Powell on Iraq

[fansince62]

art...the assertion is ridiculous in the extreme...given the differing legal systems and prevailing social protections in both countries........haven't had time to read the Iraqi 4th amednment, but I'm sure i'll find it someplace...hell....we can't even track who comes into the country.....

[Art]

Code.....

"To jump on to what The Kurp said about The Old Bush and Clinton.... I agree. How did Saddam get many of his weapons?? From the US of course. That's a fact. At one time, Saddam was useful to our government, now he isn't, funny, shouldn't they have thought about that back then?"

Are you saying that a nation should never shift alliances with other nations ever? What you're saying here is that if a nation is our enemy, it should always be our enemy. We can never have it become our friend. Not ever. This is exactly what the left does when they say, "Yeah, well, we were the ones that helped him." Yes, some 20 years ago when we were angry at Iran for holding our people hostage we decided we liked Iraq better than Iran and helped them out. As Saddam's cruelty and brand of leadership displayed itself as something we could no longer decide was a lesser evil than a greater evil and was just as great an evil, we altered our stance.

Just as we were allies with Russia once, and then enemies for years, and now, largely friends again. But, according to the left, there's no such thing as a changing global landscape or changing national alliances. Not a single weapon we are presently concerned about with Saddam has come from us. At one time Saddam was useful to our government. That doesn't mean he must be for all time. It also doesn't mean that a country that wasn't useful to our government can never be. Do members of the left even realize how sadly ineffective it is to say it's somehow bad that nations have shifting alliances as circumstance changes? Is this really an indictment of a nation, of one's own intellectual dishonesty?

The Soviet Union once was useful to our government as well, wasn't it?

"Art...

Here you go taking every word to the letter.... I put your name in "quotes"... I was not saying YOU literally, I could have said "john" or "jay"..."

I know Code. And, did you not see how I used the same "Art" to talk back to you? You are going to get snippy over being taken literally, then perhaps you should read more closely so as not to do the same to others that you claim is done to you, eh?

"And just because you say something, I should NOT automatically take it as truth. I have never met you, I have never so much as talked to you on the phone....(please NOTE: the following is not to be taken literally...) for all I know, you could be a woman.

So to say that I SHOULD take everything you say as the truth is a little preachy and arrogant. "

Preachy and arrogant, sure. Also true. You should take everything I write as true until you can invalidate it as something else. Not to do so is insulting, and jaded to assume "Art" (not the quotes again) is automatically guilty until you can prove him innocent. Were you a judge for the Inquisition in another life? As a person you should believe your fellow man (or woman) until you have reason not to believe them. That you don't actually makes you preachy and arrogant as well I suppose .

"You make the point about Saddam being dead... again, When I say Saddam, I am referring to him as well as those around him that would carry on his nutbagness if he died.... So NO, even if he is killed, you cannot guarentee that the threat is no longer there. Saddam is not a one man show, he has to have a very large inner circle in order to create the fear in the Iraqi people that everyone speaks of."

You said Saddam and his gang, did you not? I said yes and no in response to the validity of what you said, did I not? The no part was that if Saddam is dead, Saddam can no longer be a threat. Is it precisely true or not that a dead man can not sanction a biological, chemical or nuclear act of terrorism? You know the answer. As for his gang, many of them will likewise be dead. As for his weapons, many of them will likely be destroyed. More will be under our control during occupation. By killing Saddam you largely end the threat of Iraq. You don't wipe it out, but you largely end the immediate worry over the nation-state acting with weapons of mass destruction.

But, don't even think deeply on it. Saddam, once dead, no longer provides a threat. Is there any way you can state the opposite with a straight face?

"There are MANY ( I didn't say majority) people who think that going into Iraq is fighting someone else's war."

There are many (I didn't say majority) people who think Texas is the nation south of the United States. That doesn't make the thought valid. It doesn't make it a reasonable statement. It remains false. That a person may possibly think it is fine. They can believe intensely that something is right. But, reality dictates the opposite and that can't be dismissed. That you are apparently still a person who thinks Texas is the country south of the U.S. is what gets you called an idiot when you express it. You understand the distinction I've made, right?

