Admitting I was Wrong...... Again

[corplinx]

I've corrected myself in enough threads already to prove I don't know it all.


However, I think its safe to say now that I was wrong when I criticized the Bush admin for claiming there were links between Iraq and Saddam.


My bad.


Still, they had not yet worked out a working relationship so shame on the Bush admin for playing up the "foreplay". However, being a big fat hypocrit I would made as hell if their cooperation was tangible, resulted in an attack, and it turned out the admin knew there were links.


Never misunderestimate the shrub.

[Mr Manifesto]

What are you talking about? <---- This isn't a rhetorical question.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
What are you talking about? <---- This isn't a rhetorical question.

I was admitting that I was wrong. Like many on this forum (including some who supported the invasion of Iraq), I criticized that Bush admin on this forum for their talk of al q/ iraq links pre-invasion.

[Beancounter]

Originally posted by corplinx
However, I think its safe to say now that I was wrong when I criticized the Bush admin for claiming there were links between Iraq and Saddam.


I am sure you would not cirticise anyone for claiming there were links between a president and his country.

Saddam and Al-Queeda, perhaps?
;)

[The Don]

Ok-ay

It's one of those non-apology, I was right all along just slightly misled by you bunch of lefties for a moment, apologies.

From my understanding (which is, I admit, biased) thye link between OBL and Saddam Hussein (or rather Al Qaeda and Iraq) comes down to:
a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden in 1994 and there were later meetings between Iraqi and al Qaeda officials in Afghanistan, "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
So that's it, ten years ago they met up and found that they couldn't work together. This is the basis for the invasion of Iraq ?

IIRC in a not too dissimilar timeframe (okay maybe it's twice as long), the U.S. was buddying up to the Ba'thist regime in Iraq and the Taliban. I think anyone would be hard pressed to maintain that there still was a link these days.

Just accept the fact that the U.S. invaded Iraq because it wanted to and becuase it could. Post hoc reasoning to try and justify it on the basis of intelligence which refers to 10 years ago should be beneath the U.S. The administration should just get a pair and say "We did it becuase we believe it's the right thing to do and we don't care what you all think about it"

[Hand Bent Spoon]

I must be out of it, but has it been conclusively proven Iraq and Al Qaeda had a working relationship beyond, "You hate America? Yeah, so do I!"?

For myself, I have come down on the side of the invasion of Iraq having been a bad thing, and I think it should cost Bush the presidency. Initially, I was in favor of the invasion, but the lack of evidence (especially) about weapons of mass destruction is pretty clear. Bush made the wrong call. And this was no simple mistake, but an enormous blunder. One he should pay for by being fired.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx
I've corrected myself in enough threads already to prove I don't know it all.


However, I think its safe to say now that I was wrong when I criticized the Bush admin for claiming there were links between Iraq and Saddam.


My bad.


Still, they had not yet worked out a working relationship so shame on the Bush admin for playing up the "foreplay". However, being a big fat hypocrit I would made as hell if their cooperation was tangible, resulted in an attack, and it turned out the admin knew there were links.


Never misunderestimate the shrub.

And the 9/11 commission didn't believe a word of it. And the shrub never thought it valid enough to use as an excuse to invade Iraq. He thought a croc of **** like WMD was much more likely to be believed.

[varwoche]

Cheney and Corplinx, that makes 2.

[Renfield]

Links. Nice vague term. Right wingers like to use it to imply that Iraq and AQ worked hand in hand. Too bad the actual intelligence never backs that up. But still anything can be a link, you know. They weren't technically lying.

Same old garbage.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Renfield
Links. Nice vague term.

It is vague, however I dumped on them for asserting this notion. I was wrong, simple as that.

The fact that they are wishy washy, what they want to imply, the fact there are douche bags, its all beside the point.

There seem to be three camps:

A.
there are no links

These people either dismiss all evidence otherwise or try to play terminology lawyer with the word "links". The are the flat earthers of this situation and do not have a skeptical point of view.

B.
there are links, but it doesnt matter since Bush is a lying creationst a-hole

another nonskeptical point of view. Look at Carl Sagan's example of reasoned scientists changing or dumping theories when they prove to be wrong.

