Cheney Claims al-Qaida Linked to Saddam

[Silicon]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=9&u=/ap/cheney_terrorism


ORLANDO, Fla. - Vice President Dick Cheney said Saddam Hussein had "long-established ties" with al Qaida, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.


The vice president on Monday offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al Qaida.

"He was a patron of terrorism," Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. "He had long established ties with al Qaida."


HUH? WHA?!!!


Is this new information? Why didn't we know this before?

Are they making this up? Or do they have new evidence? Or are they merely playing to a wishful-thinking base?


Where is the truth???

[Mr Manifesto]

Well, you know what they say about big lies.

[LostAngeles]

That's info they kept claiming before hand and I believe some agency, possibly the CIA, said, "Uh... No. He doesn't. He wishes he does, though."

[fishbob]

Cheney sneaks in this statement every chance he gets. He is on my "ignore list" because I am *&^*% tired of his lying (*%*&$.

The vice president on Monday offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al Qaida. As far as I know, Cheney has never offered any verifiable details.

Big lies, no trubble.

[Blue Monk]

Too bad they can't keep his mouth at some secret undisclosed location.

[peptoabysmal]

There will never be a photo of Osama shaking hands with Saddam while Saddam is handing Osama a giant check, if that's what you are looking for.

You might want to consider what Laurie Mylroie had to say prior to the war on Iraq:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/mylroie.html

In the end, I'm afraid we are left to either believe that Saddam and Osama would have nothing to do with each other because Saddam was "secular", or that Osama was merely a "useful idiot" for Saddam's revenge on the US. I tend to believe the latter.

[shecky]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
There will never be a photo of Osama shaking hands with Saddam while Saddam is handing Osama a giant check, if that's what you are looking for.

You might want to consider what Laurie Mylroie had to say prior to the war on Iraq:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/mylroie.html

In the end, I'm afraid we are left to either believe that Saddam and Osama would have nothing to do with each other because Saddam was "secular", or that Osama was merely a "useful idiot" for Saddam's revenge on the US. I tend to believe the latter.

You're clearly a man of great faith.

[fishbob]

You might want to consider what Laurie Mylroie had to say prior to the war on Iraq: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ws/mylroie.html

From your link:
"Saddam Hussein retains a huge biological weapons program. "

"Mohammed Atta, who piloted the plane that first hit the Trade Center tower -- and that was a key figure in the conspiracy in the U.S. -- met repeatedly with Iraqi officials in Prague."

"The anthrax attacks, particularly the attack on Senator Daschle's office, in which high-grade military anthrax was used . . . "

Many statements in the article were unsupported assertions at the date of publication. Those I noted above are some of the ones that have since been shown to be incorrect. You might want to be cautious about accepting her conclusions, when the bases of many of the conclusions are incorrect.

[KelvinG]

I want to know where all the conservatives who constantly rail on Michael Moore for lying in his films are not here expressing indignation at their vice-president for blantantly lying.
Or, do we expect less of politicians than we do of filmmakers?

[Nitpick]

9/11 Panel Finds No Collaboration Between Iraq, Al Qaeda (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45853-2004Jun16.html)


From the link:
There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, including the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackings, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the hijacking plot.

Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990s, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein's secular government, and Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons, the panel's report says.

The findings come in the wake of statements Monday by Vice President Cheney that Iraq had "long-established ties" with al Qaeda, and comments by President Bush yesterday backing up that assertion.

Is it naive to expect this statement of the bipartisan 9/11 comission to put an end to the Iraq/al Qaeda - collaboration myth?
And for those who still believe there was a connection: Why should a panel created by the US Congress to investigate one of the greatest tragedies in US History release such statements if they weren't reasonably sure they're true? Please tell us a reason. Stupidity? Evil-mindedness?

[AtheistArchon]

- This is a classic. It seems to me that Bush/Cheney are just literally making things up they think will sound good and spewing them at rallies, damn the details and damn the facts... facts are evil and liberal. :p

- The SAD part is that a huge portion of the population is standing behind whatever they spew, saying "Yeah, see! Bush says Saddam bombed the WTC. We're making strides against terrah in Iraq, etc etc."

[Nitpick]

Originally posted by AtheistArchon facts are evil and liberal.
:D

[crackmonkey]

There is a good deal of evidence showing that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, notably his hosting and arming of Zarqawi in Baghdad. Saddam met with Al Qaeda representatives in the 90s to pledge to a nonaggression pact. This isn't very controversial - this information has been out for a while. Most critics of the Iraq war don't deny that these meetings happened (or that Saddam supported Zarqawi), but that these didn't prove any kind of working relationship.
It's worth noting that the VP said that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, not that he collaborated with them on 9/11. There's a big and important difference.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
There is a good deal of evidence showing that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, notably his hosting and arming of Zarqawi in Baghdad. Saddam met with Al Qaeda representatives in the 90s to pledge to a nonaggression pact. This isn't very controversial - this information has been out for a while. Most critics of the Iraq war don't deny that these meetings happened (or that Saddam supported Zarqawi), but that these didn't prove any kind of working relationship.
It's worth noting that the VP said that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, not that he collaborated with them on 9/11. There's a big and important difference.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/06/16/501880-ap.html

senior Iraqi intelligence official reportedly met with bin Laden in 1994 in Sudan, the panel found, and bin Laden "is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded."

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.

"Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq," the report said.

As recently as Monday, U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney asserted that Saddam had "long-established ties" with the terrorist network.


Any connections that Iraq made have had with Al-Qaida seem pretty inconsequential. Of course, that doesn't stop Cheney from bringing it up in a speech.