"I am still totally 100% convinced that we are going in MORE (not solely) for fear of attacks on other MiddleEast countries or Saddam's own people. Sure, if they have WMD, they can sneak something the US, but so can any other nutcase, but Saddam has the ability to attack neighboring countries, or to light up the oilfields. You can say what you want, but I won't change my opinion on that."

If we were worried about Saddam striking at any of his neighbors or his own people we would back off, tell him we're not going to do anything and let him be comfortable in the fact that he's safe and when Saddam is safe and in power -- cut off at the knees as he is, he is no danger to strike at anyone within his region even as he plots to strike at us -- as with the assassination attempt on President Bush.

In fact, the very fact we are going in to END Saddam makes it MORE likely he will strike out in any area he can strike before he dies. So, what you contend is we are concerned deeply about something we are likely to cause? Do you even think this stuff through man? We care about us. U.S.

[TheKurp]

Art,

Your ENTIRE argument is based on the premise that what we've been told by Powell, and that what has been shared by the press, is the absolute truth. That NO assumptions have been made based on interpretations of intelligence reports, and construed to be fact.

Pretty gullible there for someone who writes intelligently.

The New York local police had al Qaeda members in jail in 1990. They were told by the F.B.I. to release them despite evidence that they were operating as a terrorist cell. Three years later some of those same men were implicated in the WTC bombing. How's that for knowingly harboring terrorists?

Or perhaps your underlying argument is based on quibbling about "covert" verses "knowing". If government bureaucracy is designed to prevent those at the top from "knowing", then I suppose I'd have to acquiesce to your definition of "covert". On the other hand, ignorance is not a legitimate defense now, is it?

Let me explain.

The Justice Department puts the prosecution of individual perpetrators--with all the rights to a fair trial guaranteed by the U.S. judicial system--above America's national security interest in determining who may be behind terrorist attacks. Questions of state sponsorship that are of pressing interest to national security agencies are typically relegated to a distant second place, or never properly addressed at all, because the national security agencies are denied critical information. In particular, whenever early arrests are made regarding a terrorist incident on American soil, the U.S. government cannot properly address both the national security question of state sponsorship and the criminal question of the guilt or innocence of individual perpetrators at the same time.

Yes, it IS a double standard when in hindsight, we could have done more to prevent terrorist attacks on our own soil. Yet we didn't. Now we want to raise the bar higher for Iraq and present "iffy" evidence about Sadaam's involvement with al Qaeda. In case you've missed it, al Qaeda is operating within the borders of Iraq, but in an area outside the immidiate control of Sadaam's government. Hell, Sadaam can't even effectively control the Kurds within Iraq's borders. Why is he expected to rid Iraq of al Qaeda operating in the same area?

Listen, perhaps we should revisit the beginning of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam for you to grasp my skepticism of this administration's insistance of a direct link between Sadaam and al Qaeda. The two situations present some compelling similarities.

We all learned in school, at least those of us who studied the Vietnam war, that what ultimately sparked our involvement was the attack by the VC on a U.S. vessel in the Gulf of Tonkin. In fact, there were two attacks. In the first, a single bullet from a North Vietnamese torpedo boat struck the Maddox, an American destroyer. Two days later, the Maddox reported that it was under fire from no less than 26 torpedoes aimed at it from enemy boats. A day later the U.S. retaliated by unleashing 30,000 tons of TNT on the North Vietnamese city of Vinh.

That's the brief version. What was omitted was the fact that not one of those 26 torpedoes found their mark, or any mark. In fact, no evidence could be found of a single torpedo in the water. Also, another American destroyer the Turner Joy, despite being in the same waters as the Maddox, didn't not record on sonar any of the 26 torpedoes. Jet fighters, launched from the Ticonderoga, flew over the sight of the "battle" and according to one pilot, spotted "Not a ship, not the outline of a ship, not a wake. Not a reflection, not the light of a single tracer bullet. Nothing."

Yet the President went before the American public and simply said the U.S. had been attacked by the communist North Vietnamese. He also, based on this incident, approached Congress and got them to pass what became known as the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which gave the President war powers without first seeking the approval of Congress.