C.
They said there were links. They were right all along. Now we have more proof they were right.

This is another non-skeptical point of view since there wasn't public declassified evidence to back up the former notion. I call group C the Hannity group.



I am in the S group. I expressed skepticism of what I saw as unsupported claims of links. As information of these links has grown over time and with the revelation that there was at least one operative in the Feydaeen I have conceded the point.


Many people on this form are good at being critical of the administration. However, its easier to be critical or contrarian than to be a skeptic.

[UserGoogol]

A 2002 White House memo reported that they had discovered a link between Al-Qaeda and popular Hollywood film actor Kevin Bacon.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by UserGoogol
A 2002 White House memo reported that they had discovered a link between Al-Qaeda and popular Hollywood film actor Kevin Bacon.

But there was a link! Osama bin Laden starred in a movie called All my Favorite Fatwas...

[blackadder65738]

As information of these links has grown over time and with the revelation that there was at least one operative in the Feydaeen I have conceded the point.

Ah, but I have the answer to part of your quandary, young one. We have now learned that the man that was supposed to be in the Fedayeen and the one in al Qaeda are two DIFFERENT men. There was just confusion over their names. Step out of the dark forest of douchebaggery, and be healed, my son!

[corplinx]

Originally posted by blackadder65738
We have now learned that the man that was supposed to be in the Fedayeen and the one in al Qaeda are two DIFFERENT men. There was just confusion over their names. Step out of the dark forest of douchebaggery, and be healed, my son!

That's what I get for not keeping in touch with the news for a few days. However, that one link being incorrect doesn't invalidate the rest. Step out of the forest of head-up-my-a-hole-ness and give free thought a chance.

[Nikk]

I'm sure that Corpse (sic) really thinks he is being witty and smart.

Sad, isn't it?

[TillEulenspiegel]

Anyone can be wrong, the defining aspect is when people recognize it.
Kudos.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by corplinx



I am in the S group. I expressed skepticism of what I saw as unsupported claims of links. As information of these links has grown over time and with the revelation that there was at least one operative in the Feydaeen I have conceded the point.


Many people on this form are good at being critical of the administration. However, its easier to be critical or contrarian than to be a skeptic.

So you're just a hard core skeptic huh? Its just that irresistable mountain of evidence put forth by Bush and the CIA that has forced you to reluctantly admit you were wrong.

:dl:

You have some strange notions of what constitutes proof of a "link". Again, a term that can be made to mean almost anything. They had a meeting with someone from Al Quada? Saddams second cousin was once a roommate of one of Osama's many relatives? Saddam was really the force behind 9-11? What?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by corplinx
As information of these links has grown over time and with the revelation that there was at least one operative in the Feydaeen I have conceded the point.blackadder65738 posts:

We have now learned that the man that was supposed to be in the Fedayeen and the one in al Qaeda are two DIFFERENT men. There was just confusion over their names.Answer:

That's what I get for not keeping in touch with the news for a few days. However, that one link being incorrect doesn't invalidate the rest.Wasn't your whole point in the second post that this guy was an operative in the Feydaeen? Wasn't that 'fact' what finally convinced you?

(I know you just pretended, but anyhow. :) )

[Charlie Monoxide]

I wish to to apologize for being correct in any of my previous posts. I truly hope I didn't come across as being arrogant or just an uppity know-it-all.

I know it takes a big man (err person for the PC crowd), to admit they're right, but I'll swallow my pride and do so in this post.

Charlie (Bush is evil) Monoxide

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Wasn't your whole point in the second post that this guy was an operative in the Feydaeen? Wasn't that 'fact' what finally convinced you?


It was what finally got me to reconsider the issue to be honest. I saw threads on here about the 9-11 commission findings with regards to various Iraq/Al Q. links but I didn't really want to go into the details. Like most lazy weasels like myself, I like smoking gun evidence that is short and easy to connect.

However, at least I am not a weasel of a different sort like Renfield who will keep moving the goalposts until link==full collaboration. He will continue to split hairs over words to accomodate his views.

I posted on threads on this forum my belief that the AlQ/Iraq links claim by the admin was "silly". Apparently, it wasn't such a silly assertion. The implication they perhaps wanted us to draw (that Bin Laden and Saddam were personally in cahoots) is silly but I am not addressing it.