And yes, he doesn't bring up 9/11 directly when trying to make an Iraq connection, so I guess we can give him the benefit of the doubt that he surely wasn't hoping that over zealous conservative supporters would fill in the blanks and make such a link. :rolleyes:

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
There is a good deal of evidence showing that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, notably his hosting and arming of Zarqawi in Baghdad. Saddam met with Al Qaeda representatives in the 90s to pledge to a nonaggression pact. This isn't very controversial - this information has been out for a while. Most critics of the Iraq war don't deny that these meetings happened (or that Saddam supported Zarqawi), but that these didn't prove any kind of working relationship.
It's worth noting that the VP said that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, not that he collaborated with them on 9/11. There's a big and important difference.

I agree with KevinG.

Though one could play 'lawyer ball' and argue that his statement was essentially correct, in context with the VPs views that Saddam was a 'patron of terrorism' such a bland connection would have no relevance.

His implication is both obvious and false and to believe otherwise would be naive.

[crackmonkey]

I don't see the impliction that you seem to be picking up. Cheney's statements were correct, as you admit. I don;t understand the brouhaha.

[CapelDodger]

The greatest failing of US intelligence was not picking up on 9/11 during their meetins with al-Qaeda and Iran. (As they were all enemies of Iraq, they must have been in collusion, after all.)

[headscratcher4]

Why should anyone believe Cheney, ever? He, like his boss, have proven themselves incapable of communicating facts...whether by design, inattention or even in error. When facts are shown to be other than they would have them be, they continue to repeat the innacurate assertions...

Cheney says there is a link, though the 9/11 Commission says there is no link along with most credible news and inteligence sources. Cheney says this because, like the assertions about WMDs, it provides cover for the Administration's failing policies...if there is a "link" (regardless of how tenuous) than the Iraq war and subsequent tar-pit can be justified as part of the war on "terrorism"...i.e. there is not difference between going into Afghanistan and going into Iraq, because Saddam and Osma et. al. are all the same, and the battle is all the same.

Now, the Administration has no international and little domestic credibility on the issue of WMDs (save for the millions who they've convinced that WMDs still exist dispite the howelling lack of evidence), but the assertion that somewhere, somehow, sometime there may have been a passing, tenuious link between AlQeda and Saddam will always be harder to prove.

Cheney will continue to assert this because, essentially, it can't be proved. No matter how many times it is shown that the assertion is bogus, they will always be able to say "maybe not in that particular case, but there is a link somewhere..."

I was willing, once, to believe that the assertions about WMDs were errors as opposed to outright lies...when does this assertion become an outright lie?

We're pretty close, I think.

9/11 Commmission says there is no evidence of link between Saddam and Osama....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/index.html

[crackmonkey]

I imagine that was an attempt at humor... but it has no relevance whatever to the topic at hand. I see the strawman you're constructing is based on the notion that some think Saddam and AL Qaeda were in collusion solely because they both are enemies of the US. No one has said they were in collusion on 9/11, and they may have had other reasons to be in contact other than a mutual hatred of the US.
Saddam DID harbor and arm Zarqawi - an AL Qaeda guy. He also harbored and armed a number of other terrorist groups. To think that he'd have some kind of aversion to working with AL Qaeda is counterintuitive.

[zakur]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
It's worth noting that the VP said that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, not that he collaborated with them on 9/11. There's a big and important difference. When asked directly on Meet the Press last September about such a link, he did not say "There is no link." Instead he said "We don't know" and went on and on with his circumstantial evidence.

Transcript (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/)

[CapelDodger]

from crackmonkey:
I imagine that was an attempt at humor...
... and some fell on barren ground ...
No one has said they were in collusion on 9/11, and they may have had other reasons to be in contact other than a mutual hatred of the US.
Yet large numbers of Americans seem to think they were in collusion over 9/11. KelvinG has explained why that isn't an accident, and in my book an intent to mislead is no better than an outright lie. And less honest.
Saddam DID harbor and arm Zarqawi - an AL Qaeda guy. He also harbored and armed a number of other terrorist groups. To think that he'd have some kind of aversion to working with AL Qaeda is counterintuitive.
The US DID arm al-Qaeda. (And a number of other terrorist groups.) So to think that they'd have an aversion to working with them against Saddam is counterintuitive.

[crackmonkey]

The US never armed Al Qaeda, or trained Osama bin Laden. They did arm some of the Mujaheddin groups in Afghanistan fighting against the USSR, but the Arab fighters were never contacted nor armed by the US. This was confirmed by the ISI officials running the operation, the CIA people coming up with the money and arms, and Osama himself caolnd't stand to be in the presence of a Westerner, much less be employed by one. When an English BBC journalist in Afghanistan came across bin Laden, Osama cursed, spat on the ground, and demanded that the journalists's guards kill him on the spot for being an infidel in an Islamic country.
Some Americans think OBL and Saddam colluded over 9/11, some don't. Some Welsh think that the Mossad was behind 9/11. People think goofy things sometimes.
Once again, Cheney's statement was truthful... it was direct, not misleading at all. I guess some people want controversy, whether they need to invent it or not.

[demon]

quote:
Statements by Vice President Richard Cheney

"He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."


Source: Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003).
Explanation: This statement was false because the intelligence community did not believe that Iraq actually possessed nuclear weapons.


"But we do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon."

Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/8/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.


"There is also a grave danger that al Qaeda or other terrorists will join with outlaw regimes that have these weapons to attack their common enemy, the United States of America. That is why confronting the threat posed by Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror."

Source: Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario, and Iraq appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" against the United States for fear of providing cause for war.


"He cultivated ties to terror, hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, making payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He also had an established relationship with al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs."

Source: Remarks by Vice President Dick Cheney at the Heritage Foundation, White House (10/10/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

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

This site is worth a visit:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

[crackmonkey]

So, your criticism seems to be that he stated certain theories with confidence, while the concensus in the intelligence community was that the facts weren't quite so certain. Wow.
I guess he was as factually accurate as thse anti-war people who said that Saddam had no relationship whatsoever with Al Qaeda.

