http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
Interesting indeed. Thanks Bill.
Interesting indeed. Thanks Bill.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Clinton found ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
Quote from Maverick74:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
Interesting indeed. Thanks Bill.
ART? Waggie? Nolan? Madison? Error?
I thought all you guys were looking for ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Cat got your tongue? LOL.
I never said that there were not any "ties" between al Qaeda and Iraq, so please don't go putting words in my mouth like you usually do with reckless abandon.
My point on an earlier thread was that 70% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 911 and I felt that this was part of a "spin-machine" by the Adminstration in an effort to rally the citizens of the USA for an invasion of Iraq based on WMD and a regime change.
This flies in the face of Pabst's post regarding WHABISM which I totally agree with by the way. Do the ends justify the "means"? That my friend is the $64,000 question.
In the meantime, it is one thing to make a connection between al Qaeda and the Sudanese, since " the Sudanese did show a talent for fleecing bin Laden," but it is still quite another to then connect the dots to IRAQ and make THAT conclusion.
Maverick, your argument connecting al Qaeda to IRAQ, and then to 911 is highly speculative at best . . . Even Bush officials are quoted as agreeing with this in the article!
From the posted article:
"According to Bush officials, two factors contributed to their reluctance to discuss the Iraq-al Qaeda connection suggested by al Shifa. First, the level of proof never rose above the threshold of "highly suggestive circumstantial evidence"--indicating that on this question, Bush administration policymakers were somewhat more cautious about the public use of intelligence on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection than were their counterparts in the Clinton administration. Second, according to one Bush administration source, "there is a massive sensitivity at the Agency to bringing up this issue again because of the controversy in 1998."
My point on an earlier thread was that 70% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 911 and I felt that this was part of a "spin-machine" by the Adminstration in an effort to rally the citizens of the USA for an invasion of Iraq based on WMD and a regime change.
This flies in the face of Pabst's post regarding WHABISM which I totally agree with by the way. Do the ends justify the "means"? That my friend is the $64,000 question.
In the meantime, it is one thing to make a connection between al Qaeda and the Sudanese, since " the Sudanese did show a talent for fleecing bin Laden," but it is still quite another to then connect the dots to IRAQ and make THAT conclusion.
Maverick, your argument connecting al Qaeda to IRAQ, and then to 911 is highly speculative at best . . . Even Bush officials are quoted as agreeing with this in the article!
From the posted article:
"According to Bush officials, two factors contributed to their reluctance to discuss the Iraq-al Qaeda connection suggested by al Shifa. First, the level of proof never rose above the threshold of "highly suggestive circumstantial evidence"--indicating that on this question, Bush administration policymakers were somewhat more cautious about the public use of intelligence on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection than were their counterparts in the Clinton administration. Second, according to one Bush administration source, "there is a massive sensitivity at the Agency to bringing up this issue again because of the controversy in 1998."
Quote from waggie945:
I never said that there were not any "ties" between al Qaeda and Iraq, so please don't go putting words in my mouth like you usually do with reckless abandon.
My point on an earlier thread was that 70% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 911 and I felt that this was part of a "spin-machine" by the administration in an effort to rally the citizens of the USA for an invasion of Iraq based on WMD and a regime change.
This flies in the face of Pabst's post regarding WHABISM which I totally agree with by the way. Do the ends justify the "means"? That my friend is the $64,000 question.
In the meantime, it is one thing to make a connection between al Qaeda and the Sudanese, since " the Sudanese did show a talent for fleecing bin Laden," but it is still quite another to then connect the dots to IRAQ and make THAT conclusion.
Maverick, your argument connecting al Qaeda to IRAQ, and then to 911 is highly speculative at best . . . Even Bush officials are quoted as agreeing with this in the article!
From the posted article:
"According to Bush officials, two factors contributed to their reluctance to discuss the Iraq-al Qaeda connection suggested by al Shifa. First, the level of proof never rose above the threshold of "highly suggestive circumstantial evidence"--indicating that on this question, Bush administration policymakers were somewhat more cautious about the public use of intelligence on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection than were their counterparts in the Clinton administration. Second, according to one Bush administration source, "there is a massive sensitivity at the Agency to bringing up this issue again because of the controversy in 1998."
Waggie,
You are never going to have anything better then connect the dots. Trust me, even if this administration knew exactly what Saddam's ties are to Al Qaeda I can tell you that you will be the last to know. The government doesn't make this kind of information public just because you want them to. Surely you understand this.