[peptoabysmal]

Like I said before, you will never get a photo of Saddam and Osama shaking hands and passing a check, if that's what you expect.

Terrorism must have state sponsors to survive. The Clinton doctrine of a stateless international bunch of disjointed terrorists is a bunch of hooey. The Jihadists all work together at some level in conjunction with state sponsors.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by corplinx


It was what finally got me to reconsider the issue to be honest. I saw threads on here about the 9-11 commission findings with regards to various Iraq/Al Q. links but I didn't really want to go into the details. Like most lazy weasels like myself, I like smoking gun evidence that is short and easy to connect.

However, at least I am not a weasel of a different sort like Renfield who will keep moving the goalposts until link==full collaboration. He will continue to split hairs over words to accomodate his views.

I posted on threads on this forum my belief that the AlQ/Iraq links claim by the admin was "silly". Apparently, it wasn't such a silly assertion. The implication they perhaps wanted us to draw (that Bin Laden and Saddam were personally in cahoots) is silly but I am not addressing it.

Please, don't flatter me. You really excel when it comes to weaselness.

Actually, I've just pointed out Bush's generally shifty way with words and "the facts". Especially when it comes to what he means by claims of "links" and such.

Never touched those goal posts. I swear. Bush's people won't let us pinko compie simp liberals near the bastards.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Terrorism must have state sponsors to survive. The Clinton doctrine of a stateless international bunch of disjointed terrorists is a bunch of hooey. The Jihadists all work together at some level in conjunction with state sponsors.




So which state sponsored the IRA? Which state sponsored the Tamil Tigers? Which state sponsored islamic terrorists in Algeria? Which state is sponsoring the Chechens? Who sponsored the "Shining Path" terrorists? Who is sponsoring Al Q's efforts to subvert Saudi Arabia?

Certainly state sponsorship helps. The Contra terorists benefited from US sponsorship and the Kashmiri's were aided by Pakistan but it is by no means essential.

I suppose a lot depends on what you mean by sponsorship and what you mean by links. As the US under Reagan sold arms to its enemy Iran then by by Corpse's standards of evidence that means the US is linked to and sponsors Islamofascism ( to use a word beloved of NeoCons ). To a NeomystiCon everything connects.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Renfield


Please, don't flatter me. You really excel when it comes to weaselness.


Gracias

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Renfield
Links. Nice vague term. Right wingers like to use it to imply that Iraq and AQ worked hand in hand. Too bad the actual intelligence never backs that up. But still anything can be a link, you know. They weren't technically lying.

Same old garbage.

Many left-wingers on this forum like to imply that the right-wingers think that there is a sponsorship link between Saddam and Al-Quada so that they can then ask for evidence of this sponsorship or can then say that the right-wingers "weren't technically lying."

Its the old put-words-in-their-mouths-and attack-the-position-they-just-made-up ploy.

Its the left-wingers who make this junk up who are lying, and its not a technical matter.

Evidence that the right-wingers in government implied a sponsorship link between Al-Quada and Saddam? Would you be so kind as to provide?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by rockoon


Many left-wingers on this forum like to imply that the right-wingers think that there is a sponsorship link between Saddam and Al-Quada so that they can then ask for evidence of this sponsorship or can then say that the right-wingers "weren't technically lying."

Its the old put-words-in-their-mouths-and attack-the-position-they-just-made-up ploy.

Its the left-wingers who make this junk up who are lying, and its not a technical matter.

Evidence that the right-wingers in government implied a sponsorship link between Al-Quada and Saddam? Would you be so kind as to provide?

How about this? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html)

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.


Now, admittedly, this is from a rabid anti-Bush website, so naturally if anyone has a more neutral source that refutes this, they may provide it and I will withdraw.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Like I said before, you will never get a photo of Saddam and Osama shaking hands and passing a check, if that's what you expect.

Terrorism must have state sponsors to survive. The Clinton doctrine of a stateless international bunch of disjointed terrorists is a bunch of hooey. The Jihadists all work together at some level in conjunction with state sponsors.

Yes, they had the Taliban backing and Saudi indifference. At present, they are living in areas of anarchy. Iraq, and the border areas of Pakistan/Afghanistan.

Your surmise that because they have to have somewhere to live, they must have had the backing of Saddam is wishful thinking at it's worst.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Now, admittedly, this is from a rabid anti-Bush website, so naturally if anyone has a more neutral source that refutes this, they may provide it and I will withdraw.

