PDA

View Full Version : More evidence that Bush led us to war with truth.


patteeu
04-18-2006, 05:41 PM
In an interview with FrontPage magazine (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22055), Thomas Joscelyn, an expert on the international terrorist network discusses recently released Iraqi documents that provide more evidence that Saddam was in bed with Al Qaeda:

--------------------------------

Saddam and Osama: The New Revelations
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 18, 2006

...

One IIS document, in particular, has received significant attention. The document was apparently authored in early 1997 and summarizes a number of contacts between Iraqi Intelligence and Saudi oppositionist groups, including al Qaeda, during the mid 1990’s. The document says that in early 1995 bin Laden requested Iraqi assistance in two ways. First, bin Laden wanted Iraqi television to carry al Qaeda’s anti-Saudi propaganda. Saddam agreed. Second, bin Laden requested Iraqi assistance in performing “joint operations against the foreign forces in the land of Hijaz.” That is, bin Laden wanted Iraq’s assistance in attacking U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia.

We do not know what, exactly, came of bin Laden’s second request. But the document indicates that Saddam’s operatives “were left to develop the relationship and the cooperation between the two sides to see what other doors of cooperation and agreement open up.” Thus, it appears that both sides saw value in working with each other. It is also worth noting that in the months following bin Laden’s request, al Qaeda was tied to a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia.

The same document also indicates that Iraq was in contact with Dr. Muhammad al-Massari, the head of the Committee for Defense of Legitimate Rights (CDLR). The CDLR is a known al Qaeda propaganda organ based in London. The document indicates that the IIS was seeking to “establish a nucleus of Saudi opposition in Iraq” and to “use our relationship with [al-Massari] to serve our intelligence goals.” The document also notes that Iraq was attempting to arrange a visit for the al Qaeda ideologue to Baghdad. Again, we can’t be certain what came of these contacts.

Just recently, however, al-Massari confirmed that Saddam had joined forces with al Qaeda prior to the war. Al-Massari says that Saddam established contact with the “Arab Afghans” who fled Afghanistan to northern Iraq in 2001 and that he funded their relocation to Iraq under the condition that they would not seek to undermine his regime. Upon their arrival, these al Qaeda terrorists were put in contact with Iraqi army personnel, who armed and funded them.

...

But [the conclusion of the 911 Commission that there was no operational relationship between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda] is now more tenuous than ever. Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator who served as a 9/11 commissioner, told Eli Lake of The New York Sun that the document is a “very significant set of facts.” While cautioning that it does not tie Saddam to the September 11 attack, Kerrey said that the document “does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States.”

...

Much more... (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22055)

---------------------

As Joscelyn says in the interview, "Obviously, this paints a very different picture of prewar Iraq than many would like to see."

Mr. Laz
04-18-2006, 05:46 PM
No WMD = Bush lied/people died


The GOP loves the military so much that they love sending them off to die.

that's love baby

patteeu
04-18-2006, 05:54 PM
No WMD = Bush lied/people died


The GOP loves the military so much that they love sending them off to die.

that's love baby

You obviously didn't bother to read the article, but since it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, I understand.

banyon
04-18-2006, 06:04 PM
WAR IS TRUTH. FREEDOM IS TORTURE. SECRECY IS STRENGTH.

wait, that's not it...they've still got a couple of revisions to make:

WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

ahh...much better. :sulk:

the Talking Can
04-18-2006, 06:17 PM
so...the facts aren't facts....but someone's fantasy is...a true republican here, fellows...

man, you have jumped the shark...I don't think there is any way - ever - for you to find the real world again...

this is the first time I've ever seen a poster literally turn into another poster...abracadabra (smoke machines and hand waving)...patteeu is chiefsexpress...

patteeu
04-18-2006, 08:19 PM
so...the facts aren't facts....but someone's fantasy is...a true republican here, fellows...

man, you have jumped the shark...I don't think there is any way - ever - for you to find the real world again...

this is the first time I've ever seen a poster literally turn into another poster...abracadabra (smoke machines and hand waving)...patteeu is chiefsexpress...

My my, what a substance-filled post. /sarcasm

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-18-2006, 08:42 PM
My my, what a substance-filled post. /sarcasm

I love that you rely on a single story from a rag started by none other than David Horowitz, perhaps the least credible man in all of academia, a scholarly McCarthy if there ever was one.

Some of his beliefs:

No single group is clearly responsible for slavery
No single group benefited exclusively from its fruits
Only a minority of white Americans owned slaves
Most of today's Americans have no connection (direct or indirect) to slavery
Reparations to other ethnic groups were justified by direct, not historical, injury
Not all African-American descendants of slaves suffer from the economic consequences of slavery
The reparations claim promotes a victim mentality in the African-American community
African Americans have already received substantial economic aid
African Americans also owe social debts to America
The reparations claim threatens to increase divisions between the African-American community and the rest of America

Some well known quotes:

If blacks are oppressed in America, why isn't there a black exodus? - from the 1999 Salon article "Guns don't kill black people, other blacks do"

Leftists think that nothing is bad but the Holocaust. - from a speech at Michigan State University

Leftists want to regulate everything but hard drugs and sex. - from a speech at Michigan State University

What about the debt blacks owe to America—to white America—for liberating them from slavery?- from "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks—and Racist Too," an article in FrontPageMagazine.com, January 3, 2001.

The claim for reparations is premised on the false assumption that only whites have benefited from slavery. If slave labor created wealth for Americans, then obviously it has created wealth for black Americans as well, including the descendants of slaves. - from "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks—and Racist Too," an article in FrontPageMagazine.com, January 3, 2001

-------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say that anything approaching credibility and your posts are now fleeing from one another faster than the separation of matter in the microseconds after the big bang.....oh that's right, the Earth is 6000 years old...:shake:

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-18-2006, 08:57 PM
Here's one more for you:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200603030013

"50,000 U.S. Professors identify with terrorists"

I guess that you've booked a first class seat on the TomCash Express, no?

patteeu
04-18-2006, 08:57 PM
I love that you rely on a single story from a rag started by none other than David Horowitz, perhaps the least credible man in all of academia, a scholarly McCarthy if there ever was one.

Some of his beliefs:

No single group is clearly responsible for slavery
No single group benefited exclusively from its fruits
Only a minority of white Americans owned slaves
Most of today's Americans have no connection (direct or indirect) to slavery
Reparations to other ethnic groups were justified by direct, not historical, injury
Not all African-American descendants of slaves suffer from the economic consequences of slavery
The reparations claim promotes a victim mentality in the African-American community
African Americans have already received substantial economic aid
African Americans also owe social debts to America
The reparations claim threatens to increase divisions between the African-American community and the rest of America

Some well known quotes:

If blacks are oppressed in America, why isn't there a black exodus? - from the 1999 Salon article "Guns don't kill black people, other blacks do"

Leftists think that nothing is bad but the Holocaust. - from a speech at Michigan State University

Leftists want to regulate everything but hard drugs and sex. - from a speech at Michigan State University

What about the debt blacks owe to America—to white America—for liberating them from slavery?- from "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks—and Racist Too," an article in FrontPageMagazine.com, January 3, 2001.

The claim for reparations is premised on the false assumption that only whites have benefited from slavery. If slave labor created wealth for Americans, then obviously it has created wealth for black Americans as well, including the descendants of slaves. - from "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks—and Racist Too," an article in FrontPageMagazine.com, January 3, 2001

-------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say that anything approaching credibility and your posts are now fleeing from one another faster than the separation of matter in the microseconds after the big bang.....oh that's right, the Earth is 6000 years old...:shake:


The guy being interviewed is a reporter for the Weekly Standard, so you might want to attack the integrity of Bill Kristol while you're avoiding the content of the interview.

BTW, I don't have any problem with David Horowitz or the positions you attribute to him. The only one I'd quibble with is the one where he says that leftists think that nothing is bad but the Holocaust. They also think that economic success and private property are bad among other things. :p

patteeu
04-18-2006, 09:01 PM
Goodness, it's very interesting the way that every leftie who has bothered to comment has completely avoided discussing the article. Good job boys.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-18-2006, 09:06 PM
The guy being interviewed is a reporter for the Weekly Standard, so you might want to attack the integrity of Bill Kristol while you're avoiding the content of the interview.
BTW, I don't have any problem with David Horowitz or the positions you attribute to him. The only one I'd quibble with is the one where he says that leftists think that nothing is bad but the Holocaust. They also think that economic success and private property are bad among other things. :p

You are out of your gourd. From your thread-starting post:


In an interview with FrontPage magazine, Thomas Joscelyn, an expert on the international terrorist network discusses recently released Iraqi documents that provide more evidence that Saddam was in bed with Al Qaeda:

--------------------------------

Saddam and Osama: The New Revelations
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 18, 2006


The moral of the story is consider your sources. I don't really put much credence into one source that makes hypothetical inferrences into what Saddam may have done ten years ago when there are mountains of physical evidence that suggest completely otherwise. Compound that with the fact that the proprietor of your source is a dyed-in-the-wool racist and anti-Semite, and I think that anything that springs from his publication should be quickly flushed down the shitter. Jesus Christ, talk about deflection.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-18-2006, 09:13 PM
so you might want to attack the integrity of Bill Kristol while you're avoiding the content of the interview.