Prior to this "incident", the American public was largely divided over whether the U.S. should go to war in Vietnam. After Johnson appeared on t.v. , a Harris poll showed that 85 percent of the public favored war.

Fast forward to the present. Earlier in this thread I posted an article by the New York Times. I'll repeat a short snippet for your benefit.

Some analysts at the CIA have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said.

You choose to ignore the possibility that Powell is overstating Sadaam's involvement with al Qaeda. Based on what, I have no idea.

I, on the other hand, have read too many past accounts of government manipulation of facts and evidence to accept without question, information that is designed to persuade me to think in a particular way. I choose to think and believe based on input from a number of hopefully unbiased sources.

While I give you credit for a wordy response to my last post, most of it I found to be weak in thought. Something I'm not used to from you.

Perhaps next time you'll do better. I'll wait with bated breath.

[Kilmer17]

So now we need to prove that our proof is real?

al queda has been operating in Iraq for a while. Those are facts presented by Powell.

Furthermore, other terrorist organizations are there as well. Hamas, Isl. Jihad, Hezbollah have offices, or have held meetings in BAGHDAD, not northern Iraq, but BAGHDAD.

It's a very convenient argument to say that our own Govt is lying everytime they offer evidence to refute your beliefs.

I find it scary that anyone would believe Saddam Hussein is telling the truth while Colin Powell is lying.

[TheKurp]

Kilmer,

Go back a few responses. Read the article by the New York Times.

Those are NOT my words.

And the VC attacked the Maddox. That is fact. However the evidence was a single bullet.

Sometimes what's revealed as fact isn't as important as what isn't revealed.

[redman]

Kurp,

I don't get anything about where you're coming from, other than the very strong impression that you're so against war in general, or destest Bush/Republicans so much, that you'll take any position in opposition to them.

Take this quote of yours for example:

Originally posted by TheKurp

The New York local police had al Qaeda members in jail in 1990. They were told by the F.B.I. to release them despite evidence that they were operating as a terrorist cell. Three years later some of those same men were implicated in the WTC bombing. How's that for knowingly harboring terrorists?

So you're comparing that situation to the Taliban harboring al Qaeda? You aren't that stupid, so the question is are you that intellectually dishonest?

You should be proud that you live in a country that is as slow to anger as ours is. It's literally taken more than 20 years of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism against our country for us to actually realize that there are a number of well-organized, well-funded and motivated people out there who think they've been fighting a war against us whether we want to acknowledge them and their fight or not. Our failure to figure this out and come to grips with it is our fault, but the process was accelerated a great deal by 9/11.

However, pointing out how in 1990 we failed to identify the true nature and extent of a Middle-Eastern Islamic terrorist organization and treat them accordingly was simply a part of our learning curve, and has absolutely nothing to do with hypocrisy. It's like accusing the U.S. government of failing to pre-emptively attack Japan in the 1920's when their regional aggression and resentment of us was increasing, but well before they actually launched the "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor.

Your hindsight here is 20/20; I cannot say the same about the sharpness of your wisdom or your intellectual honesty.

[redman]

Originally posted by TheKurp

Sometimes what's revealed as fact isn't as important as what isn't revealed.

Fair enough. What hasn't been revealed that is important to the debate, such that your opposition to war is justified?

[fansince62]

.

Yes, it IS a double standard when in hindsight, we could have done more to prevent terrorist attacks on our own soil. Yet we didn't. Now we want to raise the bar higher for Iraq and present "iffy" evidence about Sadaam's involvement with al Qaeda. In case you've missed it, al Qaeda is operating within the borders of Iraq, but in an area outside the immidiate control of Sadaam's government. Hell, Sadaam can't even effectively control the Kurds within Iraq's borders. Why is he expected to rid Iraq of al Qaeda operating in the same area?

- no....all you're asserting is what you know from public sources during fixed time frames.

The Justice Department puts the prosecution of individual perpetrators--with all the rights to a fair trial guaranteed by the U.S. judicial system--above America's national security interest in determining who may be behind terrorist attacks. Questions of state sponsorship that are of pressing interest to national security agencies are typically relegated to a distant second place, or never properly addressed at all, because the national security agencies are denied critical information. In particular, whenever early arrests are made regarding a terrorist incident on American soil, the U.S. government cannot properly address both the national security question of state sponsorship and the criminal question of the guilt or innocence of individual perpetrators at the same time.

