Downing Street Memo

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

im laughing so hard that Arles has started cting blogs when he has refuted using blogs in the past as partisan hackery. LOL so funny.....apparently you must feel trapped or something to drop so low.

When have I stated blogs are all "partisan hackery"? Some certainly are, but this blog has numerous indepedent references that came be checked out. There are numerous blogs on the left that behave the same way and are not partisan hackery. I don't have a problem with use of blogs as sources, only the use of blogs WITH NO SOURCES as sources. Seems like a fairly simple distinction.

[JPhillips]

Arles: So many people are either mentioned in the memo or were at the meeting. Find one who says the memo isn't true and I'll be willing to listen. Until then you're just pulling shit out of the air.

What if the Abu Ghraib pictures are fake? Have you thought about that? Will the Left stop at nothing?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

But he never destroyed the originals. He destroyed photocopies and you still haven't answered why anyone would type it up on a typewriter instead of a CPU.

Arles, how does typing it on a computer (given the restrictions you named on it) make it more authentic? Believe it or not, lots of people in the world still use typewriters. AND NONE OF THIS CHANGES THE FACT THAT BLAIR ADMITTED THE MEMO HAD BEEN WRITTEN.

Originally Posted by Arles

But I am not questioning whether the memo exists - I am questioning the version we have all received from Mr Smith. But, in the end, I guess it really doesn't matter. Even if you buy the memo's wording as being completely authentic, we are once again back to this being one person's account with no corroborating information from any other the other 6 memos (that have been validated). So, we're back to the "he said-she said" with no other form of support for this person's conclusions.

Why would Blair let it go? He saw the memo HUNDREDS OF TIMES IN THE PRESS. And we was asked point blank about it during a press conference and didn't say anything about the discrepancies.

And I see you have returned to your previous argument. In other words, you have adopted the Bubba strategy - throw as much shit as possible and see what sticks. If nothing does, pretend you didn't say anything at all.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles: So many people are either mentioned in the memo or were at the meeting. Find one who says the memo isn't true and I'll be willing to listen. Until then you're just pulling shit out of the air.

What if the Abu Ghraib pictures are fake? Have you thought about that? Will the Left stop at nothing?

Have you thought about stop trying to deflect the issue and actual read the questions on the behavior of Mr. Smith in regards to this memo - and how they differ in such contrast from how the other 6 (content verified) memos?

[JPhillips]

Arles: Find one person who was involved in the meetings that says the memo is fake. It should be easy. Until you can find just one person that says the content is not accurate you're just making shit up.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Arles, how does typing it on a computer (given the restrictions you named on it) make it more authentic? Believe it or not, lots of people in the world still use typewriters.

Because you have a date associated with the file's creation that could be crossreferenced against Smith's claim that he received this memo with the other 6 that the Butler Commision verified. If that date showed he received the memo 6-8 months later (as much of the evidence and his actions suggest), then it adds more questions on the memo's credibility. Again, why would Smith hold onto the memo in silence for months after reporting on the first 6 memos?

Believe it or not, lots of people in the world still use typewriters. AND NONE OF THIS CHANGES THE FACT THAT BLAIR ADMITTED THE MEMO HAD BEEN WRITTEN.

I am not disputing that the memo was written. I'm questioning the content in the version presented by Smith.

Why would Blair let it go? He say the memo HUNDREDS OF TIMES IN THE PRESS. And we was asked point blank about it during a press conference and didn't say anything about the discrepancies.

Because he couldn't comment on the original because its classified. Or, perhaps he realized the memo was just one person's unsubstantiated opinion on a meeting and didn't think it was all that important to keep in the news.

And I see you have returned to your previous argument. In other words, you have adopted the Bubba strategy - throw as much shit as possible and see what sticks. If nothing does, pretend you didn't say anything at all.

There's nothing wrong with having multiple arguments regarding the implications of the memo. My stance is very simple. I think there are serious questions around the creation of the memo by Smith and its content. But, even if you buy the content as being 100% legit, the memo comes back to only providing the unsubstantiated opinion of one person with corroborating evidence or accounts of others also present to legitimize his stance. Again, I didn't think this was all that difficult to follow - but I guess I was wrong.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles: Find one person who was involved in the meetings that says the memo is fake. It should be easy. Until you can find just one person that says the content is not accurate you're just making shit up.

Hey, find one person on FOFC that says definitively you don't wear ladies underwear. It should be easy if you don't.

Usually the burden of proof is on the person making the claim not the people disputing it.

