al Qada was discounted by the 911 commission. And as we go along we discover other stories were exaggerated by both the administration and the press.
Curveball ring a bell? The meeting in Prague? You guys don't have a very good track record. Why should we believe this any more from a group of touts, that have picked the wrong horses in the first 7 races. You want me to buy your picks for the 8th and 9th?

[delayjf]

Remember no WMDs found. Bush sure needed some confirmation of his rationalizations for war. And why not publish the same photos that Limpbag posted on March 14, 2003. Are you saying the US intel organization was scooped by a radio personality???????????

The original story was run on PBS 2001, it was never verified, but it was also never proven false.

Yes but who got thousands killed for the lie? Only the rutabaga and Darth Vader under the direction of the Rummy.
Are you now stating that Clinton lied about this as well? So now you're claiming that Rumsfield was really running the show, Good lord man, make up your mind. :D

You want me to buy your picks for the 8th and 9th?
Naw, I would want you to hurt my odds.

[delayjf]

Here is what happened to the plane also an explaination as to why nothing was found at the sight to substantiate Iraq's Terrorists training.

A November 2003 assessment from DIA noted that postwar exploitation of the facility found it "devoid of valuable intelligence." The assessment added that CIA exploitation "found nothing of intelligence value remained and assessed that Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) cleaned it out." The DIA assessment concluded that "we do not know whether ex-regime trained terrorists on the aircraft at Salman Pak. Intelligence in late April 2003 indicated the plane had been dismantled. DIA and CENTCOM asses the plane was sold for scrap.