[dsm]

So, you choose to believe the Administration even when their own people are (at best) divided on the soundness of what the Administration is saying and/or doing? When given so many facts that show the contradictions of what the Administration is saying/doing, why do you (and others) continue to give the Administration such credibility?

[crackmonkey]

I believe the administration when its claims match what has been reported and accepted by both parties, as Cheney's statements have been.
Once again, Cheney's statements today were totally accurate.

[CapelDodger]

from crackmonkey:
The US never armed Al Qaeda, or trained Osama bin Laden. They did arm some of the Mujaheddin groups in Afghanistan fighting against the USSR, but the Arab fighters were never contacted nor armed by the US.
If it were the case that the US never had any contact with the non-Afghan volunteers or their patrons while providing weapons to people that were closely allied to them, then they were guilty of gross incompetence. I think that unlikely. The influence of bin Laden is based on the importance of his contribution to the Mujaheddin cause. If the US was ignorant of his role it raises serious questions.

US materiel was principally routed through a chap called Hekmatyar, a narcissist who has recently re-emerged from the woodwork (there's a Geller-esque quality to the wee turd). This was a problem for Ahmad Shah Massood, may his tribe increase, but he did get some supplies because he bought them. Once the materiel was in the traditionally sticky hands of the Afghans (no offence meant) it was on the market. Bin Laden had money (his own and Wahabbist contributions), he had facilities, he had contacts and influence, and these earned a share of US largesse. Which was out of US control the moment it left the CIA's hands. Cut-outs and deniablity earn no points when critical thinking is applied. If the US didn't know about bin Laden and the volunteers, no wonder we've ended up where we are. If they did know, the claim that the US didn't arm bin Laden and the precursor of al Qaeda is sophistry.

[demon]

John Snow uses the 'L' word.
(John Snow is the leading presenter of Channel4 News in the UK)

And good for him too, all the BBC can manage is the tepid "appears to contradict".
From tonight's 'Snowmail':

'9/11 Commission: No evidence that Saddam aided al Qaeda: ================================================== ======
At last, America's own 9/11 investigating commission has come out and said it. They ve poured buckets of cold water possible links between Saddam and al Qaeda. There is no evidence that Saddam aided the terrorists in attacking the World Trade Centre, said the commission. Vice President Dick Cheney has consistently pedalled the lie, yes, lie that Iraq and al Qaeda were closely connected. As recently as LAST WEEK repeating that there were 'long established ties' from Saddam to al Qaeda.

Will anyone in the coalition of the willing complain? Will Dick Cheney resign? Is the Pope a Catholic? At seven, Mr Rugman in Washington is on the case. More at: http://www.channel4.com/news/2004/06/week_3/16_iraq.html'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've just read the 911 Commission report, "Overview of the Enemy" released today.
Incredibly the chapter titled - The Roots of Al Qaeda - completely overlooks the role of the U.S., Saudi Arabian and Pakistan governments in funding and arming the so-called Afghan Arabs that went to fight the Soviet forces. Any suggestion that U.S. foreign policy played a significant role in creating the very phenomena it now claims to be fighting is thus avoided. Needless to say the word "terrorist" is not applied to Bin Laden's activities until after this period, when Americans became targets.

And this shabby document took nearly 3 years to produce! I don't want to sound arrogant but I think I could have produced a more accurate and comprehensive document in 3 DAYS, using material in the public domain and at zero cost, aside from coffee and smokes.







http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/staff_statement_15.pdf

[hgc]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I believe the administration when its claims match what has been reported and accepted by both parties, as Cheney's statements have been.
Once again, Cheney's statements today were totally accurate. Of course that would be sufficient, and we wouldn't really care so much that Cheney uses "totally accurate" statements that serve to obfuscate and misdirect, except that it was the BASIS FOR GOING INTO AN OFFENSIVE WAR AND TYING UP THE ENTIRE U.S. ARMY IN IRAQ.

In situations such as that, the implications of what is being said matter. Do you want to stand behind statements that are clearly meant to imply that we were justified in attacking Iraq because Saddam had links to 9/11, even if he skates around saying it directly?

[CapelDodger]

from crackmonkey:
When an English BBC journalist in Afghanistan came across bin Laden, Osama cursed, spat on the ground, and demanded that the journalists's guards kill him on the spot for being an infidel in an Islamic country.
I'm glad that the reputation of BBC journalism has survived the recent onslaught. Let us all take it as gospel from now on, and ignore the possibility that bin Laden was grandstanding and had a good laugh with his mates later about the BBC guy wetting himself, which he may or may not have done.

[crackmonkey]

OBL was a very effective fundraiser himself - he had no need for our assistance.
Hekmatyar was the chosen pawn of the ISI, not the US-favored Mahsoud, unfortunately. The way the operation worked was the CIA provided the cash and the ISI distributed it as they saw fit. If the CIA did so much as go in country to take a look around, the ISI said they'd take their ball and go home. The CIA knew nothing about mujaheddin politics or culture; the Pakistanis had been dabbling in it for years. In a sense, we were at their mercy.
We didn;t care for the Islamists for a few reasons, but we didn't consider them to be the kind of threat they've evolved into. We pretty much ignored OBL because:
1) The Afghan Arabs were pretty marginal in terms of numbers... the vast majority of the mujaheddin were Afghans.
2) The Afghans generally hated the Arabs, who they considered spoiled, bossy primadonnas. It wasn;t uncommon for the Afghans to turn their guns on the Arabs.
3) The Afghans considered the Arabs to be inferior fighters (OBL was a notable exception).
4) The Arabs were fiercely anti-American even then.