- an interesting twist on DOJ that one wouldn't expect. Again, how do you know such information isn't being generated and isn't being shared?

, on the other hand, have read too many past accounts of government manipulation of facts and evidence to accept without question, information that is designed to persuade me to think in a particular way. I choose to think and believe based on input from a number of hopefully unbiased sources.

- how can you do so if you aren't part of the process? which is clear from your posts. you are condemned to relying on second hand sources no matter what the political dispositon or "factual" content. what, in the end, is an unbiased source? I love your point because I happen to feel just the same about advocates from various politically "conscientious" groups such as environmentalists, equal righters, pro-lifers....etc. There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that they also manufacture facts, fabricate truths and dissemble. effin' great question Kurp......short of direct personal experience or participation, where does one find unbiased sources? does unbiased mean universal acceptance by all involved in the process - as you seem to imply? are you appliing legal standards of evidentiary rigor? or are unbiased sources the groups you are predisposed to agree with in the first place?

it's great to raise probing questions even if they are based on feelings rather than insider knowledge (post hoc ergo propter hoc is not the firmest foundation to stand on...btw). now lets explore what the standards for "truth" are so we can get out of this intellectual holding pattern.

[TheKurp]

Okay Redmen, let me take another tack or another approach if you will.

I believe that government officials, under any administration, will seek to manipulate public opinion to justify actions taken, or about to be taken, that might evoke concerted protests.

This current administration has long sought to establish a link between Sadaam and al Qaeda. Why? Because to do so would certainly go a long way to convert skeptics, or at least keep them quiet when we go to war with Iraq. Al Qaeda evokes emotion from the American public, as well as our allies, because of the 9-11 tragedy.

To capitalize on this emotion, it would be a coup for the Bush administration to firmly establish a link between Sadaam and al Qaeda in order to garner the same type of public support as was evident in the Gulf War.

I don't think Powell has done a convincing job, at least from my perspective. I've offered reasons why I feel this way. Feel free to disagree. Not that I have to tell you that.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by redman

Fair enough. What hasn't been revealed that is important to the debate, such that your opposition to war is justified?

I should apologize. I was debating here on this thread under the mistaken assumption that I had earlier stated that I am not in opposition to war with Iraq.

In reviewing my posts, I now realize that I stated that in another thread.

So now you know.

But be aware that I have not bought into every justification brought forward by Powell. I was convinced about the need to commit U.S. forces prior to Powell's announcement.

I'm just taking issue with the link to al Qaeda, which I feel is a somewhat questionable attempt by Powell to manipulate public opinion.

[Mad Mike]

It sounds to me that the only unbiased and trustworthy sources TheKurp believes are those that he agrees with.

TheKurp, have you given a moments thought to the fact that it may be the Iraqi's and Sadam who are lying? Or is it only our government you distrust?

And since all actions and/or in-actions cary consequences, which choice do you suppose caries the greater threat to the U.S. should your choice of who to believe is wrong? Could you live with yourself if as President you saw the posibility of a grave threat, did nothing and it meant the loss of thousands or millions of American lives?

You have stated that "government officials, under any administration, will seek to manipulate public opinion to justify actions taken". Fine, then this must apply to Iraq as well. So given the fact that without first person information to confirm ether story you have chosen to believe that your government is misusing, misinterpreting or fabricating information. Where is YOUR evidence that this is the case? Because if you are going to claim that America's past actions prove they are repeating their mistake then you MUST place the same burden on Iraq. If Sadam tried to attack america by his attempt to assasinate an american president once, he WILL attack us again.

Are you begining to see the hypocricy of your stance yet? :doh:

[Art]

Kurp.....

"Your ENTIRE argument is based on the premise that what we've been told by Powell, and that what has been shared by the press, is the absolute truth. That NO assumptions have been made based on interpretations of intelligence reports, and construed to be fact. Pretty gullible there for someone who writes intelligently."