BTW, I don't have any problem with David Horowitz or the positions you attribute to him.

Integrity?? Like this:

In 2005, Kristol caused controversy by praising President George W. Bush's second inaugural address without disclosing his role as a consultant to the writing of the speech. Kristol praised the speech highly in his role as a regular political contributor during FOX's coverage of the address, as well as in a Weekly Standard article, without disclosing his involvement in the speech either time.

I don't even know how to respond to your second statement. It is so catastrophically stupid and myopic that it makes me want to :Lin:

patteeu
04-18-2006, 09:36 PM
You are out of your gourd. From your thread-starting post:



The moral of the story is consider your sources. I don't really put much credence into one source that makes hypothetical inferrences into what Saddam may have done ten years ago when there are mountains of physical evidence that suggest completely otherwise. Compound that with the fact that the proprietor of your source is a dyed-in-the-wool racist and anti-Semite, and I think that anything that springs from his publication should be quickly flushed down the shitter. Jesus Christ, talk about deflection.

Pay close attention and you might be able to understand me. I understand that the interviewer, Jamie Glazov, is from FrontPageMag (I said as much in my original post) and that FrontPageMag is a David Horowitz website. What I said in my response to you was that the interviewee is a reporter for the Weekly Standard. Since you had already attacked Horowitz (instead of addressing the content of what Thomas Joscelyn had to say), I thought you might want to attack Bill Kristol as well.

If you are serious about discussing this issue, you could start by listing some of the "mountains of evidence" that suggests "completely otherwise." Keep in mind that the documents that Joscelyn has been going through have been recently released and while there might still be authentication issues, if true they should revise our understanding of events. An example of this was included in my OP where Bob Kerry indicates that one of the documents undermines the finding of the 9/11 commission that there were no operational ties between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda.

P.S. Horowitz might not have published the interview if it didn't say things he likes, but given that he did publish it, and given that we haven't seen any complaints from Thomas Joscelyn that his words were doctored, the credibility issue should be based on Joscelyn's credibility, not Horowitz's (even though IMO Horowitz doesn't have a credibility problem anyway).

Logical
04-18-2006, 09:36 PM
patteeu has stolen my ole schtick. Pretty soon he will be up there with 50K posts.

patteeu
04-18-2006, 09:37 PM
I don't even know how to respond to your second statement.

I know you don't. That explains a lot.

patteeu
04-18-2006, 09:44 PM
patteeu has stolen my ole schtick. Pretty soon he will be up there with 50K posts.

LOL, did the lefties call you names back in the day, old timer? They love you now though, eh? :p ;)

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-18-2006, 09:44 PM
Pay close attention and you might be able to understand me. I understand that the interviewer, Jamie Glazov, is from FrontPageMag (I said as much in my original post) and that FrontPageMag is a David Horowitz website. What I said in my response to you was that the interviewee is a reporter for the Weekly Standard. Since you had already attacked Horowitz (instead of addressing the content of what Thomas Joscelyn had to say), I thought you might want to attack Bill Kristol as well.

If you are serious about discussing this issue, you could start by listing some of the "mountains of evidence" that suggests "completely otherwise." Keep in mind that the documents that Joscelyn has been going through have been recently released and while there might still be authentication issues, if true they should revise our understanding of events. An example of this was included in my OP where Bob Kerry indicates that one of the documents undermines the finding of the 9/11 commission that there were no operational ties between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda.

P.S. Horowitz might not have published the interview if it didn't say things he likes, but given that he did publish it, and given that we haven't seen any complaints from Thomas Joscelyn that his words were doctored, the credibility issue should be based on Joscelyn's credibility, not Horowitz's (even though IMO Horowitz doesn't have a credibility problem anyway).

If you honestly believe that the editors of a publication are not required to hold any responsibility for the content of said publication, then you have no concept of the problems that I am addressing and no knowledge of journalistic ethics. So if Hitler says that there are 'mountains of evidence', should I believe him too?

The credibility issue comes from the fact that there is no reason to believe someone who so consistently makes racist, hateful, and white supremacist statements. Would you believe Fred Phelps if he made such a claim?? I fail to see much of a difference between hatemongers like Phelps and Horowitz. They are two sides of the same coin.

patteeu
04-18-2006, 09:47 PM
If you honestly believe that the editors of a publication are not required to hold any responsibility for the content of said publication, then you have no concept of the problems that I am addressing and no knowledge of journalistic ethics. So if Hitler says that there are 'mountains of evidence', should I believe him too?

The credibility issue comes from the fact that there is no reason to believe someone who so consistently makes racist, hateful, and white supremacist statements. Would you believe Fred Phelps if he made such a claim?? I fail to see much of a difference between hatemongers like Phelps and Horowitz. They are two sides of the same coin.

So what you are saying is that by closing your eyes, clicking your heels, and saying "David Horowitz has no credibility" over and over, you can wish these Iraqi documents away? Good plan, Dorothy.

Logical
04-18-2006, 10:01 PM
LOL, did the lefties call you names back in the day, old timer?
Oh hell yeah, I think I could even get DEnise to lose it back in the day. You are still just a rising star.

They love you now though, eh? :p ;)

They have just been lulled into a false sense of security then bang, the hammer will one day fall.

patteeu
04-18-2006, 10:05 PM
They have just been lulled into a false sense of security then bang, the hammer will one day fall.

I'll await the return of the Good Vlad with much anticipation. :)

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-19-2006, 12:21 AM
So what you are saying is that by closing your eyes, clicking your heels, and saying "David Horowitz has no credibility" over and over, you can wish these Iraqi documents away? Good plan, Dorothy.

Ok, so you are resting your entire case in Iraq on these supposed documents which have never been proven to exist and haven't surfaced in 3+ years of war in a completely GOP controlled political sphere. You place your faith in a publication whose editorial oversight is controlled by a prolific demagogue, hate monger, racist, and anti-semite. You believe this one potential document, which is still in the ether, above the cold physical reality of an absolute lack of any evidence whatsoever, and yet I am the one wishing my way around this argument.

The fact of the matter is this: you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit, and that's all you have right now--a big steaming bowl of chicken shit. So dig in, and enjoy. nlm

Ugly Duck
04-19-2006, 02:00 AM
Ok, so you are resting your entire case in Iraq on these supposed documents which have never been proven to exist and haven't surfaced in 3+ years of war in a completely GOP controlled political sphere. Soon we'll be seeing "documents" stating that Sodom really does have WMDs, Rumsfeld & Cheney tell the truth, and Bush is not a moron.

patteeu
04-19-2006, 06:59 AM
Ok, so you are resting your entire case in Iraq on these supposed documents which have never been proven to exist and haven't surfaced in 3+ years of war in a completely GOP controlled political sphere. You place your faith in a publication whose editorial oversight is controlled by a prolific demagogue, hate monger, racist, and anti-semite. You believe this one potential document, which is still in the ether, above the cold physical reality of an absolute lack of any evidence whatsoever, and yet I am the one wishing my way around this argument.

The fact of the matter is this: you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit, and that's all you have right now--a big steaming bowl of chicken shit. So dig in, and enjoy. nlm

1) I'm not resting my entire case on anything. The case is ongoing.

2) Not only have the documents been proven to exist, they are publicly available and have been commented on by mainstream news sources like The New York Times (apparently you didn't read the article).

Interestingly enough, the existence of this document was first reported by The New York Times in the summer of 2004, several weeks after the 9-11 Commission proclaimed that there was no operational relationship between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda. For some reason, the Times decided to sit on the document while splashing the 9-11 Commission’s conclusion on the front page.

3) The documents didn't just surface, they've been collected by the coalition forces throughout the invasion/post-invasion but due to sheer volume have largely remained untranslated and have only recently been released to the public in response to public pressure. Unless your name for the public domain is "the ether" then your "cold physical reality" is a delusion.

tiptap
04-19-2006, 07:38 AM
I look at the documentation as indication that Sadam mentality was the "enemy of my enemy is my friend"

There is no mountain of material linking operations. Just Sadam wanting to get back at the Saudis and Americans and at the same time keeping tabs on Al Qaeda so to limit interference in his regime.

It just doesn't rise to the level of cooperation you want these documents to suggest.

It certainly doesn't in any way point to Iraqi involvement in 9/11.

patteeu
04-19-2006, 07:44 AM
I look at the documentation as indication that Sadam mentality was the "enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Same here. This refutes the common claims that Saddam and Al Qaeda would never get in bed together because of their ideological differences.

There is no mountain of material linking operations. Just Sadam wanting to get back at the Saudis and Americans and at the same time keeping tabs on Al Qaeda so to limit interference in his regime.

It just doesn't rise to the level of cooperation you want these documents to suggest.

I can't tell whether you misunderstand what level of cooperation I "want these documents to suggest" or whether you simply misunderstand what level of cooperation the documents actually suggest.

It certainly doesn't in any way point to Iraqi involvement in 9/11.

On that much, we can agree. None of the translated documents tie Saddam to 9/11. Of course, there are mountains of documents left to translate so a wait and see approach is advisable.