[JPhillips]

Arles: AND YOU ARE THE ONE CLAIMING THE MEMO IS FAKE!!!

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

Hey, find one person on FOFC that says definitively you don't wear ladies underwear. It should be easy if you don't.

Usually the burden of proof is on the person making the claim not the people disputing it.

So, the BOP is on Bush for the Al Qaeda/Iraq connection and the WMD's? Could this reporter just say, "he had some bad intell" and everything would be ok with you? Interesting.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

Again, I didn't think this was all that difficult to follow - but I guess I was wrong.

Nice ad hom at the end. You seem to have trouble with the fact that Blair could have said the memo was false. This is true whether or not it was classified. Your new claim is that he probably didn't think it was a big deal demonstrates that you haven't followed this issue at all. It was a MAJOR issue going into the British elections. And Blair (like Bush with the National Guard allegations) could have easily had someone in his camp say the memo, as presented, was fake. But strangely, that never happened. Huh.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

I will summarize it for you. I think there have been incidents where we have violated the Geneva convention. But, in each of these incidents, investigations have occurred (or are on-going) and charges have often been filed. This leads me to believe that violations of the Geneva conventions are against US treatment policy in Gitmo and that the offenders are not acting in accordance with the Bush administration or US policy when they committed these acts.

Sorry Arles, but your position carries no weight nor logic. Not when Rumsfeld himself said that the people being captured were "unlawful combatants" and therefore not subject to Geneva.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles: AND YOU ARE THE ONE CLAIMING THE MEMO IS FAKE!!!

And I have provided ample reason to question the authenticity of the memo. Let' summarize:

1. In his original story in September 2004, Smith cited only 6 documents (but not the Downing Street one). Smith has since said he received each of the memos at the same time yet didn't publish the Downing Street memo contents until May 1, 2005. Why would Smith not cite the Downing Street Memo back in September 2004 if he had it? Why wait 8 months before releasing it?

2. If not to conceal the date of the file's creation, why did Smith create the DSM on an old-syle typewriter? And why didn't he do the same with the other 6 memos that were also typed out to protect the source?

3. Why did the Daily Telegraph story involving the first 6 memos print actual renditions of the Jack Straw memo and the Manning memo when Smith said all originals were returned and photocopies were destroyed for the Downing Street and the other 6?

4. Why did the Butler commision cite each of the 6 other memos but not mention the Downing Street memo once in the entire report?

5. Why did the other 6 memos starkly contrast the DSM when they stated:

6. Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq.

This is enough to cast some doubt over not only the authenticity of Smith's claims involving the memo but also the seemingly unfounded conclusions reached in the memo. Maybe I am the only one here who is curious on these issues. And, to be completely frank, I'm fine with that as I think each is legimitate.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

So, the BOP is on Bush for the Al Qaeda/Iraq connection and the WMD's? Could this reporter just say, "he had some bad intell" and everything would be ok with you? Interesting.

Of course the burden is on the administration for WMD and Iraq/Al Qaeda. At this point, they seem to be wrong on both accounts and it has hurt the US credibility. But, that's not the same as saying Bush lied to the American people and took us to war on "fixed" facts. The intel used by Bush (as given to him by Tenet) seemed to be flawed in many cases, as well as much of the international intel. We should learn from it and try our best to make sure the Intel we give to our president and/or nation is given better vetting. But, Bush is certainly culpable for the actions of the US and had has paid a price for the info used to support the case for WMD not being correct.

[JPhillips]

You win Arles. I found the original unedited copy of the memo.




SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through diplomatic action, justified by the clear and inour opinion indisputable conjunction of terrorism and WMD. Remember, the intelligence and facts were NOT being fixed around the policy. The NSC has patience with the UN route. There was a whole lot of discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime but all of these were in no way related to a military strike, because Bush is reluctant. No decisions had been taken, ya got that!

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had most certainly not made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thicky thick thick. Saddam was threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was enormous, I mean fuckin huge. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. Remember, Bush is reluctant to go to war.

The Attorney-General said some boring stuff about Saddam and laws. Probably meant to say "Saddam is a law breaker."

The Prime Minister said that Mr. Bush told him it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet that the US battleplan was the best ever. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions but should shut up and do their duty.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if the WMD got sent to Syria, or if the clear Iraq/ Al Queada connection reared its head, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began?(If this happens we'll just kick some urban ass!) You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences as Mr. Bush is a far greater politician than anyone ever. There is no US resistance, and we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did think it worth going down the ultimatum route and that negotiations and diplomacy should be tried and tried and tried even though Saddam is a "butthead". It would be important for Bush to set out the political context to the wimpy Franco-Democrats.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week, but we must all remember that a military strike is the last option and Mr. Bush is extremely releuctant..