Iraq/Saddam *DID* aid, train and harbor terrorists, including operatives of Al Quada.

Abu Zubair and Rafid Fatah underwent state sponsored training in Iraq. Salman Pak was a state sponsored training camp.

Training a few operatives of Al-Quada however is not the same as sponsoring Al-Quada.

Would you please be so kind as to provide a reference to the right wing saying that Iraq or Saddam sponsored Al-Quada? Providing links to off-point stuff doesnt satisfy the request.

[a_unique_person]

That's one of the main points. The impression has clearly been created (as shown in polls), that Iraq was a sponsor of Al-Qaeda terrorsim, without actually saying so, based on a minimal number of contacts. The strictly fundamentalist Al-Qaeda and secular Iraq were never going to be comfortable friends. I can comfortably say that US contacts with Osama would have been at least as close over the years.

[dann]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I can comfortably say that US contacts with Osama would have been at least as close over the years.
I think you're right. We should invade the US and liberate them!

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by rockoon


Iraq/Saddam *DID* aid, train and harbor terrorists, including operatives of Al Quada.

Abu Zubair and Rafid Fatah underwent state sponsored training in Iraq. Salman Pak was a state sponsored training camp.

Training a few operatives of Al-Quada however is not the same as sponsoring Al-Quada.

Would you please be so kind as to provide a reference to the right wing saying that Iraq or Saddam sponsored Al-Quada? Providing links to off-point stuff doesnt satisfy the request.

I think someone is playing lawyer-ball here.

What's the difference between,

Abu Zubair and Rafid Fatah underwent state sponsored training in Iraq. Salman Pak was a state sponsored training camp.

and,

Would you please be so kind as to provide a reference to the right wing saying that Iraq or Saddam sponsored Al-Quada?

?

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I think someone is playing lawyer-ball here.



Are you trying to say that anywhere a few Al-Quada members have ever trained has sponsored Al-Quada?

That would include France, italy, Spain, the United States, United Kingdom, and so forth?

Not that all of these countries have harbored them, providing systematic financial aid...

The people playing lawyer ball are the ones claiming the U.S. right-wingers made the case that Iraq sponsored Al-Quada. The same people who are very liberal at "reading between the lines" in other matters when they are nearing the last straw.

How frustrating it must be that no WMD was found while the majority shrugs that off as if its a moot point. The only legitimate beef isnt taken seriously. If nobody takes that seriously, why would they take this "reading between the lines" tactic seriously?

[Renfield]

Originally posted by rockoon


Iraq/Saddam *DID* aid, train and harbor terrorists, including operatives of Al Quada.

Abu Zubair and Rafid Fatah underwent state sponsored training in Iraq. Salman Pak was a state sponsored training camp.



Originally posted by rockoon

The people playing lawyer ball are the ones claiming the U.S. right-wingers made the case that Iraq sponsored Al-Quada. The same people who are very liberal at "reading between the lines" in other matters when they are nearing the last straw.


/boggle

[Nikk]

Originally posted by rockoon


Would you please be so kind as to provide a reference to the right wing saying that Iraq or Saddam sponsored Al-Quada? Providing links to off-point stuff doesnt satisfy the request.



Remember Google is your friend. Type Bush Iraq Al Quaeda into the search field and receive you will receive 22000 plus links.

Here's one (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6898651%255E401,00.html)

In which it says ..............""A senior al-Qaeda terrorist, now detained, who had been responsible for al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, reports that al-Qaeda was intent on obtaining (weapons of mass destruction) assistance from Iraq," the White House said in a report.


The 25 page document was released as US President George W Bush holidayed at his Texas ranch.

The Bush administration cited links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Baath party regime as justification for attacking Iraq to oust Saddam. The administration also insisted Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was pursuing nuclear weapons....................."

Any time the nappies (diapers?) need changing just call. We're only here to help.



Edited to add. I wonder how much they tortured the suspect before he provided that gem of "information" hmmmm? Way to go eh?

[AtheistArchon]

A senior al-Qaeda terrorist, now detained, who had been responsible for al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, reports that al-Qaeda was intent on obtaining (weapons of mass destruction) assistance from Iraq," the White House said in a report."