Velvet_Jones
04-19-2006, 07:45 AM
The moral of the story is consider your sources.
This is a hilarious. You and every other fugtard that preaches the hate Bush gospel come up with crazy shiate from all sorts of questionable sources and want to argue the content not the source. Yet you and your ilk are the first to point out a source as not credible and dismiss it. Talk about McCarthyish. You and your buddies jIZ-nightbiatch-taco-so_horse_fugme have zero credibility due to the same thing that you are accusing patteeu of. Typical liberal “its not the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge” bullshiate.


Phelps and Horowitz
If you believe this then I think you need to go find a Special Olympics to enter in. This makes no sense.

Hitler
I am so tired of hearing this. If anything, the radical liberals have more similarities to Hitler than anyone in the Bush administration. I hear that Tehran has the annual Retard Games coming up in May. Why don’t you go over there and be crazy. Don’t forget your helmet and Cheetos.

Velvet

stevieray
04-19-2006, 08:17 AM
[QUOTE=

The fact of the matter is this: you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit, and that's all you have right now--a big steaming bowl of chicken shit. So dig in, and enjoy. nlm[/QUOTE]

the fact of the matter is that this perfectly describes the left since 2000.

Braincase
04-19-2006, 09:37 AM
My personal take is one of skepticism. I have to wonder if the ink had dried on the documents.

There is little doubt in my mind that there may have been a connection between Osama and Sadaam, but we also know that the US did move against Iraq with questionable evidence - if Colin Powell says it's questionable, I'm going to go with his judgement.

I think right now the administration is in a corner and will repeatedly provide evidence that the invasion was appropriate, but I think there are alot of questions left unanswered.

How much of this war was a vehicle for excessive government spending and the re-invigorating of the US Arms industry? How much was to move oil through the system in an undocumented fashion? How much was to create a real/imaginary crisis to spur oil prices to record levels?

Sincerely, your favorite moderate Republican,

patteeu
04-19-2006, 10:01 AM
My personal take is one of skepticism. I have to wonder if the ink had dried on the documents.

There is nothing wrong with skepticism, but if the administration were going to fabricate evidence, why would they have waited so long? Why wouldn't they have planted WMD evidence at the same time?

There is little doubt in my mind that there may have been a connection between Osama and Sadaam, but we also know that the US did move against Iraq with questionable evidence - if Colin Powell says it's questionable, I'm going to go with his judgement.

I think right now the administration is in a corner and will repeatedly provide evidence that the invasion was appropriate, but I think there are alot of questions left unanswered.

If anything, the administration appears to be unconcerned with justifying it's past actions. These documents were only released after pressure was applied from outside the administration.

How much of this war was a vehicle for excessive government spending and the re-invigorating of the US Arms industry? How much was to move oil through the system in an undocumented fashion? How much was to create a real/imaginary crisis to spur oil prices to record levels?

Sincerely, your favorite moderate Republican,

Don't let your moderate self fall for the whackos' conspiracy theories.

DanT
04-19-2006, 02:47 PM
There is zero evidence in this thread that "Bush led us to war with truth," as the topic of this thread pathetically claims. The Frontpage.com article concerns documents captured by American troops after the war was launched. I understand that about the only people who still support President Bush's morally and legally unjustified attack on Iraq like to pretend that President Bush has magical powers, but I think that most of us in the reality-based community do not believe that President Bush could have read documents that hadn't even been captured yet.


FP: Thomas Jocelyn, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Jocelyn: Thank you Jamie.

FP: Recently the government has decided to release millions of documents captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are these documents being released now and why are they important?

Joscelyn: For the past several years, American forces have been collecting documents and other pieces of media from the fallen regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of the Iraqi documents were authored by Saddam’s intelligence apparatus, the Mukhabarat (Iraqi Intelligence Service), while many of the documents captured in Afghanistan were authored by al Qaeda operatives or the Taliban. Despite the potentially significant intelligence value of these documents, the U.S. government has been rather lackadaisical in getting the documents translated and analyzed. To date, less than 5% of the documents have been reviewed. So, out of a total of 2 million documents, only about 100,000 documents (give or take) have been reviewed.

This woeful state of affairs came to the attention of Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard last year. Since then he has published numerous articles on what is known about the documents and called for their release. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, bloggers and others have joined in calling for the release of the documents as well. Congressman Peter Hoekstra, who is the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Senator Rick Santorum have carried the ball from there. Each has been pushing for the release of the documents. Finally, in February, President Bush told his staff to release the documents.

Since then, a small collection of documents has been released via the web. Why release these documents to the public now? Well, if the government isn’t going to take the time to look through them, then why not give researchers, the media, bloggers and the public a chance to review them?

The documents are important for a variety of reasons. They give us an unparalleled window into the Iraqi regime’s activities prior to the war. Saddam’s regime was extremely secretive and the truth is that we know little about what the regime was really doing. I think the documents can potentially shed light on Saddam’s Human Rights atrocities, connections to terrorism, what happened to Iraq’s WMD programs, Iraq’s gaming of the UN Oil-for-Food program as well as other issues.

FP: Do we have any idea what is in the Iraqi Intelligence documents regarding Saddam's ties to al Qaeda and global terrorism?

Joscelyn: Yes, we do. But first, a caveat. Since so few of the documents have been reviewed, it is difficult to say what the complete picture of Saddam’s activities will look like. We also know that a large number of documents and other pieces of media were destroyed as U.S. forces entered the country. Furthermore, the majority of the documents have not been authenticated. Great care should be exercised in analyzing these documents and we should always be wary of forgeries.

However, the Iraqi intelligence documents that have been authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community offer a startling view of Saddam’s ties to global terrorism, including al Qaeda.

Sully
04-19-2006, 03:11 PM
Why is this one thread twice as wide as my screen?

mlyonsd
04-19-2006, 03:26 PM
There is zero evidence in this thread that "Bush led us to war with truth," as the topic of this thread pathetically claims. The Frontpage.com article concerns documents captured by American troops after the war was launched. I understand that about the only people who still support President Bush's morally and legally unjustified attack on Iraq like to pretend that President Bush has magical powers, but I think that most of us in the reality-based community do not believe that President Bush could have read documents that hadn't even been captured yet.

It has nothing to do with magical powers but does help determine if the intelligience our own agencies were feeding the administration was accurate. If internal Iraqi documents themselves did exist then it is very possible some of our intel was based on those documents and used to determine what Saddam's actual motives were.

These aren't the only documents that have been declassified and probably won't be the last that show that the administration, Clinton, Gore, and every other politician were correct in that Saddam really was a threat.

banyon
04-19-2006, 03:30 PM
These aren't the only documents that have been declassified and probably won't be the last that show that the administration, Clinton, Gore, and every other politician were correct in that Saddam really was a threat.

Albeit neither an immediate nor an overwhelming one (like Afghanistan).

DanT
04-19-2006, 03:42 PM
It has nothing to do with magical powers but does help determine if the intelligience our own agencies were feeding the administration was accurate. If internal Iraqi documents themselves did exist then it is very possible some of our intel was based on those documents and used to determine what Saddam's actual motives were.

These aren't the only documents that have been declassified and probably won't be the last that show that the administration, Clinton, Gore, and every other politician were correct in that Saddam really was a threat.

What intelligence are you talking about? The article gives no indication that any of the intelligence fed to President Bush by our intelligence agencies can have its accuracy verified by the discussed documents discovered after the war was launched. In fact, it says damn near the opposite:

FP: Why have so many in the U.S. intelligence community been unwilling to honestly investigate Saddam's ties to terrorism?

Joscelyn: This is an interesting question. Saddam had a long history of supporting terrorist groups of various stripes: Iranian and Syrian opposition groups, Palestinian groups, etc. During the first Gulf War, in fact, more than one thousand terrorists converged on Baghdad in a show of support for Saddam. (In this regard, there are many parallels between Saddam’s behavior in 1990 and 2003.) Saddam even attempted to use some of these terrorists in operations, all of which failed miserably, against the West.

After the first Gulf War, however, the U.S. intelligence community appears to have simply assumed that Iraq was no longer a serious player in international terrorism. Even though Saddam made it clear that he would support terrorists against the West when confronted, the U.S. intelligence community was not particularly worried about this possibility. Thus, according to the Senate Intelligence Report (July 2004), we learn that there “was no robust HUMINT [Human Intelligence] collection capability targeting Iraq’s links to terrorism until the Fall of 2002.” Up until then, “HUMINT collection was heavily dependant on a few foreign government services and there were no [redacted] sources inside Iraq reporting on strictly terrorism issues.”

Think about that. From the first Gulf War until 2002 the U.S. intelligence community was asleep at the wheel when it came to Iraq’s ties to terrorism. So, when evidence surfaces showing that the CIA and others may have missed some important developments during that time, it is quite natural for the bureaucrats who oversaw this mess to pretend as if that evidence doesn’t exist. Or, to pretend as if the evidence doesn’t mean anything. Or, to pretend as if they knew what Saddam and bin Laden were thinking and that they could never work together against a common foe.