Is it my take that in order to remain intellectually honest one must believe the words of the leaders of Iraq on some equal ground with the words of the leaders of the U.S.? That doesn't seem intellectual or honest or even reasonable. My "entire" argument, though, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the premise that what we've been told by Powell is true or false. The entire argument I've made is based on the premise that there's a difference between what we're saying Iraq is doing and what Iraq knows and what we know we did or knew. I've only said repeatedly that the Al Qaeda connection is, for me, the weakest and least meaningful piece of "evidence" we say we have. So, I'm not sure how much more intellectual you want me to be. I've already said it's not important to me in the scheme of this conversation. We remain, though, able to question the intellectual statements you've made that draw some comparison between the charges we may be making regarding Iraq and the situation we may experience here, or in any country in the world, including Iraq. There's a difference, and you know it and you're not being honest not to admit it.

"The New York local police had al Qaeda members in jail in 1990. They were told by the F.B.I. to release them despite evidence that they were operating as a terrorist cell. Three years later some of those same men were implicated in the WTC bombing. How's that for knowingly harboring terrorists?"

As I said, it's incumbent upon you to provide the information you say supports your position. So do so. Given the lack of logic you've shown in drawing your conclusions based upon the obvious difference in what Powell is talking about and what you were saying is the case, I'd simply ask you to provide support for what you say in this paragraph so it may be considered as a good piece and fairly provided bit of information supporting your point or not. Absent that, I don't believe you're correct. If you are, feel free to display that.

"Or perhaps your underlying argument is based on quibbling about "covert" verses "knowing". If government bureaucracy is designed to prevent those at the top from "knowing", then I suppose I'd have to acquiesce to your definition of "covert". On the other hand, ignorance is not a legitimate defense now, is it?"

Again, please show how any portion of our government knew the location and activities of Al Qaeda cells operating within our borders. You don't even need to validate an attack. You need to validate that members of that organization were operating within our borders with any single entity of our U.S. government knowing about it. You can't do that. You have Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory perhaps, but, you don't have any way to validate your skepticism in this regard, and you are presenting this other worldly doubt about us as some connection. Again, there's a difference between a nation's leadership knowing and doing nothing and a nation's leadership not knowing, but if they did know, they'd do something. And because of that difference the entire thrust of your point to here is lost. Please feel free to provide any information you have that would further your point.

"Let me explain. The Justice Department puts the prosecution of individual perpetrators--with all the rights to a fair trial guaranteed by the U.S. judicial system--above America's national security interest in determining who may be behind terrorist attacks. Questions of state sponsorship that are of pressing interest to national security agencies are typically relegated to a distant second place, or never properly addressed at all, because the national security agencies are denied critical information. In particular, whenever early arrests are made regarding a terrorist incident on American soil, the U.S. government cannot properly address both the national security question of state sponsorship and the criminal question of the guilt or innocence of individual perpetrators at the same time."

I'm going to wait a little longer for you to explain, because, thusfar you've come a hair short of, "The CIA killed Kennedy," and that's just not cutting it.

"Yes, it IS a double standard when in hindsight, we could have done more to prevent terrorist attacks on our own soil. Yet we didn't. Now we want to raise the bar higher for Iraq and present "iffy" evidence about Sadaam's involvement with al Qaeda. In case you've missed it, al Qaeda is operating within the borders of Iraq, but in an area outside the immidiate control of Sadaam's government. Hell, Sadaam can't even effectively control the Kurds within Iraq's borders. Why is he expected to rid Iraq of al Qaeda operating in the same area?"

Powell acknowledged that distinction, did he not? Did he not also explain that there was a top Al Qaeda operative in the capital of Iraq. A person Saddam knew about and sanctioned being there. Again, the evidence is meaningless to me because I don't care about this particular piece. But, if it's true, that's the whole difference there is. Your, quite frankly reaching and tortured, attept to categorize some similarity between your understanding of past cases of terrorism vis-a-vis the American system of law with Saddam having dinner with and knowing about a top leader within his domain of control is just not good enough. It's not equivalent. If it's true Saddam knows about a top leader of Al Qaeda in Baghdad, then any similarities are out the window here until you can show a similar case in this nation.