- You bet they were! Osama would have loved to have had WMD's from Saddam, and 40 square miles of training grounds, and small arms, and so on.

- Umm. What's your point? We know he wanted support. Saddam blew him off.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Nikk


Remember Google is your friend. Type Bush Iraq Al Quaeda into the search field and receive you will receive 22000 plus links.


And so far not one of those 22,000 links given here indicates that the right-wing in America claimed that Saddam sponsered Al-Quada.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by rockoon

And so far not one of those 22,000 links given here indicates that the right-wing in America claimed that Saddam sponsered Al-Quada.

I think you forgot to add:
"Except for the one that Nikk provided."

To wit:
"The Bush administration cited links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Baath party regime as justification for attacking Iraq to oust Saddam. The administration also insisted Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was pursuing nuclear weapons....................."

I mean, REALLY! We ALL remember the Bush Administration talking this stuff up before the attack started.

I know the American public has horribly short memories, but this is a skeptic's board you're posting on.

Well, OK, maybe I'm being harsh here. Perhaps your argument is both/either A. the Bush administration is not Right Wing or B. that Saddam collaborating with al-Queda is not ACTUALLY sponsoring al-Queda. In which case you could technically make your point; although I don't think it'll be much of a convincer.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by AtheistArchon


- You bet they were! Osama would have loved to have had WMD's from Saddam, and 40 square miles of training grounds, and small arms, and so on.

- Umm. What's your point? We know he wanted support. Saddam blew him off.

Did you read the thread?

Did you read Rockoons vapourings?

Did you read the link?

O.K. here we go.

In an earlier post Rockoon says

"""""Would you please be so kind as to provide a reference to the right wing saying that Iraq or Saddam sponsored Al-Quada? Providing links to off-point stuff doesnt satisfy the request.""""""


I showed that the most rudimentary search would provide information on the subject and provided a relevant link quoting a white house report. If you had read the link you would find that it also says.......

""A HIGH-RANKING al-Qaeda operative in custody disclosed that Iraq supplied the Islamist militant group with material to build chemical and biological weapons, the White House said today."""""""

and

"Iraq agreed to provide chemical and biological weapons training for two al-Qaeda associates starting in December 2000," the report said.

"Senior al-Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi came to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, along with approximately two dozen al-Qaeda terrorist associates.

"This group stayed in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq and plotted terrorist attacks around the world."

Thus I think that Rockoons question is answered. The right wing did claim that Iraq sponsored Al Q. You are of course right that the claim was false.

[wjousts]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Like I said before, you will never get a photo of Saddam and Osama shaking hands and passing a check, if that's what you expect.

You mean like the pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam?

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/jpg/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

[bignickel]

Uh, Nikk? I suspect that AtheistArchon agrees with you.

His post is actually responding to the Bush Admin official who is trying to make a Iraq-Al-Queda connection by claiming that Al-Queda wanted Iraq's help.

AA is pointing out that is not REALLY a connection, since it was not a reciprocal relationship. IE AQ wanted help from just about anyone it could get help from. Anyone it approached would be seen by Bush Admin as 'collaborating'.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by bignickel



Well, OK, maybe I'm being harsh here. Perhaps your argument is both/either A. the Bush administration is not Right Wing or B. that Saddam collaborating with al-Queda is not ACTUALLY sponsoring al-Queda. In which case you could technically make your point; although I don't think it'll be much of a convincer.




Yes, we must be fair.

It's possible Rockoon is under the impression that "sponsoring" means that all Al Q operatives had to appear at publicity gigs, wear T shirts with Saddam's corporate logo and only use Iraqi munitions in suicide bombings.

If this is the case we are all posting at cross purposes:D .

[Nikk]

Originally posted by bignickel
Uh, Nikk? I suspect that AtheistArchon agrees with you.

His post is actually responding to the Bush Admin official who is trying to make a Iraq-Al-Queda connection by claiming that Al-Queda wanted Iraq's help.

AA is pointing out that is not REALLY a connection, since it was not a reciprocal relationship. IE AQ wanted help from just about anyone it could get help from. Anyone it approached would be seen by Bush Admin as 'collaborating'.


Fair enough.

If I misinterpreted AA's post I apologise for the error.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by wjousts

You mean like the pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam?