For example, we are often told that ideology precluded significant cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda. That is, al Qaeda resented Saddam’s secularism and Saddam feared the rise of al Qaeda’s brand of Islamism. Therefore, we are told, even though the two shared the same basic list of enemies (America, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.), ideological differences made sustained tactical cooperation impossible. But, this is an assumption. The U.S. intelligence community did not have significant HUMINT assets inside either the Iraqi regime or al Qaeda. So, how could they actually know what the two sides were thinking?

Now, think back to the first document we discussed above. What does that document tell us about what Saddam and bin Laden were thinking? It tells us that neither bin Laden nor Saddam was letting ideology preclude the possibility of working together, under certain circumstances. This doesn’t mean that we know exactly what came of all these reports, but at the very least we should be wary of the intelligence community’s simple-minded assumptions. There are countless other pieces of evidence like this, but many in the U.S. intelligence would, unfortunately, prefer to assume this evidence away.

Despite the U.S. intelligence community’s poor intelligence collection efforts, the CIA and others did collect evidence of a relationship. But this evidence came primarily from open sources and foreign governments.

patteeu
04-20-2006, 01:24 AM
There is zero evidence in this thread that "Bush led us to war with truth," as the topic of this thread pathetically claims. The Frontpage.com article concerns documents captured by American troops after the war was launched. I understand that about the only people who still support President Bush's morally and legally unjustified attack on Iraq like to pretend that President Bush has magical powers, but I think that most of us in the reality-based community do not believe that President Bush could have read documents that hadn't even been captured yet.

Zero evidence, huh? That's a pretty strong statement and one I don't think you can back up.

If our troops had uncovered a large cache of chemical and biological weapons when they invaded iraq would you claim that that wasn't evidence that Bush told the truth about WMD because he didn't uncover the WMD until after the invasion? Of course not. These documents are evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. They don't prove the case, but they are evidence. One of the claims made by the Bush administration prior to the war was that there were contacts between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda. Just as a cache of WMD would have been evidence that the claims of WMD made by the administration were true, a cache of documents suggesting (at the very least) contacts between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda is evidence that the administration was telling the truth when they claimed such contacts.

patteeu
04-20-2006, 01:25 AM
Albeit neither an immediate nor an overwhelming one (like Afghanistan).

Afghanistan wasn't really an immediate or overwhelming threat either.

Radar Chief
04-20-2006, 07:37 AM
Albeit neither an immediate nor an overwhelming one (like Afghanistan).

Afghanistan wasn't really an immediate or overwhelming threat either.

Though they were harboring and funding the terrorists that are a threat, much the same as Iraq was. ;)

mlyonsd
04-20-2006, 07:38 AM
Albeit neither an immediate nor an overwhelming one (like Afghanistan).

Thank you for your opinion but I'm going to log it into the speculation category.

It's just as much speculation as if I were to say because we invaded Iraq a terrorist attack on Ogalala Nebraska was thwarted.

mlyonsd
04-20-2006, 07:50 AM
What intelligence are you talking about? The article gives no indication that any of the intelligence fed to President Bush by our intelligence agencies can have its accuracy verified by the discussed documents discovered after the war was launched. In fact, it says damn near the opposite:
The notion that Iraq had terrorist ties was being spewed not by just our intelligience community but the entire world's as well.

If you're going to sit there and tell me some of that intelligience is not gathered from within Iraq by agents/informants, whatever I'd have to say you were being naive. Agents/informants that got their information from those in the know, official records, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming this article proves anything. But IMO in the end captured intelligience will prove Saddam was a threat, and since he was given the opportunity to comply but didn't, taking him out was the right course of action.

Time will tell, the cover is not closed on this book, although it seems there are some that want that to happen. It makes me curious about their motives. Why wouldn't they want these kinds of documents to be authentic?

patteeu
04-20-2006, 07:59 AM
Though they were harboring and funding the terrorists that are a threat, much the same as Iraq was. ;)

:thumb:

stevieray
04-20-2006, 08:34 AM
Why wouldn't they want these kinds of documents to be authentic?

personal agenda.

banyon
04-20-2006, 09:18 AM
Afghanistan wasn't really an immediate or overwhelming threat either.

The Taliban had directly attacked us.

How is that not an immediate threat?

banyon
04-20-2006, 09:23 AM
Thank you for your opinion but I'm going to log it into the speculation category.

It's just as much speculation as if I were to say because we invaded Iraq a terrorist attack on Ogalala Nebraska was thwarted.

Right, Iraq was going to...

roll their landers onto the Carolina beaches D-Day style? (No, no navy)

Launch an ICBM at us? (no, no missiles)

Use their massive stockpiles of WMD to infiltrate us and attack a civilian target (no, there were none)

Have Uday and Qusay come at us with some switchblades? (maybe)

Their military might was decimated, their WMD stockpiles were destroyed, and any connections they had to genuine terrorist organizations, if any, was extremely limited and tenuous at best.

All of these attempts at revision are really just a desparate attempt to rationalize what your leader is doing. Objective individuals, including most moderates, can see this clearly.

patteeu
04-20-2006, 09:38 AM
The Taliban had directly attacked us.

How is that not an immediate threat?

The Taliban didn't attack us, al Qaeda did. The Taliban simply lined up on the wrong side of the GWoT divide by refusing to turn Bin Laden and his cronies over to us.

patteeu
04-20-2006, 09:48 AM
Right, Iraq was going to...

roll their landers onto the Carolina beaches D-Day style? (No, no navy)

Launch an ICBM at us? (no, no missiles)

Use their massive stockpiles of WMD to infiltrate us and attack a civilian target (no, there were none)

Have Uday and Qusay come at us with some switchblades? (maybe)

Their military might was decimated, their WMD stockpiles were destroyed, and any connections they had to genuine terrorist organizations, if any, was extremely limited and tenuous at best.

All of these attempts at revision are really just a desparate attempt to rationalize what your leader is doing. Objective individuals, including most moderates, can see this clearly.

It's funny that you post this list immediately after you call the Taliban an immediate threat. The Taliban didn't have a navy or ICBMs or WMD. They were even less capable of striking the US than Iraq. What they both had in common was a willingness to partner with militant irregulars.

banyon
04-20-2006, 10:00 AM
The Taliban didn't attack us, al Qaeda did. The Taliban simply lined up on the wrong side of the GWoT divide by refusing to turn Bin Laden and his cronies over to us.

fair enough, I revise...

The people who directly attacked us were in Afghanistan.

They were an immediate threat.

banyon
04-20-2006, 10:03 AM
It's funny that you post this list immediately after you call the Taliban an immediate threat. The Taliban didn't have a navy or ICBMs or WMD. They were even less capable of striking the US than Iraq. What they both had in common was a willingness to partner with militant irregulars.

What they had was a direct and clear connection to the terrorists who attacked us (viz. they were harboring them).

That was the basis for going in, and 90% of Americans could support that, and mostly still do. Much different than the 30-something% supporting the Iraq clusterf***.

patteeu
04-20-2006, 10:03 AM
fair enough, I revise...

The people who directly attacked us were in Afghanistan.

They were an immediate threat.

Agreed.

patteeu
04-20-2006, 10:09 AM
What they had was a direct and clear connection to the terrorists who attacked us (viz. they were harboring them).

That was the basis for going in, and 90% of Americans could support that, and mostly still do. Much different than the 30-something% supporting the Iraq clusterf***.

Yes, their connection was more direct and more clear, but as we can see from this OP interview, there is some evidence that Saddam had connections to the same terrorists. The fact that these connections haven't been as clearly visible might account for some of the apprehension about the Iraq invasion. Of course, it doesn't help when we have people who are interested primarily in damaging the Bush administration spreading disinformation by claiming that it's been determined that there were no connections between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Ugly Duck
04-20-2006, 10:32 AM
If anything, the administration appears to be unconcerned with justifying it's past actions. That seems rather counterproductive given the current climate in the US. The neocons are polling in the toilet, a majority of Americans feel that they were either lied to or misled, neocon credibility is at an all-time low, and Republicans are extremely concerned about the midterm elections. Now, all of a sudden, documents that could turn all of that around surface - but the administration is unconcerned with justifying it's past actions. These blockbuster documents turn them from liars into truth-tellers, you'd think they'd be trumpeting from the highest tower. Why is that?

mlyonsd
04-20-2006, 10:32 AM
What they had was a direct and clear connection to the terrorists who attacked us (viz. they were harboring them).

That was the basis for going in, and 90% of Americans could support that, and mostly still do. Much different than the 30-something% supporting the Iraq clusterf***.

You make me laugh.

When all the Iraqi internal documents are laid out and IF they are proven to be auththentic and IF they show ties between AQ and Iraq public opinion will swing back to Bush.

It just fascinates me why you don't want us to find proof that Saddam had ties to terrorism. Politics should only go so far when the country's best interests are at stake.

Taco John
04-20-2006, 10:40 AM
Why does Banyon hate America?

patteeu
04-20-2006, 10:47 AM
That seems rather counterproductive given the current climate in the US. The neocons are polling in the toilet, a majority of Americans feel that they were either lied to or misled, neocon credibility is at an all-time low, and Republicans are extremely concerned about the midterm elections. Now, all of a sudden, documents that could turn all of that around surface - but the administration is unconcerned with justifying it's past actions. These blockbuster documents turn them from liars into truth-tellers, you'd think they'd be trumpeting from the highest tower. Why is that?

