...trying to remember all the things these same, now hopped up on power, Dimmicrats, were asserting about Saddam the 10 years prior to the war...in which they voted for btw.

but hey, Cheney said something on a radio show so...barf.

obligatory rebuttal article...

quote:

The lead headline in today's Washington Post proclaims "Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted: Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited." Stated differently, neither the Post nor the Pentagon Report disputes that al Qaeda had contacts with Saddam Hussein regime. At the same time, according to the pre-war CIA's assessment which the Pentagon Report relies on, there was no evidence of a long-term relationship between the two outfits and "no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist projects." But the CIA acknowledged that its views on these matters were "necessarily speculative." In figuring out how to view this pre-war assessment, we should first recall that the contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were far from the primary reason for going to war with Iraq. There is no reason to believe either (a) that the administration would have gone to war on this basis alone or (b) that the adminstration would not have gone to war in the absence of concern about such contacts. So the real question concerning contacts boils down to this -- was it reasonable for the administration to believe that one benefit of overthrowing Saddam would be to end the risk of cooperation between his regime and al Qaeda in carrying out terrorism. The Post story confirms that it was reasonable for the administration to believe this. Saddam's regime, which nearly everyone thought possessed WMD and which certainly had the capacity to produce such weapons, was in contact with the folks who attacked us on 9/11. Under these circumstances, and keeping in mind that the Saddam-AQ contacts were not the core justification for the war, the CIA's "necessarily speculative" assessment that the contacts were "limited," and that evidence of deeper contacts was "based on unconfirmed information," does not seem terribly consequential. If the two rogue outfits were talking at all, the possibility of collaboration against their common arch-enemy was worth worrying about. The fact that the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam was not as "mature" or longstanding as Saddam's relationship with other terrorist organizations was likewise irrelevant. Saddam did not need a longstanding relationship with al Qaeda in order to colloborate with its terrorists. It was perfectly reasonable for the administration to worry that Saddam, having formed significant relationships with other terrorist organizations over the years, would now form a significant one with the latest and greatest terrorist organization, with whom his regime already was in contact. The Post also jumps on claims that post-war intelligence shows Iraq and al Qaeda were not cooperating in all ten categories that Douglas Feith of the Defense Department alleged they were. Let's overlook the fact that this assesment is based in part on interviews with Saddam himself and his top henchmen, hardly reliable sources. Would the Post and other administration critics care to tell us how many categories of cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda were required for the U.S. to be legitimately concerned? Paul Mirengoff

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Read page two at that link if you like.

p. 2 is actually more confirmational than confrontational.

...until the end when it reminds readers this is more a drive-by on Cheney than anything else.

I noticed you didn't link your story to your favorite blog Powerline – why was that?

No matter, let's deal with the substance of the rebuttal:

quote:

The lead headline in today's Washington Post proclaims "Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted: Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited." Stated differently, neither the Post nor the Pentagon Report disputes that al Qaeda had contacts with Saddam Hussein regime.

Actually it said a lot of things, such as:

quote:

not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq

and this one to which your Powerline author was referring to:

quote:

Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information.

Funny how he quotes one part but failed to include the rest of the sentence.

quote:

At the same time, according to the pre-war CIA's assessment which the Pentagon Report relies on, there was no evidence of a long-term relationship between the two outfits and "no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist projects." But the CIA acknowledged that its views on these matters were "necessarily speculative."

Which seems to be a much more truthful version of the intelligence, rather than what Feith had deemed:

quote:

the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics.

Now, how does one defend such unsupported assertions made by Feith? Strangely, your author skips over that.

quote:

In figuring out how to view this pre-war assessment, we should first recall that the contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were far from the primary reason for going to war with Iraq. There is no reason to believe either (a) that the administration would have gone to war on this basis alone or (b) that the adminstration would not have gone to war in the absence of concern about such contacts.

Backpedal, backpedal, backpedal.....
What a lame and predictable straw man. No one is claiming it to be the ONLY reason, but it was one of the two biggest reasons for going next to WMDs. It's pure revisionist history to attempt to downplay this being one of two biggest reasons to convince the American public and the world for that matter to invade.

quote:

So the real question concerning contacts boils down to this -- was it reasonable for the administration to believe that one benefit of overthrowing Saddam would be to end the risk of cooperation between his regime and al Qaeda in carrying out terrorism.