"Listen, perhaps we should revisit the beginning of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam for you to grasp my skepticism of this administration's insistance of a direct link between Sadaam and al Qaeda. The two situations present some compelling similarities."

Why? It's not at all important to me. I don't care about the link or lack thereof. I think it's a tidy package to link Iraq with Al Qaeda today, as it is likely true the two have come together for the sake of fighting a common enemy. I don't believe there was a link with 9-11 yet. I don't believe anyone in our government is seriously stating that as a fact yet. So, there is no reason for skepticism. Powell was largely clear about what link we kind of felt comfortable with asserting. And, in my view, that does nothing for me because it is logical to me to see that type of meeting of the evil minds in this case.

"You choose to ignore the possibility that Powell is overstating Sadaam's involvement with al Qaeda. Based on what, I have no idea."

Back to a relavant passage, the fact is I don't chose to ignore the possibility that Powell is overstating Saddam's involvement with Al Qaeda. Have you missed me saying I've not found this all that compelling and I've found it to be a weak thread. I suspect we are, absolutely, mentioning Saddam's knowledge of a top leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq just to inspire a bit more passion about a move against Iraq. I don't think most people feel there is a legitimate tie between the two, such that it had any impact on what happened on 9-11. So, again, what you chose to ignore is that my words to you weren't necessarily in support of Powell, but, rather to draw a distinction between what you said we did and what they are said to be doing while you tried to make both the same thing.

"I, on the other hand, have read too many past accounts of government manipulation of facts and evidence to accept without question, information that is designed to persuade me to think in a particular way. I choose to think and believe based on input from a number of hopefully unbiased sources."

Right. The N.Y. Times is renowed for it's unbiased status as a source. This is like me coming here saying I read in the Washington Times something in support of what the government is saying and therefore, I have found a number of hopefully unbiased sources to prop up my agreement. Disagree or agree, Kurp. You and I aren't at odds on the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. At worst we differentiate in how we view what we are talking about and what we know of ourselves.

"While I give you credit for a wordy response to my last post, most of it I found to be weak in thought. Something I'm not used to from you."

Kurp. I couldn't really expand beyond what you wrote. You kept hammering at an imaginary linkage. I replied each time you said what we're saying about Iraq and what we, ourselves, have done or do were the same that they were different. To be honest, I was shocked you kept presenting such a droll, stretched point for so long.

"Perhaps next time you'll do better. I'll wait with bated breath."

I rise to the level of my opponent. Perhaps when the air flow that caused such a weak effort here and earlier is restored to your brain, your points will recognize the discussion .

[Mad Mike]

Kurp. By the time I finnished writing and posted your last post was ahead of mine so let me say that you are not unreasonable in my eyes but I still think you are wrong about the threat of an Iraqi/Al Qaeda link.

Not only is such a threat posible but it is very likely given their shared hatred for us. To think that their differences would keep them from cooperating long enpough to cause us great harm is nieve to the extreme. The fact that proving such a link is next to imposible should not detere any sane, rational being from concluding there is grave danger.

I think it was Napoleon who said "A general should prepare his forces not for the what he thinks his enemy will do but for the worst thing he can do". I'm paraphrasing a bit here but you get the point. The worst posible threat to the US is an Iraqi/Al Qaeda attack with WMD. Therefore THAT is the threat we need to act on the most.

[Mad Mike]

Good lord Art! you are long winded.:laugh:

[Tarhog]

This discussion brings to mind something my father used to say...

'Never try to teach a pig to sing. It annoys the pig, and its a waste of your time'.

If you are determined to minimize the risk Saddam Hussein represents, despite all evidence to the contrary, there is nothing any of us can do for you. But the 'double standard' moral equivalency argument some of you are putting forward is disgusting in my mind. You can't call yourself a patriot while at the same time putting the 'rights' of a Saddam Hussein-led government to 'fair treatment' over the trustworthiness of your own government.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Tarhog

'Never try to teach a pig to sing. It annoys the pig, and its a waste of your time'.

Perhaps the pig is annoyed because he's already singing. However one must possess a musical ear to recognize it, and appreciate it.