Could they? Have these documents turned you around?

Maybe the administration is more concerned with getting the job done than with justifying it's past decisions. Maybe they are concerned that some of these documents will be embarassing either to them or to nations that we are hoping to get cooperation from. Maybe they have higher priority tasks for their language experts and they just haven't had the capacity to translate the documents. These are just some of the possibilities. You can believe me when I say that I wish the administration was doing a better job of defending itself against the accusations of the naysayers, the cynics, and the political opportunists. I'm happy that they've decided to release some of these documents to the public. I'd like to see them either release or translate all of them.

DanT
04-20-2006, 10:49 AM
Zero evidence, huh? That's a pretty strong statement and one I don't think you can back up.


...


Of course I can back it up. There isn't a single shred of evidence in that article that any of the information revealed by the captured documents was in the possession of President Bush when he led us to war. In order for there to be evidence that Bush led someone to war with truth in a war that began in March, 2003, you'd have to show that Bush was in possession of that evidence before the war started. You can't do that. Instead, you are left, pathetically, hoping that somehow or another there will come into the possession of the invading troops some information that will vindicate their decision to attack a country with no moral or legal justification.

patteeu
04-20-2006, 11:08 AM
Of course I can back it up. There isn't a single shred of evidence in that article that any of the information revealed by the captured documents was in the possession of President Bush when he led us to war. In order for there to be evidence that Bush led someone to war with truth in a war that began in March, 2003, you'd have to show that Bush was in possession of that evidence before the war started. You can't do that. Instead, you are left, pathetically, hoping that somehow or another there will come into the possession of the invading troops some information that will vindicate their decision to attack a country with no moral or legal justification.

I understand your argument, but it's a weak one. If we had complete knowledge of all the information, both classified and unclassified, on which the administration based it's claims that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda, we could more directly compare these documents to the basis for those claims and determine whether these documents directly support those claims or not, but we don't. The best we can do is compare these documents with the claims themselves to see if they are consistent. The fact that they are, is indirect evidence (i.e. circumstantial evidence) that the President was being truthful. It doesn't prove he was being truthful, but it is evidence that he was. I'll attribute your outrageous position that these documents provide "zero evidence" of the President's truthfulness on the subject to your emotionalism over what is, in your opinion, an immoral and illegal war because I can't bring myself to believe that you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof.

Ugly Duck
04-20-2006, 11:53 AM
Could they? Have these documents turned you around?Nah... Some scrap of paper out of hundreds of thousands from some who-knows-where "source" that somebody "found" somewhere that contradicts lots of serious intelligence work - pooey! If we searched all of the scraps of papers here in the US we could probably find one that says our minds are infected with the ghosts of murdered space aliens. But that won't suddenly mean that Scientology is the true religion and Jesus is not the Messiah. It would just mean that somebody found a scrap of paper.

banyon
04-20-2006, 11:59 AM
Yes, their connection was more direct and more clear, but as we can see from this OP interview, there is some evidence that Saddam had connections to the same terrorists.

This is like saying that Arrowhead Stadium is a closer drive from my house than driving to Olympus Mons on Mars.

The fact that these connections haven't been as clearly visible might account for some of the apprehension about the Iraq invasion.

The connections aren't difficult to discern, they are all but nonexistent. The 9-11 commission concluded that and now this specious piece of journalism is supposed to persuade us otherwise?


Of course, it doesn't help when we have people who are interested primarily in damaging the Bush administration spreading disinformation by claiming that it's been determined that there were no connections between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda.

I guess you are referring to the 9-11 commission. Those terrorists.

banyon
04-20-2006, 12:04 PM
You make me laugh.

When all the Iraqi internal documents are laid out and IF they are proven to be auththentic and IF they show ties between AQ and Iraq public opinion will swing back to Bush.

It just fascinates me why you don't want us to find proof that Saddam had ties to terrorism. Politics should only go so far when the country's best interests are at stake.

glad I can provide you entertainment.

If there is proof and not simply a journalistic rumour (why isn't this all over the news wire?), then I will be happy to review it and incorporate it into my opinion of the War.

Your deperate attempts to clutch at any apparent straw after years of this bulls*** is equally fascinating in its Sissiphyian persistence. (everybody remember the Iraqi general who "proved" that Saddam shipped all of the WMD's to Syria by cargo planes and convoys?)

patteeu
04-20-2006, 12:20 PM
Nah... Some scrap of paper out of hundreds of thousands from some who-knows-where "source" that somebody "found" somewhere that contradicts lots of serious intelligence work - pooey! If we searched all of the scraps of papers here in the US we could probably find one that says our minds are infected with the ghosts of murdered space aliens. But that won't suddenly mean that Scientology is the true religion and Jesus is not the Messiah. It would just mean that somebody found a scrap of paper.

But I thought you described these documents as "documents that could turn all that around" in post 50? I guess you didn't really mean what you said. Could it be that the administration knows that their efforts are more effectively directed at getting the future right rather than at arguing over the past because people like you will go to almost any length to avoid seeing the picture of prewar Iraq that these documents paint?

Thomas Joscelyn recognizes this when he says, "Obviously, this paints a very different picture of prewar Iraq than many would like to see."

BTW, what are you talking about when you say "lots of serious intelligence work?" Do you have specific examples?

DanT
04-20-2006, 12:31 PM
I understand your argument, but it's a weak one. If we had complete knowledge of all the information, both classified and unclassified, on which the administration based it's claims that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda, we could more directly compare these documents to the basis for those claims and determine whether these documents directly support those claims or not, but we don't. The best we can do is compare these documents with the claims themselves to see if they are consistent. The fact that they are, is indirect evidence (i.e. circumstantial evidence) that the President was being truthful. It doesn't prove he was being truthful, but it is evidence that he was. I'll attribute your outrageous position that these documents provide "zero evidence" of the President's truthfulness on the subject to your emotionalism over what is, in your opinion, an immoral and illegal war because I can't bring myself to believe that you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof.

Both evidence and proof for the claim that President Bush led us into the war with truth would have to have the property that it was in the possession of President Bush while he led us into the war. There is ZERO evidence, a fortiori ZERO proof, that President Bush was in possession of any of the information in those captured documents while he led us into the war. If you find a calendar and a kindergarten teacher who can explain to you how time works, you should be able to convince yourself that it is impossible to be in possession of something on March 19, 2003, that you did not possess for the first time until after March 19, 2003. ;)

banyon
04-20-2006, 12:31 PM
Could it be that the administration knows that their efforts are more effectively directed at getting the future right rather than at arguing over the past ?

No, they like to talk about the past when it suits their purposes.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/images/0304-02.jpg
Video image from a President Bush campaign ad entitled 'Tested,' released Wednesday, March 3, 2004, showing the aftermath at the World Trade Center. Bush's re-election campaign is being criticized for using images from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, including wreckage of the World Trade Center

patteeu
04-20-2006, 12:31 PM
The connections aren't difficult to discern, they are all but nonexistent. The 9-11 commission concluded that and now this specious piece of journalism is supposed to persuade us otherwise?

Specious? How can you be so sure? Has your mind closed to the possibility?

The 9/11 commission didn't have access to these Iraqi documents so it would be unfair to hold them accountable for the information contained in them. Nontheless, they didn't find that there were no connections between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda. To the contrary, they found that there WERE indeed connections. Hell, they didn't even find that there was no collaborative relationship, they only concluded that they didn't have evidence of a collaborative relationship. We have new evidence to add to the mix now. It might not be enough to prove such a relationship existed beyond a reasonable doubt, but assuming authenticity, it is surely enough to move us in that direction.

I guess you are referring to the 9-11 commission. Those terrorists.

No. As I mentioned above, the 9/11 commission didn't conclude that there were no connections between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda so it couldn't have been them that I was talking about. The people I have in mind post on ChiefsPlanet, write for progessive blogs, and spin their Bush-hate on TV, but I decided not to name names because I might lump an innocent in among the guilty and I don't feel like doing the research to sort it all out.

DanT
04-20-2006, 12:34 PM
By the way, did we attack Iraq because the administration believed it had ties to Al Qaeda? Was that the reason or a reason?

mlyonsd
04-20-2006, 12:43 PM
I guess you are referring to the 9-11 commission. Those terrorists.
If you're going to reference the 911 commission why don't you get your facts straight?
But the day that report was released, Commissioner John Lehman offered this prophetic warning in an interview with THE WEEKLY STANDARD: "There may well be--and probably will be--additional intelligence coming in from interrogations and from analysis of captured records and so forth which will fill out the intelligence picture. This is not phrased as, nor meant to be, the definitive word on Iraqi Intelligence activities."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp?pg=1

The Commission themselves made it clear their findings at the time could be superseded by new intelligience gained in the future.

I guess maybe only the really partisan folk shut their minds to new information.

banyon
04-20-2006, 12:44 PM
Specious? How can you be so sure? Has your mind closed to the possibility?