Bottom line - OBL was too difficult of a character and of too little importance for us to pursue. He, on the other hand, didn;t need the US, because he had sufficient funding from the Arab world to recruit and equip his men.
The Afghans may well have sold some US goods which ended up in Arabs hands; that's hardly equivalent to us arming them.

[Regnad Kcin]

[Cheney lip curl]

I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me ... Saddam did have terrorist relations with that man, Mr. bin Laden.

[/Cheney lip curl]

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Cheney and Bush and others in the administration keep telling people there is a link between al-Qaida and Saddam / Iraq, but the 9/11 commission finds no "credible" link (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/16/world/septlink040616)

"no credible evidence" that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated in the attacks of Sept.11, 2001, a U.S. commission report states. ....

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,"


Bush stated the evidence that we should consider is Zarkawi (spelling?). Is this strong ad hoc evidence?

[crackmonkey]

As it says... there was no link between Saddam and 9/11, but there was a link between Saddam and AL Qaeda. Apparently not a string enough link to be considered a working relationship, but there were contacts, and Saddam hosted ad armed Zarqawi in Baghdad.
So, according to your article, Cheney was right.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Bush stated the evidence that we should consider is
Zarqawi. Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al-Qaeda affiliates and al-Qaeda-President George Bush


Is this strong ad hoc evidence?

University of Maryland in April found that 57% of Americans believe Iraq was substantially supporting al-Qaeda (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3814111.stm) before the 11 September 2001 attacks or was involved in the attacks themselves. And that number was hardly changed from a similar poll a year earlier.

[dsm]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
As it says... there was no link between Saddam and 9/11, but there was a link between Saddam and AL Qaeda. Apparently not a string enough link to be considered a working relationship, but there were contacts, and Saddam hosted ad armed Zarqawi in Baghdad.
So, according to your article, Cheney was right.

Perhaps and perhaps not. Certainly without credible evidence of a link, having the VP state that there was a link all the time is disingenuous and, therefore, is being done for ulterior motives.

Saying that there was a some sort of relationship between Saddam and Al Queada is like saying there is a relationship between Al Queada and the Saudis. When do we invade Saudi Arabia?

[crackmonkey]

Not quite the same - the Saudis weren't sponsoring and arming AL Qaeda. I don't believe the Saudis have had much experience with WMD or have fought a war against us. Saddam wasn't dangerous merely because he had deadly friends - he hated us as well - going so far as to try to assassinate a former President.

The commission pointed out the links between AL Qaeda and Saddam. There is a credible link, and they acknowledged it publicly.

[CapelDodger]

from crackmonkey:
The CIA knew nothing about mujaheddin politics or culture; the Pakistanis had been dabbling in it for years. In a sense, we were at their mercy.
An indictment of the CIA. If they were that ignorant they could have asked the British, or Indians, or even the French (http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/lacost.htm). I used to read newspaper reports before and during the mujaheddin war (and background books); I knew about the non-Afghan Islamist volunteers and the nature of the Afghan mujaheddin, not to mention the ISI, so why were the CIA so ignorant? And this is the same CIA that provides the "evidence" of long-established ties - not just contacts, but ties - between al Qaeda and Iraq. Perhaps they're at the mercy of someone else now - say, Chalabi and the Iranians. Tying Ansar al-Islam to Saddam was in Iran's interest since they presented a danger to them as well as the Kurds. US air strikes on Ansar would have suited them very well.
The way the operation worked was the CIA provided the cash and the ISI distributed it as they saw fit. If the CIA did so much as go in country to take a look around, the ISI said they'd take their ball and go home.
The stingers provided to the Mujaheddin were materiel, not cash. It seems unlikely that these were handed over to the ISI for distribution "as they saw fit". How was the performance of these weapons to be monitored - on the basis of reports from the ISI or the Mujaheddin? Obviously not. There must have been men on the ground, but even so stingers from these deliveries have turned up all over. It takes a leap of faith to think that the non-Afghan volunteers didn't get any of them, or other materiel or cash "distributed as [the ISI] saw fit".
The Afghans may well have sold some US goods which ended up in Arabs hands; that's hardly equivalent to us arming them.
It is if the US knew that materiel was going to end up in Arab hands, or were prepared to provide it while being ignorant of its final destination.
Hekmatyar was the chosen pawn of the ISI, not the US-favored Mahsoud, unfortunately.
What evidence do you have for the US favouring Ahmad Shah Massood (may his tribe increase)? All the evidence I've seen points to the US favouring Islamists, not the more secular Tajiks. They chose Gulbuddin Hekmatyar as the main conduit because they bought the idea that his brand of Islamism was representative of the popular resistance, and they chose one main conduit because that was simple enough for them to handle. (The US is notable for the difficulty it has with complications, one reason, I think, for the popularity of the simple Reagan.) They thought short-term and local, because that's the usual US approach and reduces complications. Naturally there was blow-back - the world is actually a complicated inter-play of interests and powers - and I think we can be confident that the same is going to said in future of the whole Iraq imbroglio.

[dsm]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
[...]the Saudis weren't sponsoring and arming AL Qaeda.

Do we know that? And, if so, how?


The commission pointed out the links between AL Qaeda and Saddam. There is a credible link, and they acknowledged it publicly.


Where? According to here (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/16/world/septlink040616) (thanks, PPG), they didn't see any credible link -- just minor attempts at establishing a link.

[crackmonkey]

There was a non-agression pact between Saddam and Al Qaeda, AL Qaeda officials met numerous times with Iraqi representatives to explore forming a working relationship, and Saddam harbored both Ansar al-Islam in the north and Zarqawi in Baghdad.

We know that the Saudis weren't harboring and arming Al Qaeda in the same way that Saddam was hosting, funding and arming Zarqawi. I guess you can't prove a negative... there is no evidence that the Saudi government armed and supported AL Qaeda.