[Tarhog]

that'll do pig...that'll do...

agreed 'whom' the singing pig is may be open to interpretation :laugh:

[TheKurp]

Art,

You're right. I'm taking a two-pronged approach to airing my disatisfaction with Powell's assertion that there's a direct link between Saddam and al Qaeda.

1. It appears that the U.S. equates tacit approval with outright blessing. Here's where I object. I think the U.S. could also be accused of tacitly allowing terrorists to operate, albeit more easily pre 9/11, within U.S. borders. But this is a subjective argument and you're right, I don't have access to intelligence reports to substantiate this beyond all doubt. So to argue further is fruitless for the purpose of this thread.

Point to you.

2. Damning evidence that there's a direct link between Saddam and al Qaeda. It just doesn't exist, at least convincingly. But you aren't disputing that so again, I'll just let that rest between us.

But for others who still doubt that there's ever any "mis-information" released by government officials for the purpose of manipulating public opinion, well, here's some more reading.

Rumsfeld's Exaggerations: On the Saddam/Al-Qaeda Link

Ever since the September 11 attacks, and especially in recent months, advocates of overthrowing Saddam Hussein have sensed an opportunity to press their case. Realizing that the country was anxious for action to improve its security, they thought that the terrorist attacks could produce a political climate more conducive to their longstanding goal of deposing the butcher of Baghdad. Unfortunately, the enthusiasm of some such advocates has sometimes led them to deliberately mislead the American people about a possible tie between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. The most guilty party in recent weeks has been Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

To be sure, the world would be better off if Saddam were gone from power. In addition, there is a serious case for forcibly removing him, especially if he again thwarts the work of weapons inspectors and their effort to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.

But the Congress and the public deserve the best possible information about the threat posed by Saddam in order to reach a democratic decision about the desirability of war. As the country's chief custodians of the nation's intelligence information, top national security officials have an obligation not only to offer their own best advice about possible future action, but to share data as accurately and forthrightly with the American people as is possible. Security considerations will sometimes preclude full disclosure, of course. But under no circumstances should top officials cross the line of deliberately misleading the nation about the case for war.

Regrettably, Secretary Rumsfeld has come too close to that line, and even strayed across it once or twice.

Consider:Up until 9/11/2001, the intelligence community stated that Saddam had not supported anti-Western terrorism since his attempt to have former President George Bush assassinated in 1993. Yet advocates of overthrowing Saddam quickly raised the possibility last fall that Saddam might have been linked to the 9/11 attacks without any new evidence to challenge this longstanding intelligence community view. Rumsfeld was not among the most vocal then, but a number of individuals on his quasi-official Defense Policy Board made the case publicly and frequently.

It turns out that the purported meeting between hijacker Muhammed Atta and a top Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001, widely discussed after 9/11 as evidence of a possible Saddam-Al-Qaeda link, may never have taken place. Yet, according to some reports, Rumsfeld has tried to squelch any public airing of the intelligence community's uncertainties in regard to this possible link, preferring to leave people with the impression that the meeting did occur.

In August, Rumsfeld told Tom Brokaw on NBC News that "there are Al-Qaeda in Iraq." He later stated that, since Saddam is a dictator with presumed total control of his country, it was unlikely those terrorists were on Iraqi territory unbeknownst to the Iraqi leader. Later in the month, however, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and the intelligence community both quietly restated their convictions that any Al-Qaeda operatives inside Iraq were in the northern part of the country, beyond Saddam's control and not linked with him or his security apparatus.

In the last week, Rumsfeld, as well as National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, have alleged that some Al-Qaeda members may be in Baghdad, and that they may even have received training in chemical weapons technologies from Iraqi agents. Yet President Bush, speaking on the same subject at nearly the same time, avoided any such claims. Moreover, Rumsfeld later admitted that this claim was only a provisional intelligence finding based on a single source, and offered no further details about the nature of the alleged complicity.

The country has a right to greater honesty from its top officials. If Mr. Rumsfeld has solid evidence of a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, he should, of course, say so. Indeed, such intelligence would provide a rock-solid case for overthrowing Saddam even if he lets inspectors into Iraq, especially if the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda has become substantial or if there was any Iraqi hand in the events of 9/11.