The 9/11 commission didn't have access to these Iraqi documents so it would be unfair to hold them accountable for the information contained in them. Nontheless, they didn't find that there were no connections between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda. To the contrary, they found that there WERE indeed connections. Hell, they didn't even find that there was no collaborative relationship, they only concluded that they didn't have evidence of a collaborative relationship. We have new evidence to add to the mix now. It might not be enough to prove such a relationship existed beyond a reasonable doubt, but assuming authenticity, it is surely enough to move us in that direction.



No. As I mentioned above, the 9/11 commission didn't conclude that there were no connections between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda so it couldn't have been them that I was talking about. The people I have in mind post on ChiefsPlanet, write for progessive blogs, and spin their Bush-hate on TV, but I decided not to name names because I might lump an innocent in among the guilty and I don't feel like doing the research to sort it all out.

Your entire article is about how the 9-11 commission was mistaken. Don't try to back out now by splitting a hair on what the nature of the relationship was between Saddam and AQ. Surely, if they were mistaken because they did not have access to these documents, then it is unfair to judge any of the rest of us (even the left-wing bloggers) who didn't have such info either.

To reinforce DanT's earlier point: If Bush did have access to these docs when he made his decision, then why weren't they provided to the 9-11 Commission? Certainly they would have been extremely relevant. That would represent an abrogation of responsibility.

Of course the other way, it's worse, because He didn't have the docs and they just made s*** up. I think that is the more likely scenario by far. It's their MO. See the Lincoln Group for details on how to manufacture propaganda for public consumption.

DanT
04-20-2006, 12:44 PM
Here's an excerpt concerning Al Qaeda from President Bush's 7Oct2002 speech in Cincinnati on the threat from Iraq:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Pitt Gorilla
04-20-2006, 12:45 PM
By the way, did we attack Iraq because the administration believed it had ties to Al Qaeda? Was that the reason or a reason?Great question.

banyon
04-20-2006, 12:45 PM
If you're going to reference the 911 commission why don't you get your facts straight?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp?pg=1

The Commission themselves made it clear their findings at the time could be superseded by new intelligience gained in the future.

I guess maybe only the really partisan folk shut their minds to new information.

I would think that would go without saying. If new intel were discovered, we might revise what happened at Pearl Harbor or the Destruction of the Maine as well.

the Talking Can
04-20-2006, 12:53 PM
Of course I can back it up. There isn't a single shred of evidence in that article that any of the information revealed by the captured documents was in the possession of President Bush when he led us to war. In order for there to be evidence that Bush led someone to war with truth in a war that began in March, 2003, you'd have to show that Bush was in possession of that evidence before the war started. You can't do that. Instead, you are left, pathetically, hoping that somehow or another there will come into the possession of the invading troops some information that will vindicate their decision to attack a country with no moral or legal justification.

you live in the real world...you're seriously wasting your time with patteeu...

patteeu
04-20-2006, 01:02 PM
Both evidence and proof for the claim that President Bush led us into the war with truth would have to have the property that it was in the possession of President Bush while he led us into the war. There is ZERO evidence, a fortiori ZERO proof, that President Bush was in possession of any of the information in those captured documents while he led us into the war. If you find a calendar and a kindergarten teacher who can explain to you how time works, you should be able to convince yourself that it is impossible to be in possession of something on March 19, 2003, that you did not possess for the first time until after March 19, 2003. ;)

Finding a gun registered to you at the scene of a shooting and linking that gun to the crime using ballistics would be evidence that you committed the crime even if we don't know whether or not you were present to pull the trigger. However, it would not be proof that you committed the crime. In the event that you could provide an alibi, it would go a long way toward refuting that evidence but it wouldn't change the fact that it was evidence. You are still confusing proof with evidence.

In the event that the administration provides complete disclosure of all prewar intelligence and we find that none of that intelligence is corroborated by these documents in any way, then the documents' power as evidence that Bush was truthful would be dissipated. Of course, that wouldn't mean that Bush lied, but it would mean that these documents don't have a bearing on the subject.

I agree with you (I presume) that information about what the President was actually told (e.g. "slam dunk") before he made public claims is a more direct and powerful form of evidence that the President led us to war with truth, but that doesn't mean that these documents have zero evidentiary value.

Using your standard, we can never have evidence of truthfulness for any claim based on undisclosed intelligence (or undisclosed communications to the president) no matter how accurate the claim turns out to be. If a claim is made that Saddam is enriching uranium and the invasion results in the discovery of a uranium enrichment site, your position would have to be that that's not evidence of truthfulness unless we have enough knowledge of the underlying intelligence to know for sure that the claim was specifically talking about this particular uranium enrichment site (complete with lat/long coordinates and centrifuge serial numbers I suppose). Like I said, I understand what your argument is but I reject it because your definition of "evidence" is far too narrow to be useful in the real world and, in fact, it is an atypical if not altogether incorrect use of the word.

DanT
04-20-2006, 01:04 PM
you live in the real world...you're seriously wasting your time with patteeu...


patteeu's one of the many fine and honorable gentlemen on this bulletin board. I don't think that there's anyone on this board that I couldn't learn something useful from and if there were such a person, I know for certain that it wouldn't be patteeu, who's both very smart and very committed to what he sees as the truth. He's not even in the same timezone of being a waste of time.

patteeu
04-20-2006, 01:04 PM
No, they like to talk about the past when it suits their purposes.

True enough, but if they recognize that there are a lot of people who have closed their minds to the subject (like you and Ugly apparently), they may have determined that debating the past doesn't suit their purposes nearly as much as getting the future right would.

DanT
04-20-2006, 01:09 PM
Finding a gun registered to you at the scene of a shooting and linking that gun to the crime using ballistics would be evidence that you committed the crime even if we don't know whether or not you were present to pull the trigger. However, it would not be proof that you committed the crime. In the event that you could provide an alibi, it would go a long way toward refuting that evidence but it wouldn't change the fact that it was evidence. You are still confusing proof with evidence.

In the event that the administration provides complete disclosure of all prewar intelligence and we find that none of that intelligence is corroborated by these documents in any way, then the documents' power as evidence that Bush was truthful would be dissipated. Of course, that wouldn't mean that Bush lied, but it would mean that these documents don't have a bearing on the subject.

I agree with you (I presume) that information about what the President was actually told (e.g. "slam dunk") before he made public claims is a more direct and powerful form of evidence that the President led us to war with truth, but that doesn't mean that these documents have zero evidentiary value.

Using your standard, we can never have evidence of truthfulness for any claim based on undisclosed intelligence (or undisclosed communications to the president) no matter how accurate the claim turns out to be. If a claim is made that Saddam is enriching uranium and the invasion results in the discovery of a uranium enrichment site, your position would have to be that that's not evidence of truthfulness unless we have enough knowledge of the underlying intelligence to know for sure that the claim was specifically talking about this particular uranium enrichment site (complete with lat/long coordinates and centrifuge serial numbers I suppose). Like I said, I understand what your argument is but I reject it because your definition of "evidence" is far too narrow to be useful in the real world and, in fact, it is an atypical if not altogether incorrect use of the word.

I might be taking a distinction between truthfulness and accuracy that you are not making, patteeu. Factual evidence gathered after a claim is made can speak to the accuracy of those claims. However, the truthfulness of claims has to do with, it seems to me, what the person making the claim knew at the time the claims were made. A person can have truthfully made claims that turned out not to be accurate, for example. On the other hand, the claim's truthfulness at the time they are made is not something that can be affected one way or the other by factual evidence gathered after the claims were made.

patteeu
04-20-2006, 01:15 PM
By the way, did we attack Iraq because the administration believed it had ties to Al Qaeda? Was that the reason or a reason?

Yes, I believe that that was a reason. My understanding is that they believed there was enough smoke in terms of connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda that there was a real danger that Saddam would go beyond providing training and safe haven to al Qaeda members and might go so far as to provide Bin Laden with the WMD that he had reportedly been seeking for some time.

*why do I sense a DanT news archives smackdown coming on?* LOL

DanT
04-20-2006, 01:17 PM
...

*why do I sense a DanT news archives smackdown coming on?* LOL


Don't worry. I only ask questions when I don't know the answer. I'm not one of those cagey lawyer types. I leave that stuff up to folks like my brother jettio. ;)

DanT
04-20-2006, 01:21 PM
Yes, I believe that that was a reason. My understanding is that they believed there was enough smoke in terms of connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda that there was a real danger that Saddam would go beyond providing training and safe haven to al Qaeda members and might go so far as to provide Bin Laden with the WMD that he had reportedly been seeking for some time.

*why do I sense a DanT news archives smackdown coming on?* LOL

Would you consider the administration's beliefs as described above to be a moral or legal justification for an attack on Iraq?

Baby Lee
04-20-2006, 01:28 PM
You can't have it both ways.
If, in light of the after the fact discovery that there were not WMDs lying around all the Iraq countryside, all the intelligence pro and con before the fact should have been weighted to the negative before the fact, and Bush is a liar for no properly weighting countervailing intelligence.
Then, in light of discovery of documents after the fact evidencing aspirations to form ties between Bin Laden, al qaeda, and Iraq, Bush properly weighed countervailing intelligence before the fact on THAT issue.

banyon
04-20-2006, 01:39 PM
You can't have it both ways.
If, in light of the after the fact discovery that there were not WMDs lying around all the Iraq countryside, all the intelligence pro and con before the fact should have been weighted to the negative before the fact, and Bush is a liar for no properly weighting countervailing intelligence.
Then, in light of discovery of documents after the fact evidencing aspirations to form ties between Bin Laden, al qaeda, and Iraq, Bush properly weighed countervailing intelligence before the fact on THAT issue.