[TillEulenspiegel]

That's OK . Just heard on the radio president Pinocchio said the 9/11 commission was wrong there are conclusive facts that show a connection. Those elusive and shadowy facts must have been authored by the same folks that said there were WMD and active programs for producing WMD.................OOP! sorry it WAS the same folks, AKA The Administration.


Edit to add:
Theres just some people who would be served crap on crackers as canapés by Bush . They would exclaim "How delicious!" and when they got sick turn around and blame Clinton. political fanaticism is equivalent to religious fanaticism, no matter what the facts, their views will not be swayed.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by Blue Monk



Though one could play 'lawyer ball'



just like finding that one 155mm shell and those rusty handgrenades prove SADDAM had WMDs.


Virgil

[evil sutko]

Have we linked Saddam to Kevin Bacon (http://www.thepoorman.net/archives/001684.html) yet?

[TillEulenspiegel]

That story was false,EVERYBODY knows Muslims don't have anything to do with pork!

[Silicon]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
There was a non-agression pact between Saddam and Al Qaeda, AL Qaeda officials met numerous times with Iraqi representatives to explore forming a working relationship, and Saddam harbored both Ansar al-Islam in the north and Zarqawi in Baghdad.


Amazing how Saddam could "harbor" Ansar al Islam in the North. I assume you're talking about the base that Powell showed pictures of at the UN, which was in Kurdish territory under US patrol in Sargat, near the border of Iran.

[DrChinese]

For the first time, Cheney is offering a detail explanation he calls "4 degrees of separation" which conclusively ties Osama to Saddam:

1. Osama bin Laden married a woman who had a brother.
2. The brother was educated in London, where he listened to the Beatles.
3. One of the Beatles speaks French.
4. The French bought oil from Saddam.

It doesn't get much more straightforward than that!

[CapelDodger]

from crackmonkey:
There was a non-agression pact between Saddam and Al Qaeda, AL Qaeda officials met numerous times with Iraqi representatives to explore forming a working relationship, and Saddam harbored both Ansar al-Islam in the north and Zarqawi in Baghdad.
Saddam did not control the area in which Ansar established itself. There is no credible evidence that Al Qaeda "officials" met numerous times with Iraqis. What evidence have you seen that Zarqawi was in Baghdad betwen the fall of the Taliban and the fall of Baghdad? If it's sourced to Chalabi there's a problem.

So Pinocchio has "conclusive facts" that prove the connection. Either these weren't made available to the commission (perhaps for reasons of "national security", aka Presidential security), the commission has failed to recognise their conclusive nature (perhaps because they lack George II's intellectual acumen, which raises questions about the appointment of commissioners and is inherently unlikely) or the commission is deliberately ignoring the conclusive facts. Or someone in the White House is making it up. Are there any options I've missed?

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by DrChinese
For the first time, Cheney is offering a detail explanation he calls "4 degrees of separation" which conclusively ties Osama to Saddam:

1. Osama bin Laden married a woman who had a brother.
2. The brother was educated in London, where he listened to the Beatles.
3. One of the Beatles speaks French.
4. The French bought oil from Saddam.

It doesn't get much more straightforward than that!

Boy you conspiracy nuts are all alike.

Which Beatle spoke French and can you provide a link?

I didn't think so.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Blue Monk


Boy you conspiracy nuts are all alike.

Which Beatle spoke French and can you provide a link?

I didn't think so.

Well..Paul wrote a song called "Michelle" which purportedly included french words....

[Silicon]

But those were the only words he knew that she'd understand.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Silicon
But those were the only words he knew that she'd understand.

and they were, suspiciously, in French...

And, doesn't it stand to reason that if anyone in the Beatles was conspiring with the French to buy Iraqi oil, it would be Paul...or more specifically the evil replacement Paul (I am the walrus, coo coo ca chu...)?

[Silicon]

NYTimes Editorial:


The Plain Truth


On Monday, Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is "the best evidence" of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime.



...

Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/opinion/17THU1.html

[TillEulenspiegel]

Now in the interest of being fair I will let President Pinocchio speak for himself.

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Mr. Bush told reporters after a cabinet meeting today.

That concludes the issue for me...............Anyone?

[Silicon]

The problem is, we don't have much evidence of Saddam's connection with Al Qaida.


But we do have evidence of high-level contacts between Saddam and CERTAIN OTHER HIGH-LEVEL LEADERS of the current war.....





http://homepage.mac.com/ehara_gen/jealous_gay/images/rumsfeld_saddam.gif

[CapelDodger]

from Silicon:
But we do have evidence of high-level contacts between Saddam and CERTAIN OTHER HIGH-LEVEL LEADERS of the current war.....
In fairness, this is evidence of contacts, not "ties". "Ties" would imply shared goals and strategy, co-ordination in such matters as intelligence (satellite photos and intercepts), sharing of resources (weapons and the means of manufacturing them, for instance), political backing in the UN, stuff like that. The photo you provide could be of people meeting up for a game of Risk, which hardly amounts to the same thing.

[crackmonkey]

So, essentially, this entire debate is about the meaning of 'ties' and 'contacts'. At what point do 'contacts' become 'ties'? Remember - no one is asserting that Saddam had a part in planning 9/11... the only assertion is that Saddam met with AL Qaeda a number of times in the 90s.

[evil sutko]

Whether or not Cheney's statement was technically true, I think the comments were a mistake:

Consider:

1) It takes too much explaining to prove his case for a result that isn't very compelling in the end. Bush/Cheney '04 is supposed to communicate in plain-spoken truths that resonate through the grass and plains of Middle America, not lawyer-speak.