"Rummy Chummy."

[rockoon]

Originally posted by bignickel


I think you forgot to add:
"Except for the one that Nikk provided."

To wit:
"The Bush administration cited links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Baath party regime as justification for attacking Iraq to oust Saddam. The administration also insisted Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was pursuing nuclear weapons....................."


Yes they cited links. Links that exist.

They did not cite that Iraq sponsored the Al-Quada. They did not cite that they gave financial backing to Al-Quada. They did not cite that Iraq was involved in systematic harboring and/or training of Al-Quada. They did not cite any ongoing deal between Iraq and Al-Quada.

See this is the point. You point to the word "links" and say that that means something on the level of sponsorship. That that means a system in place where they do business together, plotting against the United States.

Please show me a SINGLE statement by the right-wing where they are making the claim that Saddam and Al-Quada were in cahoots.

So far, none have been presented. Oh you might banter about how what has been provided satisfies YOUR innuendo. The problem is that what you cite doesnt make such innuendo.

Read what it says, not what you wish it says. Don't read between the lines. Thats *your* subjection and not the right-wings. Observer created reality?

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Nikk


""A HIGH-RANKING al-Qaeda operative in custody disclosed that Iraq supplied the Islamist militant group with material to build chemical and biological weapons, the White House said today."""""""



Thats called *NEWS* Are you saying thats not what he disclosed?



"Iraq agreed to provide chemical and biological weapons training for two al-Qaeda associates starting in December 2000," the report said.



Quite simply.. the summarize the topic of this tangent to you.. since you clearly don't understand it:

The administration justified the resumed hostilities over WMD. Everyone knew that a year ago. This forum was completely filled with the lefties bitching about no WMD being found. But now the leftists have a new complaint. Now they say that we didnt justify resumed hostilies because of WMD, now they say that the 'right-wing' justified it because Iraq sponsored Al-Quada.

The only reason the leftist tune has changed is that they found out that nobody cares if WMD were found or not. So now they are completely and totally making up their own arguement by claiming that the administration justified the war because Iraq and Al-Quada were in cahoots and are now demanding evidence for this claim they invented.

They now say things like 'the right-wingers "weren't technically lying."' in regards to the findings of the 9/11 commission when no evidence was found to support their own fabicration. The only people who expected evidence of that is apparently the left-wingers who pray that they will be able to sell us their fabrication.


"This group stayed in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq and plotted terrorist attacks around the world."

Thus I think that Rockoons question is answered. The right wing did claim that Iraq sponsored Al Q. You are of course right that the claim was false.

No. What you are citing is news.

Is what is reported there wrong? Its right isnt it? Abu Zubair and Rafid Fatah underwent state sponsored training in Iraq, didnt they? These are people. They are also members of the Al-Quada. Members of the Al-Quada also trained in the United States, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, and of course, Afghanistan.

If I were to tell you that several members of the Al-Quada trained at a specific pilot training school in the United States, would that be equivilent to saying that that flight school sponsored the Al-Quada?

Obviously not.

Therefore when someone says that a few members were trained someplace, it is not sufficient cause to think that what "they really meant to say" was that the Al-Quada were being sponsored. You need to provide more than that to support your conclusion about what "they really meant to say" since clearly you can't find where they said what you are claiming they said.

But really its completely off the point - you need to find sources from late 2002/early 2003 if you are going to show that the administration justified the war over this. Lets for example take a look at Bush's addresses to the nation before we resumed hostilities. Do they justify the war because Saddam was sponsoring Al-Quada? Precisely when did the administration begin to use this justification? Did they *EVER* do it? So far nobody can cite any time that they did.

[rockoon]

The Presidents March 19th, 2003 address to the nation as we resume hostilities with Iraq:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

I can't find any reference at all the Al-Quada. Maybe its between some of those lines? I really haven't checked behind the lines either.. perhaps under the lines? above the lines? Maybe its written in invisible ink?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by corplinx


It is vague, however I dumped on them for asserting this notion. I was wrong, simple as that.

The fact that they are wishy washy, what they want to imply, the fact there are douche bags, its all beside the point.

There seem to be three camps:

A.
there are no links

These people either dismiss all evidence otherwise or try to play terminology lawyer with the word "links". The are the flat earthers of this situation and do not have a skeptical point of view.