I'm sure this won't surprise you, but I don't see this as trying to have it both ways.

In both cases, we are reviewing the intent of the Administration and their state of mind.

They proclaimed from the highest rooftops (hallmarked by Colin Powell beating his fist on the table at the U.N.) that not only were there WMDS, but they KNEW WHERE THEY WERE. The non-discovery of WMD's after the fact undermines the veracity of their prior claims.

In the latter case, the administration also proclaimed (memorably by Cheney) that they knew of the high level connections and working relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. These newly discovered documents, if they exist and are genuine, do not do anything to reinforce the fact that Cheney and co. KNEW of the relationship, since they were not in possession of such docs and there is no evidence that they were (although I believe DanT already made this point).

One undercuts their previous allegations, the other doesn't yet support thier prior allegations.

mlyonsd
04-20-2006, 01:51 PM
I'm sure this won't surprise you, but I don't see this as trying to have it both ways.

In both cases, we are reviewing the intent of the Administration and their state of mind.

They proclaimed from the highest rooftops (hallmarked by Colin Powell beating his fist on the table at the U.N.) that not only were there WMDS, but they KNEW WHERE THEY WERE. The non-discovery of WMD's after the fact undermines the veracity of their prior claims.

In the latter case, the administration also proclaimed (memorably by Cheney) that they knew of the high level connections and working relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. These newly discovered documents, if they exist and are genuine, do not do anything to reinforce the fact that Cheney and co. KNEW of the relationship, since they were not in possession of such docs and there is no evidence that they were (although I believe DanT already made this point).

One undercuts their previous allegations, the other doesn't yet support thier prior allegations.

If that's the case we can save a whole bunch of money by getting rid of all our intelligience agencies.

Their job is to piece together all the little snipets gathered throughout the world and assess their value and meaning, then present a picture of current events.

From what I gather you're saying Bush shouldn't have acted on the intelligience before him because he didn't have said Iraqi documents that proved Iraq's intent in his hands.

patteeu
04-20-2006, 01:54 PM
Your entire article is about how the 9-11 commission was mistaken. Don't try to back out now by splitting a hair on what the nature of the relationship was between Saddam and AQ. Surely, if they were mistaken because they did not have access to these documents, then it is unfair to judge any of the rest of us (even the left-wing bloggers) who didn't have such info either.

To reinforce DanT's earlier point: If Bush did have access to these docs when he made his decision, then why weren't they provided to the 9-11 Commission? Certainly they would have been extremely relevant. That would represent an abrogation of responsibility.

Of course the other way, it's worse, because He didn't have the docs and they just made s*** up. I think that is the more likely scenario by far. It's their MO. See the Lincoln Group for details on how to manufacture propaganda for public consumption.

No one is suggesting that the 9/11 commission or the President had access to these documents prior to the war, but it's a false choice to suggest that if Bush didn't have these documents he must have just been making s*** up.

My criticism of unnamed Chiefsplanet posters, progressive bloggers, and others is that they mistakenly take the 9/11 commission findings to mean that there was either no connection at all between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda or that there was no collaborative connection between the two. The commission didn't come to either of those conclusions. It actually did find connections and while it found no evidence of collaborative connections, it didn't rule them out.

Baby Lee
04-20-2006, 01:54 PM
I'm sure this won't surprise you, but I don't see this as trying to have it both ways.

In both cases, we are reviewing the intent of the Administration and their state of mind.

They proclaimed from the highest rooftops (hallmarked by Colin Powell beating his fist on the table at the U.N.) that not only were there WMDS, but they KNEW WHERE THEY WERE. The non-discovery of WMD's after the fact undermines the veracity of their prior claims.

In the latter case, the administration also proclaimed (memorably by Cheney) that they knew of the high level connections and working relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. These newly discovered documents, if they exist and are genuine, do not do anything to reinforce the fact that Cheney and co. KNEW of the relationship, since they were not in possession of such docs and there is no evidence that they were (although I believe DanT already made this point).

One undercuts their previous allegations, the other doesn't yet support thier prior allegations.
Oh, you're one of those "I was betrayed because I thought that the admin was metaphysically certain of all this stuff, . . . but I knew all along they were lying" types.

Sorry, I was coming from the POV of a rational person who knew that this was a matter for probabilities based on the best intelligence human [read fallible] efforts could collect on a secretive and hostile country.

patteeu
04-20-2006, 02:15 PM
Would you consider the administration's beliefs as described above to be a moral or legal justification for an attack on Iraq?

I think the (presumably) reasonable belief that he was harboring al Qaeda fighters who had fled Afghanistan combined with his resistance to the UN disarmament efforts, his attacks on our no-fly patrols, his pension plan for the families of palestinian bombers, among other things make it justified, IMO. That doesn't mean it is necessarily the best option.

If the only reason were the beliefs I described, then I'd probably say no on the justification question.

patteeu
04-20-2006, 02:32 PM
I'm sure this won't surprise you, but I don't see this as trying to have it both ways.

In both cases, we are reviewing the intent of the Administration and their state of mind.

They proclaimed from the highest rooftops (hallmarked by Colin Powell beating his fist on the table at the U.N.) that not only were there WMDS, but they KNEW WHERE THEY WERE. The non-discovery of WMD's after the fact undermines the veracity of their prior claims.

In the latter case, the administration also proclaimed (memorably by Cheney) that they knew of the high level connections and working relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. These newly discovered documents, if they exist and are genuine, do not do anything to reinforce the fact that Cheney and co. KNEW of the relationship, since they were not in possession of such docs and there is no evidence that they were (although I believe DanT already made this point).

One undercuts their previous allegations, the other doesn't yet support thier prior allegations.


While this thread is about Bush, could you refresh my memory as to what Cheney proclaimed?

---------------------------

Hypothetical:

Bush says before the war that he has reason to believe that Iraq is training al Qaeda operatives in the basement of the tower of babylon without telling us how he knows and you are asked to bet on whether or not Bush is telling the truth. You bet $X.

Scenario 1) The USArmy invades. Subsequently, they find that the basement of the tower of babylon had been converted to a chinese restaurant decades before and EVERYONE in town is aware of this. It is completely unfit to be used as a terrorist training facility. Given the opportunity to change your bet by $Y, would you be more likely to increase your bet that Bush was telling the truth or decrease it?

Scenario 2) The USArmy invades. Subsequently, they find that the basement of the tower of babylon is exactly as Bush described and there are detailed records of training sessions for al Qaeda operatives found at the front desk. Given the opportunity to change your bet by $Y, would you be more likely to increase your bet that Bush was telling the truth or decrease it?

patteeu
04-20-2006, 02:39 PM
I might be taking a distinction between truthfulness and accuracy that you are not making, patteeu. Factual evidence gathered after a claim is made can speak to the accuracy of those claims. However, the truthfulness of claims has to do with, it seems to me, what the person making the claim knew at the time the claims were made. A person can have truthfully made claims that turned out not to be accurate, for example. On the other hand, the claim's truthfulness at the time they are made is not something that can be affected one way or the other by factual evidence gathered after the claims were made.

I agree that that's what is happening here. That's why I'm distinguishing between evidence and proof. Evidence tends to make a proposition more or less likely. Proof is determinative. I agree that even if these documents exactly duplicate claims made by Bush that it's still possible that Bush lied and just got extremely lucky. Similarly, even if there isn't evidence of a single WMD or Iraqi-al Qaeda link found, it's still possible that Bush was telling the truth. If we knew exactly what Bush was told and how he processed that information, we would know whether he lied or told the truth regardless of the post-invasion discoveries. Absent that information, post-invasion discoveries impact the probablity that Bush either lied or told the truth.

banyon
04-20-2006, 03:37 PM
From what I gather you're saying Bush shouldn't have acted on the intelligience before him because he didn't have said Iraqi documents that proved Iraq's intent in his hands.

Not at all. I'm saying there is no evidence Bush had any documents or was even aware of any document's existence which would have buttressed his claims.

banyon
04-20-2006, 03:39 PM
Oh, you're one of those "I was betrayed because I thought that the admin was metaphysically certain of all this stuff, . . . but I knew all along they were lying" types.

Sorry, I was coming from the POV of a rational person who knew that this was a matter for probabilities based on the best intelligence human [read fallible] efforts could collect on a secretive and hostile country.

Yes. When someone says that they "know" something. I take that to mean that they are not just speculating and that they have legitimate evidence by someone besides the people they paid to make it up.

mlyonsd
04-20-2006, 03:44 PM
Not at all. I'm saying there is no evidence Bush had any documents or was even aware of any document's existence which would have buttressed his claims.

Like I said, you make me laugh.

banyon
04-20-2006, 04:01 PM
Here's one For patteeu's viewing pleasure

By Dick "The Penguin" Cheney:

If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11 . . .