But given Mr. Rumsfeld's previous misstatements, as well as internal administration disagreements on the subject, one senses a different dynamic at work. Appearances would suggest that Secretary Rumsfeld is so bent on overthrowing Saddam—and doing it quickly—that he is either misleading himself or deliberately misleading the country about the presence of a "smoking gun" link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

The country deserves better, especially when debating such an extremely momentous decision about going to war and risking the lives of its soldiers, the security of its homeland, and the fate of the Persian Gulf region.

[Mad Mike]

TheKurp Did you even bother to read what you posted?

Yet President Bush, speaking on the same subject at nearly the same time, avoided any such claims.

Funny. Bush was just on TV not 20 seconds ago backing them up.

Dude you are posting an opinion to back up your opinion. If you have any FACTS that might prove ther is no Al Qaeda link post them. If not your entire argument is that a few people dissagree (when is this not the case?) and the fact that US, like every goverment (or person) on the planet will present things in such a way as to make their case. Bla, bla bla.

If you are going to say that the Powell and the US is making this stuff up, show me some proof to back up your opinion. If not give it a rest.:doh:

[TheKurp]

Yes, I did read what I posted.

The article was printed back in Oct 2002. If you followed the link I provided you would have discovered that for yourself.

Funny how even back then, the evidence put forth yesterday by Powell is the same evidence, or lack thereof, that was being circulated a few months ago. In other words, there's nothing new about Powell's *revelation* nor is there any more *evidence* to support it.

The fact that Bush changed his mind and decided to support the assertion of a link between al Qaeda and Saddam doesn't make it so, does it?

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by TheKurp

Yes, I did read what I posted.

The article was printed back in Oct 2002. If you followed the link I provided you would have discovered that for yourself.

Funny how even back then, the evidence put forth yesterday by Powell is the same evidence, or lack thereof, that was being circulated a few months ago. In other words, there's nothing new about Powell's *revelation* nor is there any more *evidence* to support it.

The fact that Bush changed his mind and decided to support the assertion of a link between al Qaeda and Saddam doesn't make it so, does it?

Great. So show me one shread of evidence that would indicate Iraq is not harboring Al Qaeda. JUST ONE.:gus:

BTW, you won't be happy till we burn every source we have will you? Because it is far more likely that the administration has a ton more evidence than they are showing us.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

Great. So show me one shread of evidence that would indicate Iraq is not harboring Al Qaeda. JUST ONE.:gus:

Funny, that's almost exactly the same question I'm asking of Powell, Rumsfeld, Bush, et. al. Except I'm asking for evidence to indicate that there is a direct link between Saddam and al Qaeda.

So far all I have is their say so. Enough compelling questions have been raised by the media to dispute a direct link. The Bush administration has yet to present to the American public concrete evidence to support their assertion.

Until they do, I'm left to believe that this *supposed* link to al Qaeda is no different than the single bullet fired at the Maddox which prompted then President Johnson to exclaim, "We've been attacked by the North Vietnamese."

Get it?

[Kilmer17]

The evidence re: Zarchoui wasnt enough?

[redman]

Kurp, the problem with terror-related evidence is that the evidence relating to them is more verbal from eyewitness accounts and interviews than it is physical in the sense that they maintain camps. That's hard to show to the outside world anyway, and even more so when you're trying to protect your sources out in the field who are risking their lives to convey this information to you.

Now, Powell did show the photograph of the terrorist camp in Iraq that produces chemical weapons. Why was this photo less credible to you than the photos showing bio weapons plants or the chemcal weapons plant that he said was later bulldozed to conceal it? All of these things require experts to interpret and analyze them for meaning, and all of them were based in part on interviews and information from defectors and spies.

How is it that you're picking and choosing what to believe from what Powell said, and what not to believe?

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by redman

Now, Powell did show the photograph of the terrorist camp in Iraq that produces chemical weapons. Why was this photo less credible to you than the photos showing bio weapons plants or the chemcal weapons plant that he said was later bulldozed to conceal it?

I have no issue with the photo. I think it's credible.

What I have issue with is the assertion that Saddam is responsible for a terrorist camp which is located in a territory outside of his control.