B.
there are links, but it doesnt matter since Bush is a lying creationst a-hole

another nonskeptical point of view. Look at Carl Sagan's example of reasoned scientists changing or dumping theories when they prove to be wrong.

C.
They said there were links. They were right all along. Now we have more proof they were right.

This is another non-skeptical point of view since there wasn't public declassified evidence to back up the former notion. I call group C the Hannity group.



I am in the S group. I expressed skepticism of what I saw as unsupported claims of links. As information of these links has grown over time and with the revelation that there was at least one operative in the Feydaeen I have conceded the point.


Many people on this form are good at being critical of the administration. However, its easier to be critical or contrarian than to be a skeptic.


So....... you are skeptical because you don't require evidence to believe the Bush Administration's claims... ok, got it.


Why are the Bush Admistration's claims not subject to proof/evidence? Why must we take everything they tell us on faith?

[Dorian Gray]

Step out of the forest of head-up-my-a-hole-ness and give free thought a chance. There's only room for just Coprlinx in there. The forest, I mean.... or do I?

Please allow you to demonstrate your hypocrisy with statements like this: These people either dismiss all evidence otherwise or try to play terminology lawyer with the word "links" Here goes:
There are links between Bush and Bin Laden. Bin Laden's brother was a partner in Bush's first corporation.

[crackmonkey]

Well, that would be sufficient to put to rest the conventional wisdom that no Bush family member has ever met with a bin Laden family member, and it was madness to think it a possibility.
As is the case with the Saddam/ Al Qaeda links. Each sought out the other on several occasions to further its own goals, something the anti-war people said could never happen, and to consider it a danger was risible.

They were wrong.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by rockoon

Yes they cited links. Links that exist.

They did not cite that Iraq sponsored the Al-Quada. They did not cite that they gave financial backing to Al-Quada. They did not cite that Iraq was involved in systematic harboring and/or training of Al-Quada. They did not cite any ongoing deal between Iraq and Al-Quada.

See this is the point. You point to the word "links" and say that that means something on the level of sponsorship. That that means a system in place where they do business together, plotting against the United States.


Sooooo, that would Option B that you've picked.

So using that criteria, I don't think anyone of us here can defeat you. I suspect none of us will be able to provide you with the exact wording from the Administration that fits the words you're looking for. Prbbably because most of feel that the point has already been made.

I plan to use similar reasoning when I ask the IRS to stop asking me to pay taxes, by arguing that I'm not 'really' a US Citizen, based on the the way I interpret the language of the Tax Code.

Care to bet on my chances?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by rockoon



They did not cite that Iraq sponsored the Al-Quada.

"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."

President GW Bush
Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).



They did not cite that they gave financial backing to Al-Quada.


"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations."

President GW Bush
Source: President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003).



They did not cite that Iraq was involved in systematic harboring and/or training of Al-Quada.


"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."

President GW Bush
Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).




They did not cite any ongoing deal between Iraq and Al-Quada.


We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. "

-Vice President Richard Cheney
Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003).






Please show me a SINGLE statement by the right-wing where they are making the claim that Saddam and Al-Quada were in cahoots.


"He [Saddam] also had an established relationship with Al Qaida -- providing training to Al Qaida members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs. "

-Vice President Richard Cheney

Source: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at the James A. Baker, III, Institute for Public Policy, White House (10/18/2003).



I can go on and on and on. I've got tons of these quotes on a database!




FUN Iraq embarrassing quote database:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

[crackmonkey]

Most of those quotes were accurate. You'll also find CLinton saying much the same thing. The best intelligence of the last two administrations was in agreement on this.
This still doesn;t amount to Saddam being involved in 9/11, nor has anyone alleged as much.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by rockoon


But really its completely off the point - you need to find sources from late 2002/early 2003 if you are going to show that the administration justified the war over this. Lets for example take a look at Bush's addresses to the nation before we resumed hostilities. Do they justify the war because Saddam was sponsoring Al-Quada? Precisely when did the administration begin to use this justification? Did they *EVER* do it? So far nobody can cite any time that they did.




You really are a lazy little sod. I TOLD you how to use Google. Do you do any independent thinking at all? You expect everyone else to spoon feed you with information. Then when they do you close your eyes and hope it will go away. Typical right winger camp follower I suppose.