2) Polls had already indicated that a substantial amount of Americans did believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Now they have a chance to change their minds.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
So, essentially, this entire debate is about the meaning of 'ties' and 'contacts'. At what point do 'contacts' become 'ties'? Remember - no one is asserting that Saddam had a part in planning 9/11... the only assertion is that Saddam met with AL Qaeda a number of times in the 90s. This is Bush on a press conferance just before the war (against Iraq), asked about the financing of it:

We have to request the expenditure of money from the Congress, and, at the appropriate time, we'll request a supplemental. We're obviously analysing all aspects. We hope we don't go to war; but if we should, we will present a supplemental.

But I want to remind -- remind you what I said before. There is a huge cost when we get attacked. There is a significant cost to our society -- first of all, there is the cost of lives. It's an immeasurable cost -- 3,000 people died. This is a significant cost to our economy. Opportunity loss is an immeasurable cost, besides the cost of repairing buildings, and cost to our airlines. And so, the cost of an attack is significant.Again, about the cost of the coming war against Iraq:

The price of doing nothing exceeds the price of taking action, if we have to. We'll do everything we can to minimise the loss of life. The price of the attacks on America, the cost of the attacks on America on September 11th were enormous. They were significant. And I am not willing to take that chance again.In the same press conferance he says this:

Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. September the 11th changed the strategic thinking, at least, as far as I was concerned, for how to protect our country. He's not really saying that there is a connection between Saddam and 9/11, but he certainly comes close. Maybe that's the reason most of the Americans have been wrong about it?

(From the transcript of Bush's press conference on Iraq 6th March 2003)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Bjorn
This is Bush on a press conferance just before the war (against Iraq), asked about the financing of it:

Again, about the cost of the coming war against Iraq:

In the same press conferance he says this:

He's not really saying that there is a connection between Saddam and 9/11, but he certainly comes close. Maybe that's the reason most of the Americans have been wrong about it?

(From the transcript of Bush's press conference on Iraq 6th March 2003)

It is a masterful document of implying something without saying it.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


It is a masterful document of implying something without saying it.

An expert opinion!

[Tricky]

It now appears that Cheney is being asked to put up or shut up. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2635835)
The leaders of the Sept. 11 commission Friday called on Vice President Dick Cheney to turn over any intelligence reports that would support the White House's insistence that there was a close relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.
...
Cheney, in a television interview on Thursday, was asked whether he knew things about Iraq's links to terrorists that the commission did not know.

"Probably," Cheney replied.

This begs the question, why didn't Cheney turn over this information to the commission earlier? Certainly it might have prevented the embarassment of being painted as a liar.

What? You don't believe he has any information??!! How skeptical of you!

[thaiboxerken]

I wonder how long it will be until Bush and Cheney say that Jesus told them that Saddam helped cause 9/11.

[crackmonkey]

So... I must have missed the speech where Cheney said that Saddam and Al Qaeda had a 'close relationship'.
The point is, the VP was asked if he had information the commission didn;t have, and he indicated he likely did. They then asked for this information.
It's worth noting that a couple of the 9/11 committee's members have said that the slew of press headlines characterizing the commission as stating 'Iraq had no ties to AL Qaeda' is misleading at best. Iraq had ties to the organization, but no working relationship.
Exactly.

[peptoabysmal]

Here's a very interesting article on this topic:

Iraq's ties to al-Qaida -- and 9/11? (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1087082990245730.xml)

Sadly, I've had no luck in locating the original Wall Street Journal article yet.

If anyone has a link, I'd appreciate it...

[CapelDodger]

from peptoabysmal's link:
Many questions remain to be asked and answered, the foremost being:

Who is Ahmed Hikmat Shakir?

Another being: what were the 9/11 commission told about this man? The rest of the article is an attack on the integrity of the press - not including the author, presumably - and some stuff about not being able to prove that Atta didn't meet someone in Prague at some point. He was apparently out-of-sight at the time, which is unsurprising given that he was a terrorist.

from crackmonkey:
It's worth noting that a couple of the 9/11 committee's members have said that the slew of press headlines characterizing the commission as stating 'Iraq had no ties to AL Qaeda' is misleading at best. Iraq had ties to the organization, but no working relationship.
Can you provide their names? I'd be interested in seeing exactly what they had to say.

So, essentially, this entire debate is about the meaning of 'ties' and 'contacts'.
Apparently it's just become about the meaning of "ties" and "working relationship".

[headscratcher4]

The point is....

The point is that the VP is asserting that these "links" are meaninful, hinting that they had something to do with 9/11 (though studiously avoiding saying-so outright any more) and implying that he/the Administration may have more information than the 9/11 Commission (which concluded that what ever links "existed" they never became substantive and that there was no evidence of cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qeda).

Essentially, the VP and Bush are arguing "trust us," we have intelligence that proves the links (and, by implication the "link" is substantive), and it is just one more reason (along with the immediate danger that Saddam and his WMD posed to the US) for going to war.

The point is that these guys have no credibility. Citing secret information from intelligence sources (the same intelligence sources that told us about the WMDs and were so wildly successful in determining the nature of the AlQeda threat to the US in the first place, as well as the intelligence sources that thought that a little extra-curricular tortured was justified,2 post-hoc, as being essential to saving US lives was in order) no longer does it for me.

Burn me once shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on me.

I gave Bush and company a lot of space once upon a time -- suspended my partisan bias -- because I believed they couldn't take us into war on a pretext. I assumed -- foolishly -- that when they said Saddam had WMD ready to go, they knew what they were talking about.

I was wrong.

So, they don't get a second chance at positing "secret" information and intelligence sourcing for deep links between Saddam and our other enemies.

My question is why Bush supporters give it any credibility. Outside of destroying Saddam (not, mind you, the worse thing in the world), what have these guys been right about?

War planning? Post-war rebuilding? The friendly, liberated Iraqis embracing the US and democracy? Making the middle east safer?

Reducing the terrorist threat?