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update. And it will blow your fucking mind!

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Sorry Arles, but your position carries no weight nor logic. Not when Rumsfeld himself said that the people being captured were "unlawful combatants" and therefore not subject to Geneva.

While Rumsfeld's claim may or may not be legally accurate, it doesn't really matter to me. I disagree with his premise and think that we should treat any group we capture in accords with Geneva (from a human treatment/torture standpoint). But, again, this statement was made back in 2002 and it appears that the military has taken a much different stance on Gitmo and all actions against prisoners being abused/tortured not in accordance to the Geneva have been investigated (with numerous charges being filed).

[Dutch]

I don't think we will ever find a convenient papertrail of activitiy linking Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein or e-mail traffic (Hell, Al Qaeda learned years ago that satellite phones were unsecure for their purposes). Not unless we find a Tigris Street Memo from one of Saddam's inner-circle.

But the link between Saddam Hussein and his monetary support for terrorism abroad is clear enough and good enough in my opinion. And Iraq and Palestine were the only two nations (sic) that celebrated Al Qaeda's strike on the WTC's and the Pentagon. And Iraq was handing out tremendous sums of money to suicide bomber families in Palestine.

And if they weren't working together before, they sure found that they were made for each other in a hurry (Al Qaeda in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad). Just as we suspected they would (albeit with relation to using Iraq's WMD's and Al Qaeda's Global Reach--not in bombing Iraqi citizens and soldiers into submission). It was an enlightening new event in the world--terrorist global reach towards America. The Al Qaeda was going to be Saddam Hussein's long range SCUD missile.

I think that was made clear enough in the hearings that the goal of global strike and nuclear weapons program was the first order of business from Saddam Hussein the second UN Sanctions were repealed.

It's not pretty no matter how you look at it when it comes to Iraq.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

But the link between Saddam Hussein and his monetary support for terrorism abroad is clear enough and good enough in my opinion.

And pales in comparison to the money flowing from Saudi Arabia to support terrorism. Why don't we attack them? Heck, it even pales in comparison to money sent from U.S. donors to the IRA to fund terrorist activities.

And Iraq and Palestine were the only two nations (sic) that celebrated Al Qaeda's strike on the WTC's and the Pentagon.

You're aware that the footage of Palestinians celebrating in the streets turned out to be stock footage from the 90s, right?

And if they weren't working together before, they sure found that they were made for each other in a hurry (Al Qaeda in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad).

It is to laugh. Just listen to yourself. Al Qaeda gets into Iraq when? Yeah, when Saddam gets booted out. Heck of a Saddam-bin Laden connection there....

It's not pretty no matter how you look at it when it comes to Iraq.

That's the only part of your post that isn't utter conjecture and fantasy.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

But the link between Saddam Hussein and his monetary support for terrorism abroad is clear enough and good enough in my opinion.

To second Flere's comment on this, support for terrorism and support for al-Qaeda are completely separate issues: the first does not imply the second. As Flere mentioned, we've turned a blind eye to our citizens' funding of the IRA. We are currently harboring fugitives responsible for anti-Cuban terror bombings. We've supported terror groups in Nicaragua, Angola, Afghanistan, etc. All of our support for terrorism does not imply our support of or connection to al-Qaeda (well maybe except for the Mudjahedeen--but that was before Osama turned on us)...

[Flasch186]

god only knows what Arles will accept as evidence or not. If a blog meets his needs suddenly theyre credible, when they dont they're partison hackery. A memo (the content) doesnt exist unless the person it's written about says its true (which again leads the opening that arles could pick out parts)....all of a sudden Arles got silly.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

god only knows what Arles will accept as evidence or not. If a blog meets his needs suddenly theyre credible, when they dont they're partison hackery. A memo (the content) doesnt exist unless the person it's written about says its true (which again leads the opening that arles could pick out parts)....all of a sudden Arles got silly.

For the credibility of blogs, it's more a function of reading their conclusions and supporting evidence. Some blogs make crazy conclusions based on little to no evidence. But, as a whole, I enjoy reading blogs from both the left and the right.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

For the credibility of blogs, it's more a function of reading their conclusions, supporting evidence, and making sure it supports my stance. Some blogs make crazy conclusions based on little to no evidence. But, as a whole, I enjoy reading blogs from both the left and the right, the right is just right in theirs.