Anyway check out Colin Powell's statement to the Security Council on February 5th 2003. There is a whole section devoted to alleged links between Al Q and Iraq.

Powell says

"
But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants. ".................

"
Al Qaeda continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zarqawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al Qaeda"............

"

The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two al Qaeda associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. "................

Note that this would be chemical and biological weapons training with non existent weapons. Tell me how effective would firearms training be if it consisted in pointing your forefinger towards a target and shouting "BANG".

So yet again from a different (02/2003) source I show your chimp and his cronies justifying the war by, inter alia, claiming that Iraq was aiding and abetting i.e. sponsoring Al Q.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by bignickel


I plan to use similar reasoning when I ask the IRS to stop asking me to pay taxes, by arguing that I'm not 'really' a US Citizen, based on the the way I interpret the language of the Tax Code.



This is not a correct analogy. You would be trying to read *MORE* into the Tax Code just as the leftists are trying to read *MORE* into the word 'links'.

So in actuality you have justified my point.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Most of those quotes were accurate. You'll also find CLinton saying much the same thing. The best intelligence of the last two administrations was in agreement on this.


REALLY? Clinton was saying that Saddam was funding, training and equipping and harboring Al Qaeda?


When was that?

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Nikk
Powell says

"
But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants. ".................



Can you read? Does this say that Iraq sponsored Al Quada or does it say that Iraq sponsored Abu Musab Zarqawui?


"
Al Qaeda continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zarqawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al Qaeda"............



I guess you can't read. He says he can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative who tells him that Iraq provided training.

So the person proffering the 'Iraq sponsoring Al Quada' theory in this case is none other than 'a senior terrorist operative'.


"

The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two al Qaeda associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. "................



Unfortunately this person is not the Al Quada. I was the first person here to mention the two Al Quada members who recieved training in Iraq. You are the 5th person? This of course does not mean that Iraq was sponsoring Al Quada.


So yet again from a different (02/2003) source I show your chimp and his cronies justifying the war by, inter alia, claiming that Iraq was aiding and abetting i.e. sponsoring Al Q.

No you havent. You continue to "read between the lines." Is it so hard to understand that people mean what they say rather than what you wish they meant?

[bignickel]

Originally posted by rockoon


This is not a correct analogy. You would be trying to read *MORE* into the Tax Code just as the leftists are trying to read *MORE* into the word 'links'.

So in actuality you have justified my point.

NO, I'm talking about just, in general, defining the words to one's own choice definitions.

Such as claiming that various words do not approach a narrow definition of 'sponsorship'.

What, to you, is sponsorship anyway? Custom printed T-shirts worn by Al-Queda members with the Iraqi flag on it?

What is it EXACTLY that you think we have been mis-remembering the Bush Administration telling us? Or are you just saying that the Bush Admin never used the actual word 'sponsorship'?

Something like this:?
"You claim that the Bush Administration said Saddam sent personal autographed pics of himself to Al-Queda! Well, the Bush Administration NEVER SAID THAT!"

Just curious.

Just seems to me your doing the same thing as certain Bush spokespeople have done:

"Show me the quote where George W Bush said "I'm a complete dumbass! Show it to me! You can't because he never said it"

As if by him not saying the quote that makes him any less of a complete dumbass

[bignickel]

Edit double post

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
There are links between Bush and Bin Laden. Bin Laden's brother was a partner in Bush's first corporation.


There are links between Rumsfeld and Saddam

Congressional Record: September 20, 2002 (Senate)
Page S8987-S8998
(http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Well, that would be sufficient to put to rest the conventional wisdom that no Bush family member has ever met with a bin Laden family member, and it was madness to think it a possibility.
As is the case with the Saddam/ Al Qaeda links. Each sought out the other on several occasions to further its own goals, something the anti-war people said could never happen, and to consider it a danger was risible.

They were wrong.

You are supposed to add IMHO.

All we have established is that a lot of people have a lot of contact with a lot of other people. Six degrees of seperation, all that.

Associating guilt on this basis is totally unproveable.

Now, you can aspire to higher levels of innocence, that is, that there is no appearance or suspicion of guilt. This is a good thing to do if you are, for example, a congressman and a judge.