How much credibility can they still have?

ZERO.

IMO

[crackmonkey]

Capel dodger (what on Earth does that mean?) -

The commissioners in question were Lee Hamilton and John Lehman. Hamilton's words were "The sharp differences that the press has drawn [between the White House and the Commission] are not that apparent to me," Hamilton told the Associated Press, a day after insisting that his probe uncovered "all kinds" of connections between Osama bin Laden's terror network and Iraq.

[Tricky]

Osima Bin Laden has "ties" to the Saud family of Saudi Arabia. He is a member of one of the wealthy ruling families. He seems to be able to call upon vast stores of wealth to recruit, equip, and train an army. These ties are much stronger than the ties to Iraq. Yet we count the Saudis as our "friends".

[crackmonkey]

As an interesting aside, the 9/11 commission also found no significant contacts between Al Qaeda and the house of Saud - an interesting parallel to the Saddam/Al Qaeda linkage. I'm curious to find if the posters who object so strenuously to Cheney's statements will object similarly when collaboration between the Saudis and Al Qaeda are asserted...

[CapelDodger]

Thank you, crackmonkey.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
As an interesting aside, the 9/11 commission also found no significant contacts between Al Qaeda and the house of Saud - an interesting parallel to the Saddam/Al Qaeda linkage. I'm curious to find if the posters who object so strenuously to Cheney's statements will object similarly when collaboration between the Saudis and Al Qaeda are asserted...
Nope. No contacts. Just links. I wonder if posters who so vociferously assert the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam to be important will attach equal importance to AQ's links with the Saudi ruling class.

[crackmonkey]

Allow me to rephrase - the commission found less connection between the Saudi government and Al Qaeda than between AL Qaeda and Saddam.
No evidence supports the Saudi government financing or assisting AL Qaeda in the 9/11 plot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47815-2004Jun16.html

[CapelDodger]

From a Reuter's report (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5460863) on a Condi Rice exercise in lawyer-speak:
"The president talks in terms of a relationship between the two. The vice president talks in terms of a tie between the two. We talk in terms of contacts between the two," he added.

"All of those words are similar, but clearly relationship and ties suggest more than contacts."
(Attributed to Lee Hamilton, vice-chairman of 9/11 Commission)

It seems we arrived at the crux independently. Contacts - ties - working relationship - operational control (the last idea introduced by Rice so she can say "We never said that" - nobody ever said they did).

The outside world is hag-ridden by lawyers, let's try not to get into their bad habits here. Rather than parsing statments deliberately designed - by trained and qualified dissimulators - to convey an idea without actually saying it, let's apply some critical thinking. The outcome of the Bush administrations communications with the public is a widely-held belief that Iraq was involved in 9/11. There's good reason to think that the administration wanted them to have that impression. Plenty of examples have been provided of "9/11" and "Iraq" being mentioned, if not in the same breath, in contiguous sentences. The obvious conclusion is that the administration deliberately mis-led the public, and that's lying. Except to a lawyer, of course.

[American]

It's not a claim, they totally ARE going out together. She was blowing him right on the frigging school bus for christ sake.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Allow me to rephrase - the commission found less connection between the Saudi government and Al Qaeda than between AL Qaeda and Saddam.
No evidence supports the Saudi government financing or assisting AL Qaeda in the 9/11 plot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47815-2004Jun16.html
From your link:
"Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding, but we found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior officials within the Saudi government funded al Qaeda," the report concluded.

Al Qaeda nevertheless found "fertile fundraising ground in the Kingdom," where religious extremism flourishes and charitable giving is considered an obligation.
Emphasis on "as an institution". Minor government officials could give to anyone they liked, and quite obviously did. The Saudi government harbors those officials.

I'd say that's a lot stronger "link" than anything turned up in Iraq.

And then there's this from the L.A. Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-alqaeda20jun20,1,440629.story?coll=la-headlines-world) (registration required)
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia helped set the stage for the Sept. 11 attacks by cutting deals with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden that allowed his Al Qaeda terrorist network to flourish, according to several senior members of the Sept. 11 commission and U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The financial aid to the Taliban and other assistance by two of the most important allies of the United States in its war on terrorism date at least to 1996, and appear to have shielded them from Al Qaeda attacks within their own borders until long after the 2001 strikes, those commission members and officials said in interviews.
...
The officials said that by not cracking down on Bin Laden, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia significantly undermined efforts to combat terrorism worldwide, giving the Saudi exile the haven he needed to train tens of thousands of soldiers. They believe that the governments' funding of his Taliban protectors enabled Bin Laden to withstand international pressure and expand his operation into a global network that could carry out the Sept. 11 attacks.

Of course, one only need to look at the nationalities of the 9/11 terrorists to see where the greatest threat was coming from.

[crackmonkey]

I'd like to see (and I'm sure the 9/11 commission would as well) your evidence of Saudi officials - major or minor - contributing to Al Qaeda's coffers. You say it's quite obvious that minor officials (and only minor ones, for some reason) aided AL Qaeda. You also mock the idea that Saddam had links to AL Qaeda, yet there is more evidence of Saddam having some kind of relationship with AL Qaeda than any Saudi officials... I admire your confidence and certitude in this matter, but the facts contradict you. There is NO evidence that any Saudi government official had ties to AL Qaeda. There is evidence that Saddam had ties to AL Qaeda.
Not to say that I don't suspect that there are dissident royals who have aided Osama - I suspect that both Saddam and Saudi royalty supported AL Qaeda to a degree, as long as Osama's hate was directed towards the US.
The point of my posts was to underline exactly what the commission did say - they saw no contacts between the Saudi government and AL Qaeda and some contact between Saddam and AL Qaeda, but no evidence of a working relationship.
I have to add - for all those who are fervently promoting the idea that the President is implying a link between Saddam and 9/11 - his own words contradict you. How many times does he have to explicitly state that there is zero evidence linking Saddam to 9/11?