Fixed it for ya

[MrBigglesworth]

Guys, I have some terrible news. I was looking through my personal library, and it turns out my copy of Hamlet is a fake. That's right, a fake. It says it right on the cover that it was written by Shakespeare, but do you know what it says in tiny letters on the first page? "Oxford Univ. Press"! They weren't even around when Shakespeare lived (supposedly, I couldn't find a 'real' source that has his death date, just Internet fakes). And, get this, it turns out that typewriters, let alone computers, weren't even around in Shakespeare's time! At first I figured he just had really great handwriting, but now I am SURE that it was typed! I was completely hoodwinked, and I encourage all of you to see what kind of 'fake' books you have. Good thing for the wingnut blogs, or else we would never have been aware of this widespread epidemic of 'fakes'.

[Dutch]

Flere,

Saddam Hussein funded terrorism. Select Saudi citizens fund terrorism. A huge difference as far as what our government can do. But we work with the Saudi government to help round up a lot of Al Qaeda and terrorists all the time....why should we invoke regime change when Diplomacy is working in Saudi Arabia?

You're aware that the footage of Palestinians celebrating in the streets turned out to be stock footage from the 90s, right?

The Palestinian footage was fake? Are you saying our media mislead us with those images? If that is indeed true, it's another notch in the media telling us a story they want us to hear and there is nothing we can do about it.

It is to laugh. Just listen to yourself. Al Qaeda gets into Iraq when? Yeah, when Saddam gets booted out. Heck of a Saddam-bin Laden connection there....

Why is Al Qaeda better and moving around in Iraq than the US...I mean, if they got there at the same time.

Here is a question for anybody who knows the answer. Name the countries that Al Qaeda was in before the fall of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. Let's pick September 2001 for instance. Where did they reside?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Why should we invoke regime change when Diplomacy is working in Saudi Arabia?

It's working? That's news.

Why should we invoke regime change when sanctions & inspections were working in Iraq?

The Palestinian footage was fake? Are you saying our media mislead us with those images? If that is indeed true, it's another notch in the media telling us a story they want us to hear and there is nothing we can do about it.

Sort of like you using it to mislead people.

Here is a question for anybody who knows the answer. Name the countries that Al Qaeda was in before the fall of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. Let's pick September 2001 for instance. Where did they reside?

Suspected Al-Qaeda attacks since 9/11:

• 4/11/2002 Explosion at ancient synogogue in Tunisia leaves 17 dead, including 11 German tourists.
• 5/2002 Car explodes outside hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French citizens.
• 6/2002 Bomb explodes outside American Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.
• 10/2002 Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, kill 202, mostly Australian citizens. Suicide attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, kills 16.
• 5/2003 Suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Four bombs kill 33 people, targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco.
• 8/2003 Suicide car bomb kills 12, injures 150, at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.
• 11/2003 Explosions rock a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, housing compound killing 17. Suicide car bombers simultaneously attack two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds. The following week a British bank in Istanbul is bombed.
• 3/2004 Ten terrorists bombs explode almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 202 and injuring more than 1,400. A Moroccan affiliate of al-Qaeda claims responsibility.
• 5/29–31/2004 Terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, then take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound. After a stand-off, three of the four assailants escape, leaving 22 people dead, all but three of them foreigners.
• 6/11–19/2004 Terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson, Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Nearly a week after his capture, photos of his body are posted on an Islamist website. Saudi security forces find and kill four suspected terrorists, including the self-proclaimed military leader of al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, after they are seen dumping a body.
• 12/6/2004 Militants, believed to be linked to Al-Qaeda, drive up to the U.S. consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, storm the gates, and kill 5 consulate employees, none of whom were American. Saudi security forces subdue the attackers, killing four.

Looks like Al-Qaeda haven't lost their ability to attack international targets to me, Dutch.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Why is Al Qaeda better and moving around in Iraq than the US...I mean, if they got there at the same time.

The idea that we have Al Qaeda holed up in Iraq and have thus protected ourselves from Al Qaeda attacks on American soil is laughable at best and farcical at worst.