So what we do on the ground in Iraq, our capabilities here are being tested in no small measure, but this is the place where we want to take on the terrorists. This is the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States, and it’s far more appropriate for us to do it there and far better for us to do it there than it is here at home.

Meet the Press 9/14/2003

banyon
04-20-2006, 04:19 PM
Like I said, you make me laugh.

Does that qualify as a comeback in Spink?

patteeu
04-20-2006, 04:47 PM
Here's one For patteeu's viewing pleasure

By Dick "The Penguin" Cheney:

If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11 . . .

So what we do on the ground in Iraq, our capabilities here are being tested in no small measure, but this is the place where we want to take on the terrorists. This is the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States, and it’s far more appropriate for us to do it there and far better for us to do it there than it is here at home.

Meet the Press 9/14/2003

This reflects the continuing and often willful confusion on the part of Cheney critics as to what the GWoT is all about. We aren't narrowly focused on the actual perpetrators of 9/11. We aren't even narrowly focused exclusively on al Qaeda. The GWoT is an effort to combat militant islamism (aka islamofascism) and it is broader than Bin Laden and al Qaeda. But even if we ignore that and focus exclusively on al Qaeda, we would see that al Qaeda members come from all over the middle east. There are also some from south asia, africa and southeast asia, but the movement is in large part centered on the middle east. The base from which al Qaeda draws it's membership and it's philosophical guidance is the middle east and Iraq is smack dab in the middle of that base. That's what Cheney was talking about. Your quote doesn't have anything to do with Saddam collaborating with Bin Laden on the 9/11 attacks.

patteeu
04-20-2006, 04:53 PM
*why do I sense a DanT news archives smackdown coming on?* LOL

BTW, I should make it clear that this was supposed to be a compliment to DanT's awesome research ability and my sense that he was about to kick my ass. Upon rereading it, I thought it might be mistaken as me laughing at him, instead of nervous laughter. :)

Chief Henry
04-20-2006, 06:21 PM
BTW, I should make it clear that this was supposed to be a compliment to DanT's awesome research ability and my sense that he was about to kick my ass. Upon rereading it, I thought it might be mistaken as me laughing at him, instead of nervous laughter. :)


Dan T is truley gifted at his research for sure. I think he's one of the best people of this board myself.

Now, I'm getting ready to leave the office now, but I would like to
invite people to google "George Sadas" and do some research on this man
and his knowledge of this conversation you guys have been having.

Radar Chief
04-21-2006, 07:49 AM
BTW, I should make it clear that this was supposed to be a compliment to DanT's awesome research ability and my sense that he was about to kick my ass. Upon rereading it, I thought it might be mistaken as me laughing at him, instead of nervous laughter. :)


I’m sure he knows you’re joke’n. I’ve called’im “Mr. Information Overload” before and he got a laugh out of it. ;)

mlyonsd
04-21-2006, 08:34 AM
Does that qualify as a comeback in Spink?

Sorry, it seems I might have touched a nerve.

I just think it's funny that you seem to want to tie the hands of a President when it comes to national security. You seem to think he should not take into account what our intelligience agencies are telling him.

The administration claimed Saddam had ties to AQ and other terrorist groups. I believe they got that notion from our own and other intelligience agencies. They were presented intelligience reports you and I might not ever see.

But if in the end internal Iraqi documents are authenticated and show ties to terrorism we should all be glad the administration read their intel the way they did and acted accordingly.

No matter what party you are affiliated with.

mlyonsd
04-21-2006, 08:36 AM
That's what Cheney was talking about. Your quote doesn't have anything to do with Saddam collaborating with Bin Laden on the 9/11 attacks.

Exactly. In these statements Cheney is not tying the 911 attacks to Iraq.

banyon
04-21-2006, 11:52 AM
Sorry, it seems I might have touched a nerve.

Not really. :) If I didn't like to argue, then I wouldn't be here. I was just funnin' ya with the Spink thing.

I just think it's funny that you seem to want to tie the hands of a President when it comes to national security. You seem to think he should not take into account what our intelligience agencies are telling him.

I guess all of these straw men you are setting up won't knock themselves down.

Yes. I don't want our president to use intel.

Of course, no one would hold that view. But I don't think that our president should use info that is speculative at best and then relay it to the public as a certainty. That is IMO the height of dishonesty in such an important matter.

The administration claimed Saddam had ties to AQ and other terrorist groups. I believe they got that notion from our own and other intelligience agencies. They were presented intelligience reports you and I might not ever see.

Ok. But the 9-11 commission should have seen them. They had access to classified info and had secret hearings.

But if in the end internal Iraqi documents are authenticated and show ties to terrorism we should all be glad the administration read their intel the way they did and acted accordingly.

No matter what party you are affiliated with.

If they prove that the administration was justified in their dramatic presentation of the "facts" then I'll be on board.

Nightwish
04-21-2006, 01:32 PM
I love that you rely on a single story from a rag started by none other than David Horowitz, perhaps the least credible man in all of academia, a scholarly McCarthy if there ever was one.

Some of his beliefs:

No single group is clearly responsible for slavery
No single group benefited exclusively from its fruits
I'm not sure why you bolded these two statements, as both of them are true. For one thing, "whites" is not a single group, it represents several different ethnicities, some of whom didn't have it much better than the slaves did in those times (see: Irish, Hungarians). But even if we do lump all American whites into one category, there are still at least three distinct groups who were responsible for slavery: the American whites who bought them from the Dutch; the Dutch who bought them in Africa and shipped them to America; and the warring African tribes who originally enslaved and sold the tribes they conquered to the Dutch in the first place. As for who benefited from slavery, though Horowitz was talking about further down the line, about who is now benefitting from wealth originally created by slave labor, there were other groups who benefited from it directly at the time. For instance, the Chinese were allowed to dominate the paid positions in the railroad industry, in no small part because slavery kept the blacks out of the public and government work forces.

Only a minority of white Americans owned slaves
This is true

Most of today's Americans have no connection (direct or indirect) to slavery
I'm not real sure about this one. I think he may be basing this on the fact that Irish is the largest single ethnic bloodline in America, with over 75% of Americans having at least some Irish blood, and the Irish didn't own slaves. However, if that is what he is basing the claim on, it incorrectly assumes that this means that 75% of Americans are full-blooded Irish, which isn't true.

Reparations to other ethnic groups were justified by direct, not historical, injury
Mostly true, afaik, although I have heard that some Jewish groups have tried to sue for historical damages against the Jewish people committed centuries ago.

Not all African-American descendants of slaves suffer from the economic consequences of slavery
This is probably true, technically, as there are bound to be a few who have never had to work longer or harder to rise above the "condition" of being an African-American, though I'd wager that most of those who have managed to move to the other side of the tracks, so to speak, had to work a bit harder to do it than their white counterparts.

The reparations claim promotes a victim mentality in the African-American community
I agree with this comment 100%

African Americans have already received substantial economic aid
Also true. About the only ethnic group for which there aren't grants and scholarships based on their ethnicity is "whites."

African Americans also owe social debts to America
This is true of today's blacks.

The reparations claim threatens to increase divisions between the African-American community and the rest of America
I agree

What about the debt blacks owe to America—to white America—for liberating them from slavery?- from "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks—and Racist Too," an article in FrontPageMagazine.com, January 3, 2001.
Technically true, perhaps, but in my opinion, liberating blacks from slavery was the payment of a debt in and of itself, so the blacks don't owe anything to "white America" for that.

oh that's right, the Earth is 6000 years old...:shake:
Unless I'm mistaken, I'm pretty sure that patteeu isn't a Christian, and likewise not a YECer.

Nightwish
04-21-2006, 01:39 PM
P.S. Horowitz might not have published the interview if it didn't say things he likes, but given that he did publish it, and given that we haven't seen any complaints from Thomas Joscelyn that his words were doctored, the credibility issue should be based on Joscelyn's credibility, not Horowitz's (even though IMO Horowitz doesn't have a credibility problem anyway).I don't know much about Horowitz, nor about Joscelyn personally, but I do know that the Weekly Standard has been on this same kick for a long time now, popping out new versions of the same old line about "recently discovered secret documents" that prove Saddam was in cahoots with bin Laden, on nearly a weekly basis for the past year or two. The fact that they haven't managed to convince many other sources to pick up their story, and that the documents they keep referring to are still mostly under wraps (WS keeps claiming they know what's in them, though nobody else does) and most of them are still not translated, makes me reticent to give much credence to anything that anybody from the Weekly Standard has to say on the subject. The fact that Bill Kristol is a central figurehead in the neocon movement, and the Weekly Standard is its unabashed mouthpiece doesn't help matters much either.

This particular piece from the OP seems to make some stretches that are not expressed or necessarily even implied by the alleged wording of the document in question. The author makes the leap that "Arab Afghans" necessarily means al Qaeda. He also curiously states that it is "worthy of note" that after bin Laden allegedly asked for Saddam's aid in attacking US forces in Saudi Arabia (the author admits they don't know if Saddam agreed or not), al Qaeda was involved in a series of bombings in Saudi. I'm curious why that is supposed to be interesting.