[dsm]

Be more explicit:

If there was "zero evidence linking Saddam to 9/11" and the Al Qaeda terrorists who carried it out, then why does the administration (like Bush and Cheney) keep pointing out the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda?? How much of a link between the two is the Bush Administration trying to show and why should we consider it significant??

This is beginning to sound like a debate over the definition of "is"... :p

[CapelDodger]

from dsm:
If there was "zero evidence linking Saddam to 9/11" and the Al Qaeda terrorists who carried it out, then why does the administration (like Bush and Cheney) keep pointing out the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda?? How much of a link between the two is the Bush Administration trying to show and why should we consider it significant??
More accurately, they don't point out a link, they claim a link. They don't provide any evidence. The other side of your question is : why does the 9/11 Commission not share the administrations's view? Perhaps because they don't have a political stake in the matter?

The link through al-Zarqawi doesn't hold up. We have this from The Observer (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,887379,00.html) (Feb 2003) :
They say that, despite fighting in the CIA-backed war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, he does not adhere to the ideology of al-Qaeda, a view shared by the CIA. Indeed, his name does not figure on its list of the 22 most wanted Islamic terrorists and he has never been mentioned in the list of senior al-Qaeda men in bin Laden's entourage in Afghanistan.
The information about al-Zarqawi in Baghdad comes from before the war, from sources that have since been discredited (Chalabi's people). Jordanians associated with al-Zarqawi have described his set-up as a militant group for those who don't want to join al-Qaeda. This makes sense, since there's no love lost between (Hashemite) Jordan/Iraq and the Sauds, regarded by the Hashemites as upstarts. I see no reason why this split shouldn't be reflected in the Islamist world, in fact I'd expect it.

[Regnad Kcin]

9/11 Commissioner: Let me see your Saddam/al Qaeda links.

Darth Cheney: You don't need to see our links.

9/11 Commissioner: We don't need to see his links.

Darth Cheney: These are the connections you're looking for.

9/11 Commissioner: These are the connections we're looking for.

Darth Cheney: We can go about our business.

9/11 Commissioner: You can go about your business.

Darth Cheney: Move along.

9/11 Commissioner: Move along... move along.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Ahh Grasshopper , I see your humor organ is as large as mine!

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Ahh Grasshopper , I see your humor organ is as large as mine!

I'm not sure where one's humor organ is.

Is it the one that gets laughed at most?

[crackmonkey]

I didn;t realize there was any conreoversy at all about Zarqawi's status as an Al Qaeda member. He ran one of their camps in Afghanistan - he was chased out after the Taliban fell, was treated in Uday's hospital, and then set up shop in Iraq.

Once again - CHeney brought up the linkage between AL Qaeda and Saddam - which the 9/11 commission agreed was there - because the press began trumpeting headlines saying there was no linkage between the two at all. The commission said there was no linkage between Saddam and 9/11, but there were links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The press headlines got it wrong. CHeney corrected them, and was supported by the 9/11 commissioners.

One link describing Zarqawi's status in AL Qaeda, from a year ago...
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030610-125659-6237r.htm

[CapelDodger]

from crackmonkey:
I didn;t realize there was any conreoversy at all about Zarqawi's status as an Al Qaeda member. He ran one of their camps in Afghanistan - he was chased out after the Taliban fell, was treated in Uday's hospital, and then set up shop in Iraq.
If you look at the link I provided you'll see that there is a controversy. What do you know of the source of the story that Zarqawi was treated in "Uday's hospital" ( a term which could also use some defining)? Why did he not appear in the CIA's top 22 most-wanted before the Iraq War? Why is it that he wasn't mentioned as a senior al-Qaeda man while in Afghanistan, but is referred to as such now?

One possible answer to the last question is that his role viv-s-vis al-Qeda has been deliberately inflated recently so as to create a mis-leading impression of al-Qaeda links to Saddam. Perhaps you could provide another answer.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky

Nope. No contacts. Just links. I wonder if posters who so vociferously assert the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam to be important will attach equal importance to AQ's links with the Saudi ruling class.

Tricky,

You, I, and everyone else here knows you're just being obtuse. We all know (or should) that Osama is actively engaged (and has been for some time) in trying to depose the Saudi monarchy. Now, tell us again...in light of these facts....how AQ and the House of Saud could be engaged in some mutually acceptable conspiracy?

Now before you attempt to make the same observation about Saddam the secular and Osama the Godly you must remember that Saddam and Osama had mutual enemies. Who are the House of Saud and AQ's mutual enemies??

That's the million dollar question. Answer it and your opinion might be saved....don't and your assertion just looks silly.

-z

[Tricky]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Now before you attempt to make the same observation about Saddam the secular and Osama the Godly you must remember that Saddam and Osama had mutual enemies. Who are the House of Saud and AQ's mutual enemies??
I'm trying to remember. It's a little country. Kinda in the middle of the Mideast. Population is mostly Jewish. Damn that memory of mine!

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
9/11 Commissioner: Let me see your Saddam/al Qaeda links.

Darth Cheney: You don't need to see our links.

9/11 Commissioner: We don't need to see his links.

Darth Cheney: These are the connections you're looking for.

9/11 Commissioner: These are the connections we're looking for.

Darth Cheney: We can go about our business.

9/11 Commissioner: You can go about your business.

Darth Cheney: Move along.

9/11 Commissioner: Move along... move along.

heh:D :jedi:

[dsm]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Now before you attempt to make the same observation about Saddam the secular and Osama the Godly you must remember that Saddam and Osama had mutual enemies. Who are the House of Saud and AQ's mutual enemies??


Ah, another believer in "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" school of thought...

:p