[Dutch]

Suspected Al-Qaeda attacks since 9/11:

• 4/11/2002 Explosion at ancient synogogue in Tunisia leaves 17 dead, including 11 German tourists.
• 5/2002 Car explodes outside hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French citizens.
• 6/2002 Bomb explodes outside American Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.
• 10/2002 Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, kill 202, mostly Australian citizens. Suicide attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, kills 16.
• 5/2003 Suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Four bombs kill 33 people, targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco.
• 8/2003 Suicide car bomb kills 12, injures 150, at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.
• 11/2003 Explosions rock a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, housing compound killing 17. Suicide car bombers simultaneously attack two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds. The following week a British bank in Istanbul is bombed.
• 3/2004 Ten terrorists bombs explode almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 202 and injuring more than 1,400. A Moroccan affiliate of al-Qaeda claims responsibility.
• 5/29–31/2004 Terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, then take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound. After a stand-off, three of the four assailants escape, leaving 22 people dead, all but three of them foreigners.
• 6/11–19/2004 Terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson, Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Nearly a week after his capture, photos of his body are posted on an Islamist website. Saudi security forces find and kill four suspected terrorists, including the self-proclaimed military leader of al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, after they are seen dumping a body.
• 12/6/2004 Militants, believed to be linked to Al-Qaeda, drive up to the U.S. consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, storm the gates, and kill 5 consulate employees, none of whom were American. Saudi security forces subdue the attackers, killing four.

Looks like Al-Qaeda haven't lost their ability to attack international targets to me, Dutch.

Ah, thanks, that's the sort of thing I was hoping for.

So Al Qaeda was everwhere and bombing everywhere EXCEPT in Iraq (...hmmm, and Iran)? Of those countries listed, none are state-supported sponsors of terrorism.

So what about places that harbored Al Qaeda - Which regimes harbored Al Qaeda? Did they bomb those regimes? Afghanistan is certainly the only one that publicly harbored Al Qaeda - and the Taliban never was bombed. Interesting, neither was the Baath Party.

[flere-imsaho]

Dutch, note the dates.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

And pales in comparison to the money flowing from Saudi Arabia to support terrorism. Why don't we attack them? Heck, it even pales in comparison to money sent from U.S. donors to the IRA to fund terrorist activities.

I don't get the "But look at what Assholes Saudi Arabia have been" argument when it comes to Iraq. Yes Saudi private citizens and even the Saudi Royal family have been funding islamic fundamentalists....How does that mitigate the fact that Saddam's reign needed to be brought to an end? Even as dirty as the Saudis are, they weren't/aren't considered a rogue state.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You're aware that the footage of Palestinians celebrating in the streets turned out to be stock footage from the 90s, right?

I'm not aware of that at all. I know that I read first hand accounts of reporters describing the celebrations. I'm fairly certain I also heard an interview of a Palestinian businessman on NPR recounting the joy that he felt, and the celebration in his establishment.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It is to laugh. Just listen to yourself. Al Qaeda gets into Iraq when? Yeah, when Saddam gets booted out. Heck of a Saddam-bin Laden connection there....

I don't want to really dispute this notion, but I'd say technically it could be claimed they were there at least when the U.S. got into Afghanistan, possibly before, but they definitely provided refuge for Al Zarqawi(or however you spell his name) when he was wounded in Afghanistan. I will however dispute that the U.S. ever came out and claimed that Iraq was behind 9/11 in any way. The closest I think you can come are Cheney's contensions about the ties in response to the September 11th commision's report, well after the invasion had taken place. As I can recall, exactly NONE of the administration's well catalogued reasons for war in Iraq was the notion that Iraq had been behind September 11th in any way.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's working? That's news.

Why should we invoke regime change when sanctions & inspections were working in Iraq?
...

Diplomacy IS working in Saudi Arabia. They have cracked down more on Islamic fundamentalists in the past year and half than ever before in their history.



As for sanctions and inspections working in Iraq.


I would contend that they weren't working. Yes even in light of the fact that no WMDs were found because;
-Look at the Oil for Food Scandal.... The only people hurt by the sanctions were the people.
-Iraq continued to screw with the inspections through the date that the inspectors were finally recalled. People forget that two months before the war, Blix stated that the Iraqis hadn't even begun to come to grips with the fundamental conclusion that they needed to disarm.
-All of the investigations in postwar Iraq have concluded that Iraq at least wanted to get back into the WMD and Nuclear arenas as soon as they could.

So yes the sanctions apparently did work, but as soon as they were lifted Saddam would have been a problem again, and as long as they weren't lifted, the people would have continued to suffer.

The reasonable solution as concluded years before the invasion was regime change.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I will however dispute that the U.S. ever came out and claimed that Iraq was behind 9/11 in any way.

Point out where I claimed that. When you find that you can't, respond without taking my words out of context.

Context: Dutch claimed that once Baghdad fell, Hussein & Al Qaeda found a way to work with each other (see above for Dutch's exact quote).