The Administration was told far in advance of a lack of ties between the two:

http://nationaljournal.com/about/nj...005/1122nj1.htm

To state that there was a risk involved in the possibility of Saddam going into ties with al Qaeda is the most ridiculous hypothetical that's been debunked over and over. They had little in common and didn't get along with each other. A connection was made between the two, they didn't agree on much of anything, and they broke off. All of this was outlined in the Duelfer Report. Has this author read that?

And besides, since when did we ever create a foreign policy of war dealing with baseless hypothetical scenarios only? How fucking pathetic. What's more likely, this Administration believing baseless hypotheticals, or "intelligence fixed around the policy":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

along with blissfully ignoring any intelligence that countered their claims, such as the bullshit con-artist known as Curveball?:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...MNGCLC1Q5U1.DTL

Perhaps a bit of both?

quote:

The Post story confirms that it was reasonable for the administration to believe this. Saddam's regime, which nearly everyone thought possessed WMD

Except the CIA, the Iraqi Survey Group, the State Dept., and the DIA once the intelligence was scrutinized a bit closer. But of course they were all taken off the stovepipe that Feith and Rummy created in their wonderful OSP Dept. Strange that.

quote:

and which certainly had the capacity to produce such weapons,

Duelfer and the rest of the intelligence reports clearly demonstrated otherwise. Does this author read any intelligence reports?

quote:

was in contact with the folks who attacked us on 9/11. Under these circumstances, and keeping in mind that the Saddam-AQ contacts were not the core justification for the war, the CIA's "necessarily speculative" assessment that the contacts were "limited," and that evidence of deeper contacts was "based on unconfirmed information," does not seem terribly consequential.

You gotta be kidding me. So intelligence that demonstrated the unsupported claims by Feith and bolstered up by Cheney was sketchy at best is inconsequential.

Gawd I love you neocons. Only you guys have developed such a strange little Candyland version of reality. It's too bad it kills everyone else when you play.

quote:

If the two rogue outfits were talking at all, the possibility of collaboration against their common arch-enemy was worth worrying about.

What part of "no operational ties" in the Duelfer Report does this douchebag not understand?

quote:

The fact that the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam was not as "mature" or longstanding as Saddam's relationship with other terrorist organizations was likewise irrelevant.

WHAT? IT FUCKING DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE BASELESS ASSERTIONS MADE BY FEITH YOU TWIT!

Why am I so surprised he is skipping right over that simple point?

Oh, and there's also no excuse for this either:

quote:

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq. Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden." ..... In a classified January 2003 report, for instance, the CIA concluded that Hussein "viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat." But one day after that conclusion was published, Levin noted, Vice President Cheney said the Iraqi government "aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda." ..... In February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that "Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful [chemical and biological weapons] knowledge or assistance." A year later, Bush said: "Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...90800777_2.html

Strange, ain't it?

quote:

Saddam did not need a longstanding relationship with al Qaeda in order to colloborate with its terrorists.

Why do I feel the continuance of more unsupported speculation coming?

quote:

It was perfectly reasonable for the administration to worry that Saddam, having formed significant relationships with other terrorist organizations over the years, would now form a significant one with the latest and greatest terrorist organization, with whom his regime already was in contact.

I thought my feelings were right.

Nothing was perfectly reasonable when this Administration was told in advance that the relationship was marginal and sketchy at best.

Besides, here's a funny thought – wouldn't you want to attack and continue attacking the fucking assholes that attacked you, rather than go after a sketchy relationship with those assholes? Why the fuck would you redirect your forces and war towards another country and stop going after the actual bastard that attacked you? To this day it still makes absolutely no sense.

quote:

The Post also jumps on claims that post-war intelligence shows Iraq and al Qaeda were not cooperating in all ten categories that Douglas Feith of the Defense Department alleged they were. Let's overlook the fact that this assesment is based in part on interviews with Saddam himself and his top henchmen, hardly reliable sources.

Ahh yes, but Chalabi really proved to be a much more reliable source, didn't he Paul?

And as was told in links I just posted, it wasn't just Hussein's former henchmen that were sources. Perhaps in this piece only, but again it's pure revisionist history to be wholly dismissive of other sources used.

Besides, who's more correct in these assumptions – Chalabi or our CIA intelligence?

quote:

Would the Post and other administration critics care to tell us how many categories of cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda were required for the U.S. to be legitimately concerned? Paul Mirengoff

How many categories? How about one? Just one fucking confirmed category of cooperation would do. Does this author have that? Because apparently, this Administration had nothing but the exact same unconfirmed hypotheticals that this ass-kissing author has.

And we went to war based on unconfirmed assumptions. How can anyone support that?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...