I'm incredulous at this. If it takes a U.S. invasion of Iraq to force Saddam Hussein (a noted secularist known for torturing and killing fundamentalists) and Al Qaeda to work together, then maybe the best way to keep them apart would be to not attack Iraq.

As I can recall, exactly NONE of the administration's well catalogued reasons for war in Iraq was the notion that Iraq had been behind September 11th in any way.

It may not have been a reason that Colin Powell brought to the U.N., but the Bush Administration drove the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection very hard. Why? A simple use of the transitive property.

Al Qaeda = 9/11
If Saddam Hussein = Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein = 9/11

The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive - George W. Bush, 9/25/2002

So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad...There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented - Condoleeza Rice, 9/26/2002

Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities - Donald Rumsfeld, 9/27/2002

We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. - George W. Bush, 10/7/2002

we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind. - George W. Bush, 10/14/2002

This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda - George W. Bush, 10/28/2002

He's got connections with al Qaeda. - George W. Bush, 10/28/2002

We know he's got ties with al Qaeda. - George W. Bush, 11/1/2002

in terms of its [Iraq's] support for terrorism, we have established that Iraq has permitted Al-Qaeda to operate within its territory. As the President said recently, "The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. And there are Al-Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq." The President has made his position on Iraq eminently clear, and in the coming weeks and months we shall see what we shall see. - John Bolton, 11/1/2002

We know that he's had connections with al Qaeda. - George W. Bush, 11/2/2002

He's had connections with shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda. - George W. Bush, 11/2/2002

And, not only that, he is -- would like nothing better than to hook-up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come and do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action. - George W. Bush, 11/3/2002

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. - George W. Bush, 1/28/2003

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I would contend that they weren't working. Yes even in light of the fact that no WMDs were found because;

Huh? The sanctions & inspection regime were intended to make sure that Saddam did not develop WMD. Did he develop WMD?

The reasonable solution as concluded years before the invasion was regime change.

Or, alternatively, an effective multilateral solution to weapons proliferation. But that would be hard, of course.

Invading Iraq has done nothing to solve the long-term problem of WMD proliferation. North Korea still have their weapons (and an insane head of state). Pakistan still have their nukes (and a fundamentalist Islamic government). Iran still has a weapons program. WMD material continues to go missing, including a lot of very basic supplies that the U.N. had identified in Iraq and the U.S. failed to secure.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Point out where I claimed that. When you find that you can't, respond without taking my words out of context.

Interesting You say you aren't claiming that...then you proceed to claim exactly that. Well you don't do so directly, you veil it by saying that Bush was tricking people with fundamental mathematics. For what it is worth I certainly felt that you were insinuating that the administration had directly tied Iraq to September 11th. I don't even feel it is worth going back to identify exactly what you said that gave me that idea, being that you went ahead and essentially made that claim here in the previous post.

....

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It may not have been a reason that Colin Powell brought to the U.N., but the Bush Administration drove the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection very hard. Why? A simple use of the transitive property.

Al Qaeda = 9/11
If Saddam Hussein = Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein = 9/11

I'll also contend that the administration wasn't driving the "Saddam=9/11 theory in as much as the administration was driving the "Saddam might eventually avail himself to an offer from some terrorist organization to launch an attack on the United States using his assets(Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear)" theory. That WAS an actual claim made by the administration as well as a stated reason to invade Iraq, unlike your Saddam=9/11 assertion.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So what about places that harbored Al Qaeda - Which regimes harbored Al Qaeda? Did they bomb those regimes? Afghanistan is certainly the only one that publicly harbored Al Qaeda - and the Taliban never was bombed. Interesting, neither was the Baath Party.

I'm not sure I buy your logical reasoning here. Here you are basically saying:

1. Al Qaeda does not attack sponsoring states/organizations
2. The Baath Party was not attacked, therefore..
3. The Baath Party must therefore be a sponsor of al Qaeda.

That is a quite a leap. Al Qaeda has not attacked the Chinese or the Bahamas either, but that certainly does not make them Al Qaeda sponsors.

Dutch, we've discussed the topic of Saddam's sponsorship of Al Qaeda in previous threads. Yes, the Iraqis have sponsored several terrorist organizations during the Baath regime. But most of these organizations were either Palestinian groups or groups attempting to undermine the fundamentalist government of Iran. I doubt that Saddam would ever allow Al Qaeda to operate within his borders--Saddam was a secularist who was deathly afraid of the influence of Islamic fundamentalism. Any association with Al Qaeda would have been more trouble than it was worth for Saddam.

Again, just because a state has sponsored a terrorist group before does not imply that the state will sponsor a terrorist group in the future. Terrorism brings the risk of negative consequences for the sponsor, so a state will only do so if the state believes that the sponsorship serves their policy interests better than other policy choices. We've sponsored terrorist organizations in the recent past, does that mean that we are predisposed to sponsoring Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organizations in the future? No, the decision to support the Contras, UNITA, or Al Qaeda, are policy calculations for us. It is no different for Iraq, or any other state...

[Flasch186]

splitting hairs...

Obviously if people connected those dots Bush and Co. would've been ok with it. They knew what they were doing. Lay out some stuff, use some cool words (which we've hammered the editor of the Environmental study on the same type of behavior), and let the "people" make the connections. That way, if the shit hits the fan we can claim we never ACTUALLY said Saddam executed 9/11. Its silly, they sold it to you, me, and everyone else.....I just wish they wouldn't have hung their hats on the WMD/nuclear option.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Huh? The sanctions & inspection regime were intended to make sure that Saddam did not develop WMD. Did he develop WMD?



Or, alternatively, an effective multilateral solution to weapons proliferation. But that would be hard, of course.

Invading Iraq has done nothing to solve the long-term problem of WMD proliferation. North Korea still have their weapons (and an insane head of state). Pakistan still have their nukes (and a fundamentalist Islamic government). Iran still has a weapons program. WMD material continues to go missing, including a lot of very basic supplies that the U.N. had identified in Iraq and the U.S. failed to secure.

You are correct. We should have done nothing but work diplomatically to get Rogue nations to stop producing arms. Do we keep the sanctions on Iraq in place during this time? Saddam wasn't going to be dealt with diplomatically any more than North Korea has been. The difference is that Kim Jong Il can effectively defend himself...Saddam couldn't. If you reversed the defensive positions of Iraq and North Korea, Bush might have invaded NK, if enough reasons existed. The reason we are dealing with North Korea diplomatically is because they aren't three days away from being incapable to defend their capital.

Just because it is hard, doesn't make it right.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I'm not sure I buy your logical reasoning here. Here you are basically saying:

1. Al Qaeda does not attack sponsoring states/organizations
2. The Baath Party was not attacked, therefore..
3. The Baath Party must therefore be a sponsor of al Qaeda.

It's the affirming the consequent logical fallacy.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'll also contend that the administration wasn't driving the "Saddam=9/11 theory in as much as the administration was driving the "Saddam might eventually avail himself to an offer from some terrorist organization to launch an attack on the United States using his assets(Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear)" theory. That WAS an actual claim made by the administration as well as a stated reason to invade Iraq, unlike your Saddam=9/11 assertion.

It also remains a GOOD argument when you consider that everybody agrees that, regardless of what Saddam actually had in his possesion, he had never stopped coveting these weapons.

[Glengoyne]

Flasch,

To me the deal is just that, the didn't sell that particular item. They didn't ever claim that Saddam was behind September 11th. It wasn't even EVER alluded to. There are no dots to connect, outside of the conspiracy theorists who crave to see Bush in the most sinister light possible.

The only dots the administration put between Saddam and Terrorism was the thought that he might someday hook up with a terrorist organization under the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle. The administration definitely stated that theory, yet people still insist that the administration was really alluding to a connection with 9/11. Its just that it didn't actually happen that way.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The only dots the administration put between Saddam and Terrorism was the thought that he might someday hook up with a terrorist organization under the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle. The administration definitely stated that theory, yet people still insist that the administration was really alluding to a connection with 9/11. Its just that it didn't actually happen that way.

You are arguing 2 different things. At first you say that the administration only said that the only connection between Saddam and terrorism was a possible future connection, but that is obviously untrue. Just look at Dutch's statements on how he thinks Saddam was funding terrorism. Secondly, you say that the administration never explicitly connected Saddam to 9/11, which nobody here is saying they did.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Secondly, you say that the administration never explicitly connected Saddam to 9/11, which nobody here is saying they did.

It may or may not have been in this exact thread and it may not have been you, but people on this forum have definitely accused Bush et al. of exactly that.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You are arguing 2 different things. At first you say that the administration only said that the only connection between Saddam and terrorism was a possible future connection, but that is obviously untrue.

First of all, I'm not saying that the Admin said that the only connection between Saddam and terrorism was a "possible future connection". Not my position at all. The administration said a number of times that Saddam had connections with terrorist organizations prior to even September 11th. It was fairly common knowledge that Saddam was funding Palestinian Terrorists, and paying rewards/bounties to the families of palestinian Suicide bombers. That was widely reported, and pretty much common knowledge for anyone paying attention. My position is that in the months before the invasion of Iraq, the only cause for war given by the administration that was related to terrorism was that Saddam and a terror organization might ally against the U.S. as a common enemy. My position is that I don't believe the administration directly or indirectly tied Saddam to September 11th to "sell" the war.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Just look at Dutch's statements on how he thinks Saddam was funding terrorism. Secondly, you say that the administration never explicitly connected Saddam to 9/11, which nobody here is saying they did.

I would say that Dutch is correct that Saddam was on the record supporting terrorism before the invasion.

Secondly, a lot of people here ARE saying that the administration led the public to believe that Saddam was linked to September 11th in the days/months before the invasion. The simple matter is, it didn't happen. There was no shell game or indirect application of the transitive theory by the administration regarding Saddam and September 11th. You are correct that no one is saying that they directly did it, but a lot of you are skirting around the issue saying that they misled the public through subtle manipulation.

[Flasch186]

if you read the quotes from Bush above how can you say he wasn't trying to infer thatSaddam = Al Qaeda = 9/11? Its exactly what he was saying/ "not" saying with a wink and a nod.

The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive - George W. Bush, 9/25/2002

um...thats pretty close to inferring theyre one in the same.

So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad...There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented - Condoleeza Rice, 9/26/2002

ok....im sold that was pretty close to saying that theyre working together right?

Glen none of the statements except one talk about the two in the future working together, ALL of them talk about the past and the present. So you're somehow reading something that isn't there.

Glen, were they NOT saying this stuff, because they DIDNT want to sell it, to sell the war? Of course they did!! I just quoted it. This is simple. The hits are there, you just have to admit it and qujit trying to hide the fact that they did it...especially when the read americans can see it.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

You are correct. We should have done nothing but work diplomatically to get Rogue nations to stop producing arms.

Exactly. As has been shown, after invading Iraq, the inspections & sanctions worked at keeping Iraq from producing arms.

Of course, what's richly ironic about your comments on Rogue nations is a cursory look at Pakistan, a state that's leaked WMD information to other rogue states and organizations. Apparently they're OK, because Bush sells them fighter jets!

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The only dots the administration put between Saddam and Terrorism was the thought that he might someday hook up with a terrorist organization under the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle.

No. Take a look at those quotes I posted. There was no "someday" about it. Bush et. al. state explicitly that there were Saddam-Al Qaeda contacts.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Secondly, you say that the administration never explicitly connected Saddam to 9/11, which nobody here is saying they did.

Very, very true.

The Bush Administration never explicitly connected Hussein to 9/11 (except Cheney, but the rest of the administration distanced themselves from his remarks quickly).

However, as I've posted, the Bush Administration implicitly connected Hussein to 9/11, by connecting him to Al Qaeda.

Bush Apologists see the quotes I posted above as an example of the Administration showing "what could happen", and that's certainly true. But the Administration had another goal at the time, and that was to go to war with Iraq. Demonizing Saddam in the light of 9/11, by making whatever connections possible to Al Qaeda that they could, served this purpose fully.

Bush Apologists aren't going to agree with me on this, but that's only understandable, as they've taken everything else this Administration has said as the Gospel Truth.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It may or may not have been in this exact thread and it may not have been you, but people on this forum have definitely accused Bush et al. of exactly that.

I'd like to see some links where people accused the Administration of explicitly connecting Hussein to 9/11.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'd like to see some links where people accused the Administration of explicitly connecting Hussein to 9/11.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

if you read the quotes from Bush above how can you say he wasn't trying to infer thatSaddam = Al Qaeda = 9/11? Its exactly what he was saying/ "not" saying with a wink and a nod.

?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

?

You seem to be struggling with the difference between EXPLICITLY and IMPLICITLY (and Flasch seems to be struggling with INFER and IMPLY ).

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by John Galt

You seem to be struggling with the difference between EXPLICITLY and IMPLICITLY (and Flasch seems to be struggling with INFER and IMPLY ).

Oh no, I understand. I was just trying to show how incredibly silly this argument is. Apparently you don't think it's silly.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Oh no, I understand. I was just trying to show how incredibly silly this argument is. Apparently you don't think it's silly.

No, I think it is silly, but probably for very different reasons. I have no doubt that the Bush administration (like the Clinton administration) enjoys being "cute" with language to imply things that aren't explicitly said. 70-80% of the American public believed Saddam was connected to 9/11 - they didn't get that impression watching American Idol. The administration capitalized on the misperception it created and now we all live with the consequences.